During the apartheid era all South Africans – even white South Africans – who possessed even an iota of scepticism and common sense, became all too familiar with the lies and propaganda of the apartheid state. When an anti-apartheid activist died after being tortured and then murdered by security police members, we were told in a solemn voice by by Cliff Saunders – the National Party propagandist who pretended to be an SABC journalist – that the victim had “slipped on a banana peel” or had been killed after slipping on soap in the shower or had mysteriously managed to jump through a small window from the eighteenth floor of John Vorster Square.
This, Cliff Saunders would assure us, was done by the now dead “terrorist” as part of a devious plot to try and embarrass the National Party government by trying to implicate “our security forces” when all they did was to invite the terrorist for cake and tea and to ask him or her a few questions.
Nelson Mandela was described as “a self-confessed communist and terrorist”, white opposition leaders like Frederik Van Zyl Slabbert who wanted to talk to the ANC were described as Stalin’s ”useful idiots” doing the bidding of “terrorists agitators” and reports that South Africa had invaded Angola (which were all true) were dismissed as the lies of the terrorist propaganda machine and disinformation fabricated in Moscow.
And when South African army commando’s attacked safe houses in neighbouring states (killing scores of women and children) we were told of this “great victory” for the security forces (as if killing of ten women and children in cold blood could be described as a victory by anyone except the most deranged person) and assured that the “security operation” had been legal in terms of international law because of the (non-existent) international law principle of “pre-emptive hot pursuit”. This term is as well known and well-regarded in international law as that of “enemy combatants” – in other words it is a creation of a rogue state trying to justify its illegal criminal actions.
So, I was not surprised when I read this morning that Israel is justifying its assault on a flotilla of relief boats in international waters on the basis that this was necessary to protect the sovereignty of that state and to protect its citizens from attack. Armed commandos boarded the vessel, which were carrying supplies for a besieged civilian population in Gaza, and killed more than 10 peace activists on board after some activists reportedly resisted the unprovoked attack. They then illegally arrested all the activists and detained the ships.
Israel immediately imposed a communications blackout on the detained activists – some were taken by bus to Beersheva prison in the south of Israel – while simultaneously launching a sophisticated public relations operation to ensure its version of events was dominant. In this version put out by various Israeli spokespersons, the Israeli soldiers who had illegally stormed the ships and were armed with machine guns were the victims of a vicious attack by violent terrorists armed with sticks and even knives.
This ludicrous assertion beggars belief, but because the media needs to be”fair and even handed”, many media outlets are treating this version as credible and morally defensible. It would be equivalent to the media reporting as perfectly credible and morally defensible a claim by Al-Qaeda that their fighters who hijacked flight 253 on September 11 and were intending to crash the plane into the White House were the innocent victims of a group of vicious infidels who had stormed the cockpit of flight 253 with all kinds of weapons, including baseball bats.
In terms of the Convention on the Laws of the Sea a state is never ever allowed to interfere with a ship in international waters.
Section 87 of that Convention states that ”the high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or land-locked” and comprises, inter alia, freedom of navigation. To emphasise how clear this right is, article 95 states that “warships on the high seas have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the State” to whom the ship belongs. Section 97(3) of the Convention states that “no arrest or detention of the ship, even as a measure of investigation, shall be ordered by any authorities” other than those authorities under whose flag the ship is sailing.
Article 110 of the Convention is even more clear and states that ”except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by treaty, a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship” is not justified in boarding it “unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that: the ship is engaged in piracy; the ship is engaged in the slave trade; the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting: the ship is without nationality; or though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship.”
Not even the Israeli’s are claiming that the flotilla ships involved in a humanitarian mission were engaged in the slave trade or were engaged in any of the other activities that would trigger the provisions of section 110 of the Convention.
In other words the actions by heavily armed Israeli forces who boarded the flotilla ships in international waters and then killed at least ten of the passengers was nothing less than an act of state sponsored terrorism in contravention of every rule of international law. The ships were on a humanitarian mission to deliver aid to the people of Gaza in order to alleviate the hardships in that territory which had been caused by the illegal blockade of Gaza by Israel.
To justify this outrageously unlawful action on the basis that the unlawful aggressors were attacked by passengers armed with sticks and knifes is beyond the pale and shows a complete disregard for international law. But as Justice Goldstone had long since discovered, the Israeli government believes it is above the law – much like the apartheid government who justified its unlawful invasion of neighbouring countries on the ground of its right to engage in “pre-emptive hot pursuit”.
Of course, defenders of Israel’s action (because as is the case with the DA and the ANC, some supporters of Israel will defend that government no matter what it does) will pretend this egregious breach of international law never occured or that it could be justified. But the murder of the 10 passengers cannot be legally justified – no matter how you spin it. The event is a human tragedy as wel as a public relations disaster for Israel. But it is more than that: it is a wake up call to remind us all that the government of Israel, who is presently dominated by far-right wing parties, is a deeply immoral one.
The South African government should expell the Israeli ambassador in protest and should recall the South African ambassador from Jerusalem. But I am, once again, not holding my breath because South Africa’s foreign policy has long since stopped pretending to be based on principles of human rights, respect for the rule of law or any other principle except cowardliness and naked self-interest. If the Israeli government were clever it would donate a few million Rand to the ANC (or to President Zuma’s private bank account) to ensure it remains that way.
Pierre, I think your cynicism is getting the better of you. Inasmuch as I agree that the Israeli invasion and attack on this ship was unlawful, I do not agree with your right-wing attitude concerning a possible expulsion/withdrawal of ambassadors. This is a clearly short-sighted, if not ignorant, view of international politics. South Africa, during the apartheid years, also had ambassadorial representation in other countries. Did this mean that those countries in which SA had ambassadorial representation, also had to expel the SA ambassadors merely because SA practised apartheid (as purported by you in the case of Israel now)? Conversely, let us assume all SA ambassadors were expelled from foreign countries in which they were represented, I then ask myself where would SA have been today (internationally, politically, etc), if all its ambassadors had been expelled merely on the basis of apartheid. Your short-sightedness does the international political and trade relations for SA no good (!) – and people with your right-wing ideas seem to contribute to such political isolation, and this at a time when SA really needs to profile itself in every possible way (!). Next to the killing of the Jews during the Third Reich, apartheid was certainly the most grotesque human tragedy. However, two wrongs don’t make a right.
Here’s another Cliff Saunders: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-31/israel-was-right-to-board-the-gaza-flotilla/
@Andy
By your logic, COSATU is apparently also “right-wing”: http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=178928&sn=Marketingweb+detail
@Andy “Next to the killing of the Jews during the Third Reich, apartheid was certainly the most grotesque human tragedy.”
Apartheid’s worse than the Armenian genocide? Pol Pot’s Killing Fields? Stalin’s Great Purge?
Apartheid was a terrible thing, and something we must never forget so we never repeat it.
But man, comparing anything to the Holocaust is just a comparison doomed to failure. That’s why we have things like Godwin’s Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law). Useful dialog ceases.
Thank you for this insight into the mental world of the radical Left and its agenda .
For me the sad story is the sluggish response in condemning the barbaric actions of the Israeli authority on the civilians. This is clearly an international crime and deserves an independent international investigation. I am actually appalled by the unclear statement by the Security Council of the United Nations. I mean they allowed the US to be interpreting the text of the statement to be meaning that Israel can investigate itself – how funny – being a player and a referee at the same time, sies!!!
Andy says:
June 1, 2010 at 13:34 pm
” Next to the killing of the Jews during the Third Reich, apartheid was certainly the most grotesque human tragedy.”
According to Andy’s version of history , the horrors of Lenin’s and Stalin’s USSR and Chairman Mao’s Red China , pale into insignificanse compared to Apartheid’s foul deeds .
History.
The falsification and suppression of history (especially recent history) goes hand in hand with the falsification and suppression of news. People will lose all confidence in the media if they discover that they have been lied to or denied the truth. This holds true whether we speak of events today, or fifty years since. The control and manipulation of more recent history has become a primary factor in modern political warfare. Unless people know the truth about the past, they will not be equipped to understand the present, and without a clear understanding of this fact, will have no way of helping determine what will occur in the future. As George Orwell wrote, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past”. Control of the study of history, especially of the past 100 years is exercised by a system of `Intellectual Terrorism` intended to suppress knowledge which will arm our minds against an enemy whose greatest power lies in it’s capacity for deception.
As I understand it there is a question about whether the relief vessels were carrying armaments to Gaza. If indeed they were carrying armaments (or if indeed relief vessels to Gaza are commonly used for carrying armaments) and if those armaments as used against Israel (as I am given to understand is in fact the case) then in truth referring to them as relief vessels is probably not accurate. That may also influence how one views the status of any passengers on the vessels who knowingly boarded a vessel carrying armaments.
But of course we do not know the facts yet as to whether armaments were carried (either commonly or on the specific vessels).
Sadly, Israel’s ignoring international law (if indeed they did in this case) would be nothing new. Can you say “242″?
Peter John, even the Israeli propaganda machine does NOT claim that there were armaments on the ships. Passengers included peace activists from England, Ireland, Sweden, the USA, Malaysia and Turkey and many journalists from SA, Australia and elsewhere. The blockade has been widely condemned – even by conservative prime minister of Britain David Cameron. It is a total blockade of a a piece of land that has long been occupied (illegally) by Israel before its withdrawal two years ago. No food, petrol or medicines are allowed in unless the Israeli government agrees and the humanitarian situation is rather desperate. As part of Israeli propaganda the government produced a restaurant menu which it said showed there were no shortages of food. This menu later turned out to be fake. We do know the facts: there was no armaments on board and not even the Israeli government claim that there was. They claim that the blockade is legal (it is unclear on what ground as most international lawyers think it is not) and that Israel therefore had a right to enforce the blockcade – even if this meant killing innocent civilians n international waters in flagrant violation of international law.
Pierre De Vos says:
June 1, 2010 at 17:00 pm
The Mind of the Left :
Peace is not patriotic [but] subversive—-Peace anticipates a very different world than the one in which we live – a world where the U.S. will have no place .
- Professor Nicholas De Genova
Remarks at a Columbia University Teach-In
( Source : ” Unholy Alliance ” by David Horowitz)
I wholeheartedly support Pierre’s demand that the SA ambassador be recalled from Israel.
I know Pierre will in return support my demand that SA’s representatives in Beijing and Washington be likewise withdrawn. Pierre cannot be unaware of:
(a) Beijing’s continued illegal occupation of Tibet, and the killing of hundreds of peaceful protesters last year in that country by Chinese troops.
(b) The continued unlawful U.S. occupation of Iraq, and the unlawful drone attacks in Pakistan on civilian targets, attacks that have actually been stepped by Obama.
(I refuse to believe for one second that Pierre would advocate cutting ties with medium-sized powers while supporting continued ties with hyperpowers that are guilty of much the same outrages against international law.)
Prof, thank you for your article. I also find it rather strange for the muted response from the usual vociferous commentators.
I also do not think that we should be allowed to digress from the brazen and blatant systematic killing of Palestinians by the Israeli government, either with the blockade of Gaza, the theft of land through expansion of settlements, and indeed the attack of aid or relief ships, by trying to compare which was a worse human tragedy apartheid or the American slaughter of indigenous Americans, and so forth.
Suffice to state, that the ships were searched thoroughly by international media whilst in dock, and before they set sail. The ships were continuously monitored on their voyage by the media. It flew the Turkish flag, and therefore Turkey is in its rights to regard this as an act of war, even though the Turks themselves are regarded as responsible for the Armenian genocide, which they have not owned up to. For how long do you think humankind was supposed to stand back and not provide aid and relief to people living in the Gaza strip, when the borders were sealed on both sides (Egyptian and ‘Israel’)? The closest example we have for what Israel is doing to the Gaza Strip is the Polish Jewish Ghettos. Even the American blockade of Cuba, has turned a blind eye to the Canadians and others trading with Cuba. Some of even Israel’s allies, who usually try to defend it, have reacted quite astonished of the brazenness of Israel’s reaction, a case in point is Germany.
I am sad that many have allowed their own bias or even limited views not to exclaim outrage at what is a modern day slaughter of a whole population.
You will recall, in the Nuremburg Trials, a lawful command was not regarded as a defence. You too who try to obfuscate this tragedy will be judged as harshly by your kids and their kids, oneday.
@Pierre
Governments ALWAYS act out of self-interest.
Who was it that said “governments do not have friends, they have interests”?
I have to admit, when it comes to the Middle east, I just don’t get it!
- Why can the warring parties not reach a compromise and live in peace together?.
-Why does the US appear to support Israel no matter what?
-Why does Israel respond to amateur home-made rockets with a massive blockade and respond to people armed with metal rods by killing them?
-How can Israel, given the persecution of Jews throughout history, treat their neighbours so badly?
-Why can the International community — especially the UN not mediate successfully?
-Why do the Palestinians not kick out the bomb makers and trouble-makers from their communities?
-If both sides continually bicker and blame each other is it not reasonable to assume that there are equal faults on both sides?
-My secular agnostic and probably pretty ignorant view is that organised religion has a lot to answer for, and in the Middle east is as much the problem as the likely solution.
The most critical reaction here is from the US, which has been covering for Israel since the beginning. According to ABC, there will be no change this time either. It’s not really surprising, as the likely reaction from AIPAC would be deafening.
Still, I can’t help but think Israel is on the road for an eventual loss of ties to the US, and thus diplomatic isolation. It can’t go on forever like this.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
Hey Dworky – it is a red letter day – I agree with you whoeheartedly and unreservedly on an issue!
Your comments on the unlawful occupation of Tibet by China are on the money.
As well as the USA’s unlawful occupation of Iraq.
and Afghanistan.
And (in the past)
Somalia,
Grenada,
Vietnam.
Gosh – is there a trend here?
Are we trying to define who else is a crook, or are we expressing opinions on the piracy? How is it that we’re currently enjoying (sort of) the spectacle of a somali pirate being tried in The Hague (no, really) – are we going to be doing some Israelis there soon, too? Simple piracy, of course.
Whether the US is a bunch of bullies or whether China shouldn’t be depopuating Tibet is all very interesting (as is Godwin’s law
), but the question here is barbarism by a supposed democracy.
Surely, in anticipation of weak spines in Pretoria, we can strengthen civil society’s hand – inspire Cosatu to re-ignite the blockade of Israeli ships and all that? Their a bunch of rogues, nothing to do with US or anyone else. They don’t belong in civilised society, so throw out their people, their goods, their services, their NGO’s, and their ambassador?
There is likely no greater global controversy than that of the Jew. My first experience of racist bigotry was against Jews, something I never understood, since I had at the time a very loving jewish girlfriend, at 18, no less.
As originally a north american appalled not only by the Holocaust, but all the pogroms against Jews back to the days of the early tribes and Esther, I’ve always given Jews the benefit of the doubt. If you are not Jewish, can you imagine that for thousands of years, virtually everyone under the sun has hated you, committed to killing you, raping your women, torturing your men and children, and working very hard to annihilate you.
Unless you put yourself in a space where you consider how you would act with such hatred and horror directed towards you, you will never understand the challenge that is survival in the middle east.
The US and the west will never, ever, thankfully, abandon Israel. Won’t happen. We all remember the holocaust. One of my family entered the camps on liberation in Europe. He hardly ever talked after that.
Think rather, what the Jew has given to the world, and what they have suffered. No race has given more.
Bravo! Someone – at last – with the guts to call the Board of Deputies on its disgraceful treatment of an internationally revered jurist.
The simple fact of the matter is Israel is a terrorist state which destabilizes not only the region but the whole world exacting a price on all of us. Every time an Apache helicopter (made in the US) blows up a Palestinian home from which the family has just been herded it creates a whole new generation of suicide bombers.
While fundamentalist terrorists should receive no quarter the State of Israel should be booted up the ass by the international community every time there is a terrorist attack anywhere else in the world.
Sorry Brett: but my opinion is that you are ignorant of the Jewish reality, especially for Jews living in Israel. And I challenge you. Do you have family, children, a cherished culture which is under daily threat, even the threat of nuclear annihilation? How would you react if you are surrounded by those who don’t want to act in peace with you, who only want to annihilate you. As in dead, gone!
Easy to say, ensconced in a reality where your life isn’t threatened so blatantly.
Peter L says:
June 1, 2010 at 18:02 pm
Hey Peter,
Nothing get our resident Dwork riled up as criticism of Israel.
Even dear Judge Goldstone was exemplary (complete with 15 years commercial passenger plane flying time) until the now infamous report.
I wonder why?
I ve always known Israel to be the ‘chosen nation’ biblically speaking. As a christian I am apalled by how Israel has been treating the civilians in Gaza. Can one still say this is the chosen of the Almighty? Or have we reached that period wherein black will be white, tall be short, hot be cold – or are we just not getting an objective side of the Israelites story?
Here’s an interesting story, and true. My dear cousin Gerald Bull (my mother was Ruth Bull) both designed and developed the largest canon in the world for Saddam. Check it out on Google if you doubt. Gerald, who I spent many years in private school with, locked in a dorm together, and he was a beast even then, worked the international arms trade circuit to have various parts of this giant canon developed by various countries, trying to escape international arms development security by sourcing out parts here and there, then successfully having smuggled them into Iraq through various illegal conduits, but fortunately, due to his death, managing to complete its construction.
The goal was, via the world’s largest canon ever produced, to deliver into Jerusalem, poisonous gas, so as to annihilate without destroying infrastructure, the Jewish citizens who lived there, people, folks, children, perhaps if you try you can imagine the scene.
Mossad warned Gerald three times. They were quite clear. If you continue to develop this canon, we will stop you. He didn’t stop, obsessed with developing the biggest canon ever regardless of the consequences, and living his life without decent principles, obviously.
Well Mossad stopped him, with three bullets in the back of his head as he entered his Paris apartment one night after an evening on the town.
Gerald was not exactly a friend since I despised him for his macho brutality at private school (Upper Canada College, Toronto, Canada). My mother, Ruth would cry with me that her family had produced such a man.
Correction, not managing to complete its construction.
@sirjay jonson “And I challenge you. Do you have family, children, a cherished culture which is under daily threat, even the threat of nuclear annihilation? How would you react if you are surrounded by those who don’t want to act in peace with you, who only want to annihilate you. As in dead, gone!”
First, nuclear annihilation. That is ridiculous. The only nuclear power in the area is Israel itself, and Iran’s leaders, were they to acquire a weapon, would not risk annihilation. Mutually assured destruction, right?
Second, consider the case of England during the IRA terrorist period. Sullivan: “For years, IRA terrorists bombed Britain’s pubs and shops and eventually nearly killed the entire cabinet in the Brighton hotel bombing. Those terrorists lived among the population in both the republic and Ulster? Did Britain bomb Ireland in response? Were republican areas in the north sealed off and pulverized as happened in Gaza? Were British casualties one hundredth of Irish casualties in response?
None of this happened. Margaret Thatcher no less accepted what became known as an “acceptable level of violence” because the alternative would a) have caused domestic outrage and b) made the situation far, far worse and recruited a new army of terror. Again, one has to ask: why is Israel different? “
RJA: you are obviously unaware of Iran’s commitment to annihilate Israel with a nuclear weapon. How is it that you’ve missed that? Why do you think the West is so worried and intense about Iran’s nuclear development?
You, like most of the anti Semitic world (which amazes me, think Einstein for starters, or Jesus, Christianity) are so cultured to think of Jews as what, for me I don’t get it. They are people and they have given much, hugely much to the advancement of the classical and modern world as we know it.
Attack my family once, I’m angry and will respond. Attack my family twice, well I will get real pissed, attack my family for thousands of years, then how do you think I will react, how will I view my world, and what security will I put in place….
My point being… just what do you expect Israel to do… turn another cheek?
Take an easier problem my friend, just how are whites and blacks going to get it together in SA.
Just for the info, I’m not Jewish.
” This blog deals with political and social issues in South Africa, mostly from the perspective of Constitutional Law. ” Written by Pierre de Vos
Does the following quote exemplify the Universal Mind of the Resident Left at the ” Constitutionally Speaking” blog ? :
“We have in Washington a poisonous government that
spreads its venom to the body politic in all corners of the
globe. We now resume… our quests… like David going
forth to meet Goliath, like Beowulf the dragon slayer,… like
Sir Galahad seeking the holy grail. And modern heroes, dare
I mention? Ho and Mao and Lenin, Fidel and Nelson
Mandela and John Brown, Che Guevara who reminds us,
‘At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true
revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love.’”
—LYNNE STEWART, NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD ATTORNEY
FOR SHEIK OMAR ABDEL RAHMAN, MASTERMIND OF THE
WORLD TRADE CENTER BOMBING IN 1993
Nimrod: Che was a murderous feign who enjoyed torturing and killing his opponents, many of them as personal kills. As a naive youngster I wore a cap supporting him, something I’ve since realized as ignorant childhood behavior. Visit Cuba, enjoy its repression.
Maggs, I remain, of course, in full solidarity with your struggle against the forces of international Zionism,
And I trust you are similarly supportive of my relentless war on U.S. imperialism — and will therefore join my demand that our man in D.C. come home on the next plane.
I am full of confidence that you have not been seduced by the notion that U.S. hegemony is mitigated by the fact that the Democrats now rule Washington. And naturally, you do not for a moment believe that the sorrows of the mothers of the Pakistani children killed in CIA missile attacks in recent weeks are much assuaged by the fact that a well-spoken and quite handsome black man sits in the Oval Office.
RJA says:
June 1, 2010 at 19:16 pm
Indeed.
It’s short sighted of the Israelis – the militant resolve can only but diminish over time, maybe not this generation or the next, but in time it will happen.
Sooner or later their people will want their children to live and grow up in more secure environments away from the intense hostility that is being created or perpetuated by the current generation.
Like millions of South Africans who the supported but are now too ashamed to be associated with the iniquitous apartheid regime, the time will come when the people of Israel will be too ashamed to be associated with all that it now is.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
June 1, 2010 at 19:57 pm
“Maggs, I remain, of course, in full solidarity with your struggle against the forces of international Zionism”
Huh?????
I have nothing against international Zionism!
Sirjay, for Afrikaners it is very easy to identify with Jews. Forget for the moment regarding self as a Chosen race etc. My grandfather was born in an oxwagon on the way back to a farm which had been razed to the ground. He lost siblings in a concentration camp where his mother was interned because his father and elder brothers were Cape Rebels.
He was the guy pointedly sitting in a cinema when everyone started singing ‘God save the Queen’.
There are other parallels. You saw South Africa as the country where black women and children were being shot for throwing stones at police and you made up your mind to come here when SA was saved from itself by the ‘Madiba Magic’. The ANC put children and women in the front of the firing line because it made for good soundbytes when they were killed, much like the Palestinian territories. Eventually, white South Africa opted for a deal with the ANC because the moral cost of making war on children and women was just too high a price to pay. (If you do not believe me, ask around. Afrikaans churches are battling to survive because of the disillusionment of the faithful.) It destroyed us. It also says a lot about the ANC, just as it does Hamas. Hizbollah camps shelled on the eve of a Knesset election. Limpet mines going off in the parking area of JG Strydom on the eve of a whites-only election.
The Israeli Defence Force got its butt kicked invading Lebanon. So, they staged an action-replay for the cameras.
There is no such thing as fighting a just war unjustly. There should be no moral equivalency between your side and the enemy, or what is the point?
Peter L says:
June 1, 2010 at 17:56 pm
Why can the International community — especially the UN not mediate successfully?
” The urge to international understanding is an admirable one. But it runs into problems when we look at the realities. The world that Americans, and other Westerners full of goodwill, want to mount and ride, feed and pat, is not a sweet-tempered little pony but a huge vile-tempered mule.
The words “United Nations” have a splendid sound. The United Nations has been offered to the world over and over again as the highest rep-resentation of humanity.
Not so fast. It is a “union,” of course, not of nations but of states. And many UN states exist-even not counting ones recognized as “rogue”-that in no sense embody a civilized past, present, or future for the world or for themselves. Its members include governments largely or totally opposed to their own citizens’ liberty and, of course, to Western culture in general. It lost some prestige when, for example, the UN Commission on Human Rights elected Libya as its chairman. Sudan is also a member, but the United States was dropped in 2001. Israel is in effect permanently barred. Meanwhile, Syria was elected to the presidency of the Security Council.
It is not, therefore, a body whose powers can be allowed to include rul-ings contrary to our principles. It is a forum for discussion, compromise, adjustment, and possible agreement on certain general issues. Of course, even apart from the UN, states that “recognize” each other and exchange diplomats have to observe certain amenities. The UN itself is an arena in which views are publicized and interests pushed and a venue for negotiation. At best, it is more like a stock exchange or a hockey field than a nice family picnic.”
( Source : The Dragons of Expectation : Chapter 6, by Robert Conquest )
“And naturally, you do not for a moment believe that the sorrows of the mothers of the Pakistani children killed in CIA missile attacks in recent weeks are much assuaged by the fact that a well-spoken and quite handsome black man sits in the Oval Office”
Agreed!
Brett: thanks.
So what if apartheid was more or less grotesque in relation to other historical event/s? The point is Pierre’s demand for the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador is ridiculous, let alone political implications for SA at national and international level of such a demand!
The difficulty is: who is right and who is wrong. Can that question be reasonably answered? From wherever we see and react to events, we decide according to our beliefs and history that one is right and one is wrong.
How do we get beyond that? Everyone wants to live in security, have a job, love a partner and be loved, live in peace (apart from the psychotics or greedy lacking principles, that is).
What we need are more Ghandi’s, Madiba’s and Tutu’s, those who can teach and lead us to set aside our prejudices and hatreds. Until we learn to live in peace, to collectively work towards the benefit of all, to diminish criminality and self serving ignorance, these conflicts will continue, whether in Israel, SA, Iraq, or Zimbabwe, wherever, gawd, so many countries and societies in turmoil and anger.
Give Peace a chance, according to John… will that ever happen Here we have a Constitution respected world wide, and yet somehow it isn’t working to its greatest potential. What will?
@Sirjay When people’s comments contain glaring mistakes it makes it hard to believe the rest they’re saying:
“Bull concurrently worked on the Scud project, making calculations for the new nose-cone needed for the higher re-entry speeds and temperatures the missile would face. At this point someone started “warning” him to stop working on the missiles. Over a period of a few months his apartment was broken into several times but nothing was stolen. He nevertheless continued to work on the project. In March 1990 he was assassinated, allegedly by the Mossad. One account states he was shot five times in the head and back at point blank range while approaching the door of his apartment in Brussels. Another account states he was shot by a three-man Mossad team on March 20, 1990, when he answered the doorbell.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull –
I lived 10 km from Bell when he was killed in Uccle (region), Brussels (city), and although the quoted source is Wikipedia, I’m damn sure it wasn’t Paris….
You don’t have to be a Jewish/Israeli/Zionist to be a blind fan, just look at the American Christian right.
Nobody disputes what Jews might have brought to us throughout history. What is disputed is if any normal human being today should accept Israeli behaviour in recent history. Is it ‘national security’ or ‘state terrorism’? I know where I’m starting to lean towards!
sirjay jonson says:
June 1, 2010 at 20:20 pm
Hey Sirjay,
Here’s two questions for you :
- why do you think that our constitution “isn’t working to its greatest potential”?
- Israel may be winning battles, but how will win the war?
@ sirjay
please enlighten us:
exactly how, where, and when did the republic of iran commit to annihilating israel with a nuclear weapon ?
hint: unless you are fully conversant in farsi, rather just withdraw that entire statement, unless you are willing to restate its different elements without the flagrant hyperbole and dishonesty
(then, out of the other thumb, suck a solution for your “blacks and whites getting it together” proposition)
Mussels from Brussels says:
June 1, 2010 at 20:25 pm
A few days ago Sirjay wrote about his Boer Bull pet.
Today is about his cousin Gerald Bull.
And his mother Ruth Bull.
It pains me to conclude that Sirjay’s comments are full of Bull!
register your protest against this latest israeli atrocity here:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/gaza_flotilla_4/?cl=592187174&v=6411
Very droll, I’m sure, Maggs!
Prof, sorry to go back to your previous blog on Secrecy. Since we are still allowed to ask such questions…I was wondering do we know whose idea this Protection of Information Bill is, the actual people who woke up from some nightmare and thought Yes! that’s the thing to do? Mo Shaik et al. perhaps? If Prof doesn’t know, anyone else perhaps?
Maggs, will you join me in organising an ad hoc fund to finance Cmd Malema travelling to Gaza City to negotiate the release of the peace activists captured by the Zionist Navy in the eastern Mediterranean?
@sirjay: Iran has made no such commitment. Ahmadinejad is commonly cited to have said Israel will be “wiped off the map,” but the translation is not so simple. Furthermore, Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran–that is the Supreme Leader, Khameini. Regardless, no country has ever attacked a nuclear power. Iran’s leaders are tyrannical autocrats, not suicidal nihilists.
Dispense with the anti-Semite canard. It’s absurd and cheapens the real thing.
My point is that the very real history of vicious persecution of Jews and the rocket attacks from Hamas do not give Israel a blank check to inflict massive punishment on Gaza, nor to attack humanitarian vessels in international waters. It’s not too much to expect proportional response, like I mentioned in the UK, or even South Korea right now.
Moreover, clear-eyed friends of Israel would realize that reflexive support of Israel no matter the situation, is only helping them commit seppuku. Larison: “Perhaps most galling about the overall defense of the raid is the constant invocation of self-defense. Everything Israel does is always done in self-defense, no matter how excessive, disproportionate, unnecessary, wrong or aggressive it is. When everything becomes a matter of self-defense and the proper distinctions between actual legtimate self-defense and reckless excesses are erased, pretty soon most of the rest of the world won’t pay any attention to Israeli claims of self-defense even when they are legitimate. There was not much of a reservoir of goodwill for Israel in the world after the war in Lebanon, but successive Israeli governments have done everything they can to exhaust what little remains in that reservoir. We are not watching Israel defend itself. We are watching Israel slowly destroy itself.”
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
June 1, 2010 at 21:20 pm
Hey Dworky – I just got an email advising me that I won $750 000 in the Benz Lottery.
You can have it.
Email your bank details and password to the organisers.
As somebody once said: Marriage is like the Middle East, there is no solution.
I have a friend who reads Farsi.
He says Ahmadinejad said nothing about incinerating the Jews in a “sea of fire.” In fact, he extended “warm” greeting to “our Jewish friends.”
Thanks.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
June 1, 2010 at 22:09 pm
“I have a friend who reads Farsi.”
Is your friend Farsical?
The image I get from the media about the situation in Gaza is that of a concentration camp and I’m partial to rename the status quo: Gaza Concentration Camp. Yes, it is partly because of the association that Jews have with that word that I’m using it. Downplaying the situation in Gaza would roughly be equavalent as saying Nazi death/concentration camps was just worker towns where the workers had enough to survive but most of them decided to rather die.
Irrespective of whether the naval blockade of Gaza is legal or illegal, the IDF did mess up. They could have avoided a hell of a lot of legal trouble if they only waited until the ships were within Israeli-Palestinian waters. I would be surprised if the IDF not only broke international law and laws of the seas, but also domestic Israeli law. If I were anyone of these activists on a ship, I would sue the Israeli government, at least, or even open a criminal case
A few questions for the legal experts:
*How can Israel DEPORT someone from Israel if that person was arrested outside Israel and was taken against their will (a.k.a. kidnapped) back to Israel?
*I hope that the Israeli legal system will not sanction these arrests and detention of activists on some trumped up charge. Even if the activists clearly showed intent on breaking the blockade, IMO they would only have ACTED “illegally” if they entered Israeli-Palestinian territorial waters.
*In which countries (outside of Israel) can any of these activists sue the Israeli government for unlawful arrest, detention, kidnapping, deportation, stealing of private information without authority (e.g. photos on cameras, cellphone records, etc), or even something else? Or does it have to be an international court? (e.g. Pinochet was tried in Spain for his actions in Chile) Under what treaties / obligations would SA then be to act against the Israeli govt?
@Peter L: Finding a solution for the Israeli-Palestinian issue will not be easy. Just describing the issues/problems would take a heck of a long time and many thousands of pages. Many people, more knowledgable and experienced on this specific topic than anyone on this blog, has spend thousands of hours of manpower analysing it and trying to find a solution. And they are still no nearer.
My own opinion is simply that the current proposed 2-state solution will never work (very much like the Bantustans never really worked), even though this solution have the support of most in the international community. My fanciful ideal is a single Jewish & Palestinian state (maybe with a bicameral parliament if necessary) with a constitution offering protection to both Israelis and Palestinians. But for this to become a reality, both sides will have to compromise a heck of a lot. And compared to this, the SA negotiations in the early 1990s will looks like a walk in the park.
With all this stuff about the suffering of the Jews, how the holocaust was so horrific, I can’t help but wonder, when people actually start reading. And out of what history books. How is there no mention of the African Holocaust which I must say greatly overshadows what happened to the Jews by the sheer number of years it ensued. Not to mention the atrocities that occurred.
The United States was built on the backs and corpses of an indigenous people already here. These folks were massacred in the most brutal of ways. Then a holiday is set. What if the Germans had a holiday to commemorate the Jewish Holocaust?
It is forgotten that the US Constitution was written during a time when slavery was in full swing and without inclusion of women or the African enslaved people or the indigenous people for that matter.
What is with this form of amnesia that forgets about the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade that brought 20-50 million Africans, thousands of miles, in the hull of ships, with hardly any air causing death and disease, lying in their own waste. How is it that the on land slave trade of Africans across continents, the separation of families (some who were thrown overboard before landing in this “New World”) is never mentioned as an African Holocaust by Europeans around the world? How is it that Africans were sold on auction blocks, whipped, beaten, raped, humiliated, starved, lynched, sexually abused, for centuries by the WASP, and yet what happened to the Jews carries more weight and merits world sentiment; with the ensuing right to defend and protect itself at all costs? Does this chosen people adage make them impervious to any consequences of barbarism to others who are not “Chosen”? And by not being chosen, why would that preclude an individual to being anti-Semite, when you are not believed to worthy enough to be God’s people? Does it make the rest of humanity an anomaly, fit to be murdered, discriminated against, hated? And does being chosen mean that these activities against those who are not make you above reproach because you are “Chosen.” Wouldn’t that very schemata create emninity between peoples, not harmony?
What about the great inventors in Africa and here in the West, and what they brought to civilization and humanity. In many cases, these contributions have been hidden from the history books, so much so that African Americans had to lobby for Black History Month so that the story could be told. How many people can list the contributions of African people in this hemisphere?
On the other hand, what if, Africans all over the diaspora, joined together to fight their oppressor, in fact what if any of them did that, they would be quickly assassinated, i.e., Dr. Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Medger Evers and an endless list of political prisoners.
Where are the jails that house more Jews in the population than any other group of people? How many Jews are on death row, right now, compared to the general prison population?
I really am concerned at the story line. I am against all forms of brutality by any person against another person… but why is it so often forgotten about the brutality against Africans in America and Across the Diaspora? What about the suffering of humankind around the world? How is it that the Jews suffering deserves more compassion? And from what I have read in the Bible, didn’t their God sentence them to suffer because of their behavior?
It seems that this amnesia is nowhere near recovery and is a frightening thing if there is expectations for human beings to treat any other human beings with dignity when history shows quite the opposite.
Sincerely
Nana Baakan
Pierre De Vos
June 1, 2010 at 17:00 pm
Pierre, I am fully aware of the illegal occupation. The reference in my post to “242″ is to the UN Resolution of that number which deals with that illegal occupation and requires Israel to withdraw.
I am also very aware of the position in Gaza and the many human rights violations that have occurred. I may not know as much a scholar on the subject but I have read sufficiently widely on it to understand the darkness that has prevailed and how, amongst other things, US made missiles have been fired into ambulances carrying women and children.
My personal belief is that Israel has far overstepped the mark in terms of proportionate force necessary to legitimately protect its own interests and people.
But we also need to avoid knee-jerk reactions and recognize the complexity of matters. I do not know the facts first-hand, only what I read as I suspect is the case with yourself (although I am happy to be told otherwise). Please accept therefore – as I do – that misinformation may be part of what we read – on both sides of the spectrum.
Hamas has, I understand, taken the line of seeking the destruction of the State of Israel. Whether that is still their position I am not aware. The point though is that there is something akin to a state of war or near war between the parties. From what I read, in the past vessels presenting themselves as “relief vessels” have in fact been carrying armaments. Or so says Israel. If this is true then it seems to me that Israel has a legitimate interest in preventing such armaments reaching Gaza and searching vessels which are carrying relief supplies. No matter that this specific vessel was not carrying armaments.
The other thing that seems very clear based on the information I see in the media is that the people on this vessel determined in advance to seek confrontation with the Israeli Defence Force. It appears that there was in fact a determined assault on the commandos landing on the vessel and this gave rise to the reaction of the soldiers. I deplore completely what happened and I blame the Israeli Defence Force entirely for the events that unfolded as they should have been prepared to deal with this by non-lethal means (leaving aside for the time being that they may well have had no business on the vessel at all under international law). But it is not hard to see how the people on the vessel may have deliberately sought this outcome for the very PR purposes that have resulted.
There is no doubt that Israel is oppressing the Palestinians and that something has to be done about it. Gaza is in effect nothing more than a ghetto now. It is also as far as I can tell, one of the core reasons the US finds itself the subject of terrorist attacks by muslim radicals but that is a subject for another debate.
All I am saying is that I find your article a little one sided. But in fairness, it is also your habit of drawing things in outraged “black and white” (no reference to race intended) terms that makes for interesting (although hardly unbiased!) reading.
@ Peter John
Personally, I don’t think we need to resolve world peace in the Middle East before we can have an opinion on the acts of piracy? We don’t have to convert Hamas to peaceloving vegetarians before being able to condemn the acts of the Israeli criminals. They belong in jail
pekkil monta says:
June 2, 2010 at 9:05 am
It’s unfortunate that the current generation of Israelis are leaving a legacy that future generations may not want to inherit but it’s thrust upon them anyway.
But then war is big business!
Alan M. Dershowitz on university tenured extemists of the Left :
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/05/17/dershowitz-takes-on-tenured-extremists/
Alan M. Dershowitz talking about bigotry :
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/05/11/legitimating-bigotry/
An open letter to Richard Goldstone from a distinguished UCT alumnus :
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/an-open-letter-to-richard-goldstone-15284?search=1
Pekkil,
Tell me, what do you call a Hamas man who blows up a bus full of Israeli civilians? A terrorist or a freedom fighter? Or perhaps a civilian-killing criminal?
It’s a matter of perspective.
The blockading of vessels by the Israeli’s is in my view no better or worse in moral terms.
The difference is in the disproportionate use of force by Israel which is the stronger antagonist.
One must recognise that the concepts of justice is a flexible thing. Thus Germany was condemned for the bombing of English cities during World War II. Yet the far more severe and vicious bombing of German cities by Allied forces somehow is more generally accepted (although not by all) as having been justified. If you read about the firebombing of Dresden you may understand. Similarly the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yet no one calls Americans criminals today. Was that not a disproportionate use of force?
As a general principle, how do you believe most modern states would react to an opponent who calls for and seeks their destruction? As I have said before, one needs to take account of the virtual state of war that exists.
I don’t think it amounts to piracy and nor am I sure that it is correct to call the Israeli’s criminals. I am open to being persuaded but for the time being I remain of the view that the situation is more complex than a simple statement of piracy and criminality.
Nothing in this note though is intended to detract from my earlier posts about the responsibility and conduct of Israel. I am simply saying that I think your statement does not recognise the context of matters as a whole.
sirjay jonson
June 1, 2010 at 19:09 pm
Gerald Bull’s cannon was a method of launching sattelites into orbit. It was 150 metres long and 2100 tonnes. If it leaned over it would collapse under its own weight. There is no way that it could be pointed to shoot at Jerusalem.
Now Gerald did also work on the Scud program (a condition on him being allowed to work on the launch vehicle), and that probably was the reason for his death, but it sure as heck wasn’t his cannon. (Did you know that South Africa’s G5 is a modification of his artillery work?)
When last did Nimrod express an opinion of his/her own? Does Nimrod have one?
“How is it that Africans were sold on auction blocks, whipped, beaten, raped, humiliated, starved, lynched, sexually abused, for centuries by the WASP”
Nana, that happened but your perception that was only Africans is not historically not even remotely accurate. People of all colours have been enslaving each other for far longer and far more recently than you seem to be aware of.
I suggest you order yourself a copy of Nell Painter’s (she is an African-American) book “The History of White People”. The title by the way, is a little misleading. But it will change how you see the world – at least to some degree.
@ Peter John
I don’t call Hamas anything – I don’t have to. They’re as much part of this story as is Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. This is piracy, defined as in the original blog by the good prof. For god’s sake, there’s a somalin the Court in the Hague charged with exactly that. What’s the difference?
Happy to have a conversation about Hamas, the AWB, the IRA or any number of oddballs and their act. This is not that conversation. These israeli criminals belong in jail, charged woth Piracy on open seas. Don’t make a story where there isn’t one. I don’t particularly like Mugabe – should I just hijack trucks bound for Harare because he’s a loathsome idiot? Have we all gone insane?
pekkil monta says:
June 2, 2010 at 14:08 pm
“For god’s sake, there’s a somalin the Court in the Hague charged with exactly that”
The story behind “piracy” by Somalis is a deliberately ignored one.
It started off, I read somewhere, as the Somali fishermen’s response to wanton overfishing by foreign countries illegally in Somali waters – something which the fishermen had no means of stopping as a result of the dire political situation in their country.
Then they discovered that hijacking/piracy, first fishing vessels and later other ships, was a way of striking back and a lucrative one at that.
Pekkil,
Your view is too narrow.
If a state of war exists between two nations and the interception of a vessel of an enemy state (or those aiding or abetting it) occurs, it is difficult to see how that can be called piracy.
Let us recognise too that states of war can and do exist even when not formally declared.
It seems to me that a state of war or something very nearly akin to it has existed between Israel and the Palestinians for some time now.
That is the difference between this situation and the Somali pirate you mention.
As an aside, if one looks to the origins of Somali piracy (which has now long since progressed beyond its origins into something entirely more sinister) you may find that they too were defending what they perceived as sovereign rights from foreign aggression. As I understand it Somali piracy arose as a vigilante response to the marine stripping of Somali fishing grounds which was depriving Somali fishermen of their livelihood. Interestingly, the fish stocks have now rebounded in those waters as foreign fishing vessels are no longer willing to assume the risks. Yes, the Somali’s have gone far beyond defending themselves but in a perverse way it is those very nations who would now cry foul that may have unwittingly given rise to the piracy in question.
The world Pekkil, is not black and white. Between apparent right and wrong there is a vast spectrum of grey.
Dear Peter John
There may be a whole lot of grey everywhere you look, but not around the definition of piracy, if I understand the good Prof’s note. It’s defined as boarding a vessel that isn’t yours to board, unless there’s this expectation of slavery or the exceptions mentioned in the blog. Not even Israel contends there were weapons on this ship. Where’s the grey? Whether we think they’re probably at war, although not declared? They don’t like each other? Israel has to defend itself – from an attack by the aspiring being transported? Me narrow?
Under your logic, any act that harms people in Gaza, anywhere in the world, is thus justified, even if this involves stealing a ship registered in Turkey whilst sailing in open waters. I so hope you’re nowhere near the people constructing our rules.
The world may be grey, and we have a whole cohort of politicians in charge who live by that very principle, but there’s no grey in this issue. Piracy is a crime, the israelis committed it, where’s the grey? Speculating on their motive, or their perceived justification makes it grey? Fascinating. Who needs a set of laws?
Pekkil,
If you going to be rude and arrogant, you should at least have *some* intellect to fortify it. As it is, I have real doubts.
Nowhere in his post did Pierre define piracy. Go re-read his article.
Not even the UN defines piracy the way you would have it. Go read the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Article 101. You will see it defines piracy as “any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed FOR PRIVATE ENDS by the crew or the passengers of a PRIVATE ship or a PRIVATE aircraft” (my caps).
Not by any stretch of the imagination can you call the Israeli Defence Force a private organisation. This was NOT an act of piracy. Illegal quite possibly. An act war, quite possibly. An absolute disgrace, yes. An act of piracy, never.
@ Peter John
You have flummoxed Pekkil by deploying a sterile legal positivism that places great store in formal definition. But recall, please, that we have embraced a jurisprudence of SUBSTANTIVE equality. The fact is that Israel has violated the “telos” behind the prohibition of piracy.
[Also, Israel is a rogue actor whose depradations have forfeited the dignity of the sovereign. It may therefore be deemed to be a private actor under your crabby definition!]
Facts count , not opinions .
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/75249/the-great-flotilla-debate-the-facts-are-israels-side
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/06/02/israels-actions-entirely-lawful-2/
Gaza: More International Law :
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/3113
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-06-02-radio-786-website-hacked
“Turkey has long been Israel’s only real Muslim friend in the Middle East …”
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/05/31/israel.gaza.raid.reaction/index.html
“On Wednesday, the Turkish parliament unanimously voted in favor of a declaration condemning the Israeli commando raid. The motion calls on the Turkish government to reassess its economic and military relations with Israel.”
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/02/turkey.israel.lawsuit/index.html?hpt=T2
“In the first known military fallout from the Israeli action, a U.S. official said Turkey will informally cancel a trilateral military exercise with the United States and Israel set for August in the eastern Mediterranean Sea.”
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/02/gaza.raid.activists/index.html?hpt=T2
“Daniel Levy, a former Israeli negotiator in the peace process, says that Israel underestimated world reaction to the raid.”
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/06/2010624659743443.html
“Even before this fiasco, Israelis were divided about the wisdom of blocking the flotilla. There is now mounting condemnation of the military and government over this incident.”
http://blogs.news.sky.com/middleeastblog/Post:c22e9207-3e9c-4b57-9924-fdc11ad8a35f
“Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking at his first PM’s Questions, described the raid as ‘completely unacceptable’.”
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Gaza-Israel-Ambassador-Michael-Oren-Compares-Flotilla-Raid-With-World-War-Two/Article/201006115641884?lpos=World_News_First_World_News_Article_Teaser_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_15641884_Gaza%3A_Israel_Ambassador_Michael_Oren_Compares_Flotilla_Raid_With_World_War_Two
“But the biggest irony in this tragedy is not just that the “weapons” Israel claims were on board have not yet materialised or been shown to the media, its that the aid, which Israel says Gaza does not need, and the aid which was on board the flotilla heading to Gaza and prevented by Israel from reaching its shores is now being delivered to Gaza by Israel as quickly as possible.”
http://blogs.aljazeera.net/middle-east/2010/06/01/evidence-belies-israeli-claim
DEJA VU
“Ten days before the 9/11 attacks, a conference was held in Durban, South Africa. It became the first expression of the new global coalition. The ostensible purpose of the U.N. World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, was to combat intolerance, but its real agenda was to orchestrate an international assault on the democracies of the West, and more specifically against the United States, Britain, and Israel. These three nations—and these alone—were condemned in speeches and resolutions for their alleged racism, historical involvement in slavery, and colonialism .”
” The anti-American, anti-Israel conference in Durban in September 2001 brought together Islamo-fascists from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Palestine with an array of American leftist organizations who promoted their radical agendas under the banner of “human rights.” Months later the same international coalition would reemerge as a global movement against America’s War on Terror.”
@ dimrod
what’s your point ?
occasionally, perhaps just throw in a comment/opinion/regurgitation of your own…that’s the problem with people who are able to read, but not think; they constantly use quotes and links, unable to connect the dots, drowning in a sea of letters…neither absorbing nor understanding any of it
p.s. sorry,spelling mistake my bad, it’s “nimrod” not ……
Nimrod, your correspondents are not very well versed in International Law. The guy from TNR conflates rules applicable to ships in international waters to that applicable to ships in the waters of a country. It also assumes that the blockcade against Gaza is legal, something that is disputed by many international law experts.And of course, when one gets the ridiculous guilt by association (“the people cam from MUSLIM Turkey thus they must be terrorists and thus Israel had a right to murder them”), then one descends into the theatre of the absurd.
etienne marais says:
June 3, 2010 at 0:08 am
Ouch!
I thought I was making two points by posting quotes and links.
Firstly Nimrod was attempting to make a case for what seems unjustifiable under any circumstances by selectively referencing articles that massage the truth, even blatant lies – a snapshot of responses from around the world may help to balance that.
Secondly, the level of provocation by some in Israel is beginning to turn their friends into enemies (even within themselves) – and that cannot be good for the region and the nations involved, including Israel.
It’s easy enough to be a warmonger when the victims of the human tragedy happens to be the kith and kin of other people.
Peter John says:
June 2, 2010 at 14:44 pm
Somalia as it is today is a direct consequence of US policy and action in Somalia in the late 60s and early 70s.
The instability there is now adversely affecting the entire world, Africa in particular.
In this matter the line between illegal and piracy may be gray, but the line between right and wrong is not.
T.S. Eliot – The Hollow Men
Mistah Kurtz — he dead.
A penny for the Old Guy
I
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats’ feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar
Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;
Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death’s other Kingdom
Remember us — if at all — not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men.
II
Eyes I dare not meet in dreams
In death’s dream kingdom
These do not appear:
There, the eyes are
Sunlight on a broken column
There, is a tree swinging
And voices are
In the wind’s singing
More distant and more solemn
Than a fading star.
Let me be no nearer
In death’s dream kingdom
Let me also wear
Such deliberate disguises
Rat’s coat, crowskin, crossed staves
In a field
Behaving as the wind behaves
No nearer –
Not that final meeting
In the twilight kingdom
III
This is the dead land
This is cactus land
Here the stone images
Are raised, here they receive
The supplication of a dead man’s hand
Under the twinkle of a fading star.
Is it like this
In death’s other kingdom
Waking alone
At the hour when we are
Trembling with tenderness
Lips that would kiss
Form prayers to broken stone.
IV
The eyes are not here
There are no eyes here
In this valley of dying stars
In this hollow valley
This broken jaw of our lost kingdoms
In this last of meeting places
We grope together
And avoid speech
Gathered on this beach of the tumid river
Sightless, unless
The eyes reappear
As the perpetual star
Multifoliate rose
Of death’s twilight kingdom
The hope only
Of empty men.
V
Here we go round the prickly pear
Prickly pear prickly pear
Here we go round the prickly pear
At five o’clock in the morning.
Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom
Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the Shadow
Life is very long
Between the desire
And the spasm
Between the potency
And the existence
Between the essence
And the descent
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom
For Thine is
Life is
For Thine is the
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
The bigger picture involves Iran. It brings a confrontation closer. One should not look at the incident in isolation.
Maggs is right.
US action has directly or indirectly caused every bad thing in the world since about 1927.
That is why I am particularly grateful that President Obama will very soon close Guantanamo Bay, and withdraw the US forces occupying Iraq and Afghanistan!
T.S. Eliot is right.
Mistah Kurtz IS dead.
Thanks.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
June 3, 2010 at 9:27 am
Hey Dworky,
You seem unwell.
Suffering with Brettinitis, are you?
Maggs, it does not become you to mock Brett and me from your position of towering intellectual superiority.
Yes, neither of us can match your wit. As T.S. Elliot wrote, thinking perhaps of Brett and myself:
“We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw.”
Maggs,
I only wish that there was always a bright line between right and wrong.
Regrettably, it isn’t always that way. We can debate it forever but just for starters the mere fact that what is right or wrong is usually determined with reference to some underlying assumption of personal values means that two people looking at the very same set of facts may come to very different conclusions about the moral rights and wrongs of the matter being examined.
Dworky, telos, dolos, what’s the difference?
Shock! Horror!
Does this mean I have got through to Maggs? Does this mean the ‘othering’ is going to stop?
“It’s easy enough to be a warmonger when the victims of the human tragedy happens to be the kith and kin of other people.”
Brett Nortje says:
June 3, 2010 at 11:18 am
“Does this mean I have got through to Maggs?”
Hey Goofy,
What???
I won’t suggest that you have lost your sanity – that would presuppose that you had some to start with!
And it seems that Dworky caught something from you – he was such good lad until he started associating with you!
Peter John says:
June 3, 2010 at 10:28 am
When people die or get seriously injured because adults cannot sort out their differences, it’s wrong.
When “responsible” adults do today that which will cause mayhem in the future, that is wrong.
When people abuse others just because they can, that’s wrong.
People are getting killed, injured and/or traumatised because those who lead across the various divides are just too arrogant to behave as human beings ought to – there’s nothing gray about that, it’s wrong.
Confession: Sadly, I am one of those white South Africans who didn’t possess “… even an iota of scepticism and (or) common sense”. I could have made a difference, but didn’t. I accept the burden of shame at my inevitable complicity in apartheid’s misdeeds as a lifelong sentence.
Observation 1: Unless peace-loving Israelis hastily draw an end to their country’s myopic military commanders, the clear and sound warnings of Judge Goldstone will apply.
Observation 2: Unless peace-loving Palestinians reign in the rocket-launching extremists, the clear and sound warnings of Judge Goldstone will apply.
@Frank Shearar- Thank you, an invaluable reference!
Oh well, Pierre – you got half of your request.
“South Africa will recall its ambassador to Israel following a deadly attack on a vessel attempting to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza, Deputy International Relations Minister Ebrahim Ebrahim said on Thursday.”
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=nw20100603133428263C635326
Yes, this is good news indeed.
Coincidentally, I just heard a rumour that we will likewise withdraw our ambassador from Washington next time one of President Obama’s missiles incinerates ten or more Pakistani civilians at once!
I applaud this. We must never create the impression that we are more tolerant of the crimes of big countries that are important trading partners than of the crimes of smaller states.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
June 3, 2010 at 16:53 pm
Ohhhhhhh!
Now Dworky is really cheesed off.
I wonder why?
Repent! The Apocalypse is nigh .
” One purpose of suicide attacks is to terrify the prospective victims. But there is a larger purpose, and that is to horrify the world. That is the Achilles’ heel of the West. Israel lives in the cross-hairs of Islamist terrorism, but even the advisors of Prime Minister Netanyahu do not understand the Islamist strategy. If they did, a handful of lightly armed commandos never would have been sent to help the prospective martyrs of the Mavi Marmara accomplish their mission.”
” The grand vulnerability of the Western mind is horror. The Nazis understood this and pursued a policy des Schreckens (to cause horror) and Entsetzens (terror, literally: dislodgement). Horror was not merely an instrument of war in the traditional sense, but a form of Wagnerian theater, or psychological warfare on the grand scale. Hitler’s tactical advantage lay in his capacity to be more horrible than his opponents could imagine. The most horrible thing of all is that he well might have succeeded if not for his own megalomaniac propensity to overreach. ”
“From America’s moral collapse in the face of the horror of Vietnam, there arose a repudiation of classical Western culture unlike anything seen previously in the English-speaking world. The West nearly threw up its hands in the face of the challenge from the Soviet Union in the late 1970s.”
From the west I saw fly
the dragons of expectation,
and open the way of the fire-powerful;
they beat their wings,
so that everywhere it appeared to me
that earth and heaven burst.
-from a translation by Thomas Wright (1844) of the Poetic (or Elder) Edda
Not to give that foolish ironist MDF any credit, but I was wondering whether in your view SA’s ambassador in the U.S. should be withdrawn, if CIA missiles continue to kill Pakistani civilians.
Unless one can find a principled basis to distinguish between the US missile strikes and Israel’s attack on the flotilla, some cynics may assume the call for the breaking of ties with Israel could perhaps be a little unprincipled.
Oh, its hard to be a Pariah – especially when a new force besides the traditional East and West rears its head – Behold, Africa! The new political police force of the world! Its al right for Al Bashir of Sudan to commit crimes against humanity – Africa will solve it. The state itself must be allowed the chance to solve its own problems – and to hell with the International Criminal Court. (See also Zimbabwe, Uganda, etc, etc.) But when a war, much older than any of the conflicts in Africa is fought, and someone is suspected of having transgressed the rules of peace, then it is a matter for strong diplomacy and action to have the Pariah state repent and retreat. Double standards? I think so.
Anonymouse says:
June 4, 2010 at 15:42 pm
Hey Mouse,
Re : Its al right for Al Bashir of Sudan to commit crimes against humanity – Africa will solve it.
It may be that you missed this :
“Sudan’s recently re-elected President Omar al-Bashir faces arrest if he visits SA for the World Cup after President Jacob Zuma ’s pledge yesterday to abide by international law.”
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=110241
Maggs is right — I cannot understand how Mousie could have missed that.
I have just heard that that SA is also withdrawing its ambassador from Khartoum.
Apparently, President Zuma wants it to be understood that we have a consistent, principled foreign policy — that African countries (and, indeed, the U.S.), also stand to lose their SA envoys if they violate the fundamental principles of International Law!
(I also hear that Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Iceland and Canada run no risk at all of SA suspending diplomatic relations.)
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
June 4, 2010 at 17:11 pm
Ohhh!
Still cheesed off, eh Dworky.
I wonder why?
p.s. Breathing into and from a brown paper bag for several minutes will help.
Maggs, thanks for the brown bag advice. It helps — up to a point!
But what do you say of the unconfirmed reports that SA is cutting ties with Thailand, over the massacres in Bangkok?
I must say I am more than happy. We can save a lot of money by limiting our diplomatic engagement to those relatively few countries that do not regularly violate international law!
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
June 4, 2010 at 17:43 pm
Bad idea!
If a former leader and several members of an opposition party are part of the recall there will be “blood on the streets”.
Is saving a few bucks really worth that???
But Dwork,
I agree that the whole crappy issue of international relations across the planet is rather hypocritical.
The massaging of “genocide” to “ethnic cleansing” e.g. is unconscionable, assuming that such a thing as conscience exists
Maggs, noting your observation that international relations are often hypocritical, what do you say about SA not recalling ambassadors to Washington and Beijing?
Is this a manifestation of the hypocrisy to which you refer? Are we to conclude that countries that are especially powerful, and with whom we do a lot of trade, cannot be subject to this form of censure?
The whole exercise of withdrawing the envoy from Israel is supposed to have the character of a moral statement. This is badly subverted if one must concede at the end of the day that a cloud of hypocrisy hangs over the whole enterprise.
Michael Osborne says:
June 4, 2010 at 18:37 pm
If it was not inferred perhaps it ought to be cleared up – I think recalling our Ambassador to Israel was the right thing to do.
USA, Beijing – who’s afraid of the big, bad wolf? We are of course and we ought to be.
OK, Maggs, I take it that your position is that recalling the envoy to Israel was both:
(a) The right thing to do; and
(b) Hypocritical — in the sense that we do not withdraw envoys from more powerful countries which are guilty of similar or arguably worse violations.
Somehow I do not think that Pierre, who is often very high-minded about such matters, will be comfortable with this formulation.
Which of South Africa’s interests are affected by Israel’s state terrorisms? Vital interests? Of course not. This country will hardly fall because of Israel’s unlawful actions. Peripheral interests? Not likely – Israel is a persistent destabilizor and the ripple effects are constantly felt across the world. Not least the added security challenges to our show-piece, now escalated exponentially since this happened 2 weeks before kick-off. Recalling ambassadors is largely symbolic and usually counter-productive since it closes channels of communication when communication should be enhanced, particularly if that country is to be influenced by moral suasion. Kicking out their ambassador is perhaps a better option until they kick ours out in a game of tit-for-tat.
A better option might be to try to build a meaningful coalition to freeze Israel’s assets abroad. Any other concerted effort at trying to hold Israel accountable is likely to be vetoed by the US. Unless it is the US freezing Israel’s assets (which is about as likely as snow on Christmas) a single state pulling that stunt is going to be laughed off…. 10 or 15 trading partners…. That might make bibi more likely to deal.
But then, hell, we can not even take care of business in our own back yard when our vital interests are affected. Putting a coalition together to freeze Israel’s assets????
Michael Osborne says:
June 4, 2010 at 20:48 pm
I don’t think that life is fair, it cannot be fair and it is not intended to be so.
Of course Pierre may have different views to mine but then there will probably be as many variations as there are people.
When I look at the pictures in the link below I am in awe of human beings and human achievement – but I do wonder whether these blips in normality are a detraction to our greatness or a necessary component.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8041583.stm
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=115389
@ Brett
Immorality and lies are with US, they not only live amongst politicians.
Hey Dworky,
Check this out (And don’t shoot me – I’m only the messenger)
“Conviction for ‘rape by deception’ has ruined my life
In his verdict, Judge Zvi Segal conceded that it was not “a classical rape by force”. He added: “If she hadn’t thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have cooperated. The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price — the sanctity of their bodies and souls.”
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-07-25-conviction-for-rape-by-deception-has-ruined-my-life
stuff you won’t easily find on fox news (or etv)
“How to Kill Goyim and Influence People: Israeli Rabbis Defend Book’s Shocking Religious Defense of Killing Non-Jews”
fascinating reading on the rabid rabbis (as opposed to the “mad mullahs”):
http://www.alternet.org/world/148016/how_to_kill_goyim_and_influence_people:_israeli_rabbis_defend_book%27s_shocking_religious_defense_of_killing_non-jews_%28with_video%29?page=entire