Putting the Cart Before the Horse

There is a growing trend among Jews around the world, particularly within the younger generation, to feel some sort of lack of comfort and embarrassment about Israel's policy towards the Palestinians, and even towards Arab Israelis in general.  Their feeling stems from a view that Israel is responsible for human rights violations against the Palestinians, and they have not been shy to air their protest.  The recent "taking a knee" action by students at Herzliya School in Cape Town, South Africa, during the singing of Hatikva, is just the latest in a long line of incidents where Jewish youth have felt the need to to express the freedom of their choice to openly criticise Israel.  Other incidents have included the Palestinian flag being flown at a Jewish youth camp and the wearing of a "keffiya" Palestinian scarf to make a public protest.  Statistics show that Jewish youth in the US are feeling less connected with Israel than before, and that this disconnection is growing.  I find this a sad and unfortunate phenomenon, and have tried to understand the causes of it.

When the idea of the creation of the Jewish state was discussed and voted upon at the UN back in 1947, there was surprise in certain camps that the UN passed the resolution that effectively created Israel.  While there was clearly political motivation in the votes of some countries and financial motivation that drove others, there was almost certainly a sympathy factor that came into consideration.  In the wake of the Shoah that saw the annihilation of 6 million Jews, the Jewish people at that time were considered helpless victims.  Victims always seem to garner sympathy, no matter how it is that they became victims.  So the Jews were viewed as the victims, and the world did show some short-lived sympathy at that time.  Moreover, the world Jewish community was highly supportive of the Jews living in Israel.  Not only did Jews around the world give their unwavering support to Israel, Israel also allowed Jews around the world to feel a little more pride in being Jewish.

Israel and the Jews living in Israel were determined to shake off their label as victims as soon as possible.  The idea of being supported because of sympathy, rather being respected as equals, never sat comfortably with the Jewish culture.  Instead of waiting for Arabs and anti-Semites to attack and then being forced to respond, there was a determination to build a nation of proud people who were not simply going to wait for the enemy to attack and risk further annihilation.  Instead of a band of amateurs who relied upon the sympathy of others, Israel has built a professional army and built the country into one of the strongest and most respected.  No more victims, no more sympathy votes.  Now, a powerful army and a powerful country that could take on and beat the strongest.  And with it, we have managed to escape the label of victims.  We never wished to garner sympathy as victims.  Instead, we wanted to plant fear in the hearts of those who dare to attack us.  We have finally succeeded in this quest.

Unfortunately, the world seems to view situations in binary terms where conflicts are concerned.  Either you are the victim, or you are the perpetrator and the bully.  So, as we managed to escape the label of downtrodden victim, we have increasingly been painted as the bully.  This is in spite of the situation remaining essentially unchanged in that the same Arabs and anti-Semites are still trying to wipe us out only because we are Jews.  The fact that there would be no battle or conflict if they were prepared to live side-by-side in peace instead of trying to wipe us out, seems not to diminish our newly-acquired status as the bully.  And, even though our military activities are solely designed to protect us to allow our people live in peace, this seems not to help to present the situation in its truest light.  The real bullies are now considered to be the victims, even though they are the ones trying to drive the Jews into the sea.  And the real victims are now painted as bullies, even though their only wish is to live in peace and build a positive future for their children.

In order to offer maximum protection to Israelis and to secure the future of the Jewish state, Israel has been forced to be proactive in preventing terrorist activities being perpetrated.  Part of this involves sealing Gaza to prevent terror equipment from entering the area that presents a risk to the survival of Israel.  At the time that Israel withdrew from Gaza, the intention was to allow Gazans to get along with building a positive future for themselves.  Instead, Gaza has devoted its time to finding ways to destroy Israel.  The Israeli government cannot simply stand by and watch this happen, hence the "blockade" that has been imposed on Gaza.  Conveniently, the rhetoric has been twisted to reflect that Gaza justifiably launches attacks against Israel to protest against the blockade.  Apparently, according to a view accepted in international circles, launching hundreds of missiles randomly into populated areas is entirely justified by the need to break free from the "blockade".  The cart has truly been put before the horse.

Just as the world at large views the situation in a binary way, so our fellow Jews around the world are influenced to do the same.  Now, instead of Jews hanging their heads for fear of being singled out and attacked for being Jews, they choose to hang their heads in shame at Israel for being labelled as a bully and transgressor of human rights.  And they insist upon showing their shame in public places in order to be allowed to exercise their right to object to Israel and her policies.  The irony is that this shame is really imposed upon us by outsiders who view Israel as the transgressor, and has been absorbed by Jews who wish to fit in comfortably to their local environments,  Moreover, this view appears to have been adopted by many Jewish educational institutions around the world that have been blinded into accepting the contrary twisted rhetoric about Israel's position in the conflict.

I find it not only unfortunate that the story has been twisted to such a degree that the protagonists have switched roles, it hurts that diaspora Jews find it necessary to be so vocal and public in their criticism of Israel.  While I do not expect that all Jews should blindly support Israel under any circumstances, I do hope that they will express their criticism in a manner that is constructive and useful.  Just as in Israel where each person has more than one opinion on most subjects, I expect that diaspora Jews will also hold a variety of opinions of Israel, not all of them positive.  This is entirely within the realms of what is acceptable.  I don't accept, however, that "taking a knee" is constructive or useful.  And I don't believe that flying a Palestinian flag is constructive or useful.  Instead, it is important to promote the notion that Israel is fighting for its right to exist as a Jewish state, and to protect Jews around the world.  Support for Israel's tactics to survive, wherever it may come from, is welcome.

It may come as a great surprise to many to hear that most Israelis strongly support the idea of a creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.  And that most Israelis are very sensitive to the issue of acting humanely and the issue of human rights.  Most Israelis wish to see Palestinians living constructive lives with a great deal of hope for the future.  There is, however, a condition attached to the support for the Palestinians.  The condition is that the Palestinian state will promote peaceful co-existence with Israel, and allow Israel to survive as a Jewish state along the border of the Palestinian state.  Unfortunately, this condition has yet to be acknowledged and agreed upon.  In the absence of this acknowledgement, it is understood that the objective is to destroy Israel and the Jews.  Until this is agreed, Israel will continue to protect herself and the Jews.  Inevitably, the international community will conveniently use this to promote their criticism of Israel as a violator of human rights.  We should not be sucked into their point of view that is entirely without justification.

We cannot expect Israel's enemies and anti-Semites around the world to ensure that the rhetoric that they are promoting places the horse before the cart.  Their agenda means that this does not serve their purpose.  It would be welcome, however, if at least Jews around the world help to place the story in its correct order, without pandering to the views of those who wish to destroy us.

The Pendulum Swings

It is noticeable how the relationships between Jews and their host countries fluctuate over the years.  Who would believe that the Jewish community in Germany would be increasing in numbers today after all that happened in the Holocaust, or that Jews would return to live in Spain and Portugal after the inquisition?  The wave of anti-Semitism that is currently being seen in Europe and around the world comes as something of a surprise to those who thought that the world has become  more tolerant towards Jews.  The rate of assimilation of Jews around the world shows that Jews continue to wish to be less identifiable in their host countries, partially as a result of the threat that they feel by being identifiably Jewish.  It is also noticeable that the relationship between Diaspora Jews and Israel goes through its ups and downs.  Israel had the unwavering support of Diaspora Jews at the time of independence, and during the Six Day and Yom Kippur Wars.  In more recent times, however, Jews from around the world have been some of Israel's fiercest critics.

The swing of the pendulum has been particularly noticeable in South Africa in recent times.  The Jews of South Africa have traditionally been regarded as loyal South African citizens, while also being considered strong Zionists and supporters of Israel.  This community has not been without its fair share of contradictions and controversies over the years.  The community was split during the apartheid era between those who supported the struggle for democracy, and those who preferred to maintain a lower profile and show loyalty to the regime of the day.  The community has also, at times, shown contradictory behaviour towards Israel over the years.  Despite being regarded as one of the most Zionist communities in the world, it is also true that the majority of Jewish South Africans who decided to leave South Africa over the years, did not choose to make Israel their home.  The highly regarded South African Jewish education system and Zionist youth movements have recently produced graduates who seem more concerned about criticising Israel for the plight of innocent Palestinians, while choosing to ignore the role played by the Palestinian leadership in getting their innocent citizens to this situation, and also ignoring the constant attacks by the same "innocent" Palestinians that Israel is continuously forced to protect herself against.  None of this detracts from the support that the South African community has shown to Israel over the years.

Since the release of Nelson Mandela and the ascendence of the African National Congress (ANC) to government, the existence by Jews in South Africa has been like walking a tightrope.  It is well understood that the ANC is a great friend of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority, and not a supporter of Israel.  This goes back to the days of the struggle against apartheid, when the ANC and PLO were "brothers-in-arms" supporting each other in fighting their respective "struggles".  This close relationship has been reinforced over the past 21 years since the ANC has been in government.  And while the ANC has not quite come out in an open revolt against the Jews living under its regime, it has used every possible opportunity to come out in opposition to Israel, its policies and its actions.  Although this opposition is directed against Israel, it is understood as an attack on the local Jewish community by the community, and intended as such by those launching the attack.  This has, in effect, been a slow but sure sign to the Jews in South Africa that its government is pursuing a policy that will ultimately cause them to question where their true allegiance lies.  It has been noticeable how the South African Jewish leadership, with Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein at the helm, has done all in its power to transmit the communication to the government that Jews are loyal to South Africa and its government.  While being careful always to emphasize that they are proud Jews (and supporters of Israel in the most part), the Jewish community has sent a message of "South African first".  The message from the government in return, has been one of tolerance of the Jews rather than one of welcome with open arms.

There are signs that this uneasy status quo may be on the verge of changing.  A recent announcement by an ANC official that the government may seek to review the dual nationality law, could represent the tipping point.  The reason given for the possible review of this law, is the fact that a number of South African Jews have joined the ranks of the Israel Defense Force (IDF) as lone soldiers.  The thinking seems to be that, by revoking the right to dual citizenship, Jews will be forced to choose between being a South African, or enlisting with the IDF.  In effect, the community will need to choose between its allegiance to South Africa and its allegiance to Israel (along with their Jewish identity).  In order to put this into its correct perspective, it is worth noting that the latest information I have for lone soldiers serving in the IDF reflects that there are fewer than 50 South Africans in this number.   While it is true that there are others serving in the IDF who also carry South African citizenship (largely as a result of their parents originating from South Africa), it is clear that we are talking about a tiny number of people who are in reality being targeted by this new provision.  The real, and perhaps hidden, target is the Jewish community in South Africa as a group.  The fact that many thousands of non-Jews of all creeds and cultures may be affected by a review of the dual citizenship laws in South Africa, seems to be completely lost.  It seems as though the action directed against the Jews is more important than the widespread consequences to others.  It is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog.

The matter of South African nationals serving in the IDF has been a bone of contention for some time.  The South African government has previously threatened to arrest South Africans who have served in conflicts fought by the IDF, with the intention of extraditing them to The Hague to answer accusations of war crimes.  There has been much discussion about the fact that it is illegal for South Africans to serve in the IDF at all.  Former Minister of Home Affairs, and serving member of parliament and leader of the Inkatha Freedom Party, Prince Mangusuthu Buthelezi MP, helped to clarify this point.  In response to the announcement by the ANC of the possible review of dual citizenship, Buthelezi put out a statement during a visit that he was making to Israel.  He said that the law makes it illegal for South Africans to serve in the army of a foreign country, only if this country is at war with South Africa.  With the countries having formal diplomatic relations, including the exchange of ambassadors, there can be no possible interpretation that Israel and South Africa are at war.  As such, there is nothing illegal about South Africans serving in the IDF,

Chief Rabbi Goldstein's forceful response to the announcement of a possible review, recognises the change that this announcement represents for the Jews of South Africa.  While his video still reinforces his traditional message of the loyalty of the Jews to South Africa, he emphasizes the deep insult and hurt that the announcement of this review is causing to the Jews of South Africa.  He also makes abundantly clear the close link that the Jews in South Africa have to the State of Israel.  Rather than attempting to play down the dual loyalty that Jews in South Africa feel, both to their host country and to the Jewish homeland, he plays this up.  The purpose of him reinforcing the dual loyalty seems to issue a warning to the ANC and the South African government that the Jews may ultimately choose to prefer their links to Israel over their loyalty to South Africa, if pressed to make a selection.  The underlying message being sent seems to be for the ANC not to test this loyalty.  Despite all of this, the writing appears to be on the wall.

South Africa is commonly held up as a shining example of a country that has succeeded in achieving a peaceful revolution, to transform a discriminatory society into a democracy.  Much credit must be given to those on all sides of society for the creation of the "rainbow nation".  It seems, however, that despite 21 years having passed since this landmark transformation, the revolution is not yet over.  It seems as though affirmative action is giving way to more open discrimination against Whites, with Jews at the front of the line.  While a review of the dual nationality laws may require the Jews to make their choices about which side of the fence that they prefer to choose, it is also likely to require a similar choice for many other South African citizens with dual nationality.  Even though a government official has attempted to calm the stormy waters by stating that the government has no current intention to change the dual nationality laws, it gives clear indication of some of the thoughts circulating within the ruling party.

Historically, Jews have been forced to pander to their host countries, even in the wake of extreme discrimination, for fear that they would have nowhere else to go.  This is no longer the case, thanks to the existence of the State of Israel.  And while Diaspora Jews don't necessarily always agree with the Israeli government, and frequently publicly criticise its actions, Israel will always be there to accept Jews.  This gives the Jews in South Africa a power and a strength to make their choice, when called upon to do so.  There can be no doubt that the pendulum continues to swing.

Shana tova.

Sunday Times Shame

We, as South African Jews, are appalled and devastated by

Israel's assault on Gaza.

This was the headline to a half page advert taken out in the Sunday Times in South Africa on 10 August 2014.  The advert is signed by "500 Jewish South Africans for peace, democracy and human rights in Israel and Palestine", some of whom asked to remain anonymous out of concern that they or their families have faced or may face intimidation or marginalisation by members of our Jewish community.

I read the text of the advertisement carefully a few times.  There are certainly more than a few points that I could take issue with.  The text is worded in such a way to lead the reader to believe that the Israeli actions that are criticised by the signatories, were the first actions taken while the Palestinian actions were retaliatory.  The Palestinian casualties of Operation Protective Edge are mentioned as the headline, followed by Israeli casualties.  There is no context offered that demonstrates that reality of the Israeli attacks coming in retaliation to constant, indiscriminate rocket-fire towards Israeli civilians over a number of years.  Whose statistics show that 70% of the Palestinian casualties were civilians?  This needs to be questioned and verified before it can be used as a statistic to justify a petition of this nature.  Who could be foolish enough to suggest that Israel's actions are "disproportionate"?  Not only does Israel have the right to defend her civilians against the constant barrage of rockets that they have been forced to endure, Israel has the obligation to do so.  Even when discounting the more than 3,000 rockets fired towards Israel during Operation Protective Edge, there are statistics to show that the last 5 years have seen 4,500 missiles fired from Gaza towards Israel.  I wonder what "proportionate" response another sovereign government would deem appropriate under these circumstances.  It seems disproportionate to use this term against Israel, when it is clear that the same threat against another country would be taken care of in a much stronger manner in order to end the threat without a further consideration.

My main objection to this advert is not what is written in the text, or the fact that many of the signatories are not even Jewish despite holding themselves out to be.  My objection is the aggressive way in which it has been drafted, and the fact that it was found appropriate for these supposedly proud Jews to air their grievances against Israel in this public and critical manner.  I respect the fact that people have empathy for innocent civilians, and for suffering brought upon them through no fault of their own.  I even respect the rights of each Jew to have critical views of Israel, and for them to have the right to freely air their views.  My problem is that this advert goes a lot further than these rights to hold independent views, and to freedom of speech.

The signatories to this advert found the necessity to show non-Jewish South Africa that there is a split within the Jewish community, and to demonstrate the extent to which Jews in South Africa oppose Israel.  If they were trying to show their objections to their Jewish colleagues, there are surely different and less damaging ways of achieving this.  By taking out a large advert in a national newspaper read predominantly by non-Jews, I understand that their message of objection to Israel was directed towards a wider audience than simply the Jewish community.  Why is this?  Are they hoping that their business customers and colleagues will see that they are on the anti-Israel list, and therefore continue to give them business support?  Is it because they hope that they may not be shunned by their non-Jewish friends who may otherwise isolate them for supporting Israel?  Are they afraid that the politicians and influencers in the country may assume that they are Israel supporters, and that they may lose their influence and access as a result?  I fail to understand the need to go out and have your name attached to a public statement of this nature.

Anti-Semitism around the world has been fanned by Operation Protective Edge.  Countries around Europe are all reporting substantially increased levels of anti-Jewish (not necessarily anti-Israel) behaviour, and threats to the local Jewish communities are much greater than before.  Chants of "Hitler was right", are being heard and tolerated on streets and squares around the world, including in South Africa.  Jews in the diaspora are clearly under attack.  I don't believe that Operation Protective Edge has suddenly created new anti-Semites who, previously, loved Jews.  Instead, I believe that the environment of vitriol and hatred towards Israel fanned by the latest Gaza operation has made it more acceptable for people to show their anti-Jewish sentiments in public.  Whereas swastikas were reviled and considered to be an attack on humanity over the course of many years following the Shoah, we see them openly advertised and tolerated in public as never before.

The public advertisement in the Sunday Times is a clear demonstration to our enemies of a split within the ranks of the Jewish community.  There may only be 500 signatories to the advert, and many of them may not even be Jewish.  It sends a message, however, of disunity and weakness within our community at a time that we need to be united against the evils of anti-Semitism.  And while this does not require us all to agree with each other on points of substance, and even not on points relating to the way in which Israel chooses to defend herself and her citizens, it does require us to stand together against those who would wish to see the end to all Jews.  And it also requires an appreciation and recognition that Israel, with all her strengths and weaknesses, is the ultimate power in protecting Jews against the forces of anti-Semitism.  There are many anti-Semites who hide their true colours behind anti-Zionism when being anti-Israel is regarded as acceptable, even by "some of my friends who are Jews".

On a visit that I made to the Holocaust Museum in Amsterdam a few years ago, I was flabbergasted to learn how the smart  Nazi machinery was able to manipulate some members of the Jewish community to promote a message within their communities that assisted the Nazis in their cause.  Reading the Sunday Times advert took me back to that moment in Amsterdam when this penny dropped in my mind.  I had the feeling that this advert by Jews in our community was working in a way to assist our enemies to promote their anti-Semitic rhetoric.  I am sure that they cannot believe how this has fallen into their laps.

Former Jewish Agency Chairman Zeev Bielski acknowledged Israel's bad points, and summed up the situation for Jews around the world perfectly in a statement that he once made by saying, "If there was another Jewish state, I would advise you to go there.  Israel is the only Jewish state and, therefore, that is where I recommend you should be".  We know that Israel has made many mistakes over the years, and has questions that require answers.  Israel is, however, unrelenting in the way that she fights for her survival, fights for the safety and security of her citizens and fights to protect the rights of Jews around the world.  It would be fitting for Jews around the world to show an element of loyalty to this cause by being selective in the way in which they air their grievances about Israel.  It is acceptable to be critical of Israel's actions, as long as you are sure that you have all your facts right.  It is acceptable to hold discussions and debates (apparently we have some of the country's best debaters on our team) within our community to make their complaints known, and to invite those who disagree to respond.  In my view, it is unacceptable to take out anti-Israel adverts in national newspapers, in a way that weakens the fabric and the security of the Jewish community.  For me, this crosses the line.

Open Letter to Josh Broomberg

The attached picture of Jewish South African high school students has outraged me and many others.   One student, Josh Broomberg, has issued a statement in defense of his actions.  Below is his statement, which is followed by my open letter to him in response to these events:

For those of you reading this, my name is Josh Broomberg. I am the currently the Deputy Head Boy of King David Victory Park and the Captain of the SA National Debating Team.

What follows is my statement regarding the recent controversy over my stand against the human rights abuses currently being perpetrated against the citizens of Gaza.

Firstly, I would like to apologise. It was not intended to create the uproar it has, it was not designed to offend or upset. Because this has occurred, I apologise. But what I will say is this:

I am proud to be a South African Jew, and I am proud to attend a Jewish Day School. I am also a Zionist. I believe in Israel’s right to exist, and her right to defend herself from the threat presented by those seeking to hurt her citizens. All citizens of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza have the absolute right to live in peace and security.

It was with this in mind that I, and my team, chose to take the stand we did. It was not about politics, or about states. It was about humanity. We stand with the thousands of civilians who have lost their lives in the conflict. We stand with a people who do not yet have a state to protect themselves. We stand with the innocents. We stand for two states. We do not stand against Israel. All of this applies to me personally as well.

While I apologise for the hurt we seem to have caused, I do not apologise for standing with Palestine on this issue. This is not because I do not believe in Israel or its people. I do believe in Israel, and I take this stand because I can love and suppoprt the state of Israel but still reject and criticize some of its actions. In fact, I consider it my duty to contribute to the growing worldwide discussion surrounding the desperate need for a quick end and lasting solution to this pernicious conflict.

In my eyes, this criticism is not a betrayal, but actually the only honest and true way to show my patriotism and commitment to Israel, as well as my belief in human rights and the entitlement of all citizens of all countries to those right. To improve, we must criticise.

I will note, explicitly, that our support and sympathy also lies with the innocent Israelis exposed to threat at the hands of terrorists. The conflict is a tragedy for all, and once again, all innocent life is equally valuable.

We took a stand for the thousands and for those without a voice but we do not for a second condone any violence what so ever. We stand for peace.

Most importantly, the issues are complex but we can never let go of the ability to talk and engage with the other side. if we lose this ability we lose our claim to be an enlightened community. We lose what it means to be human.

I am proud to bear the responsibility of continuing the discussion.

Josh Broomberg


Open letter to Josh Broomberg from Anthony Reich

Dear Josh,

I have been following the unfortunate events surrounding your appearance in public with a Palestinian scarf around your neck.  I have also read your statement following these events.  In my view, your statement serves to confuse your position rather than clarify it.  You have managed to get yourself into a very unfortunate set of circumstances.

How can you honestly state that you did not intend to create an uproar or to offend or upset?  How can you say that “it was not about politics, or about states”?  Your apology, based as it is on this absurd statement, is extremely difficult to accept.  What did you think could be interpreted from a boy posing as a representative of KDVP, with a Palestinian scarf draped around his neck?  If you are sincere about standing with humanity, you have numerous other ways to do so.  By choosing this particular “humanitarian” gesture, you are clearly making a statement which is highly charged and highly political.  Perhaps it would be more honest for you to acknowledge that taking a political stand of this nature was a big mistake on your part.

As a former South African living in Israel for the past 16 years, I believe that there are a few important points that you may wish to consider about the conflict between Israel and the Arabs who now call themselves Palestinians.   It may surprise you to learn that most Israelis have a great deal of sympathy for the innocent Palestinian civilians, who are probably the greatest victims of this conflict.  Despite this fact, you will not find them parading with Palestinian scarves around their necks.  Doing so demonstrates support for the political cause and for the Palestinian leadership, rather than for the humanitarian difficulties experienced by innocent civilians.  Support for the politicians and their cause is the position that you are clearly taking by your actions.  We pity the Palestinians because of the way in which their own leadership treats them.  Whereas the Israeli civilians under fire have a government and an army that make every effort to protect them wherever possible, the Palestinians do not.  Not only does their leadership not take any action to protect them at all,  their leadership actually uses them against Israel.  This is because they know that Israelis care more about the Palestinian children than they do.  They know that Israeli pilots will rather not release a bomb from their plane if they know that it risks injuring innocent people.  The fact that this decision could cost Israeli lives in the future due to the rocket launch site being used again to launch further missiles, does not enter into their immediate consideration.  Where is your protest against the lack of humanity shown by the Palestinian leaders against their own people?  Where is your acknowledgement of the IDF field hospital that has been set up on the Gaza border to treat Palestinians injured in the conflict?  Where is your protest against the fact that their leaders are preventing them from taking advantage of this treatment, but also not offering alternative methods of treatment?

Although we have infinite sympathy for the innocent civilians, we do not feel the same for their leadership.  These are individuals who feel no qualms about allowing their own children to be strapped with explosives in the name of being martyred.  If this is how they treat their own children, how can we expect them to respond to ours?  Whereas they rejoice in the fact that their children have been martyred for the cause, we grieve for each and every Jewish life lost.  Whereas they spend all their foreign aid on building an infrastructure to attack and destroy Israel, even if this means that their children go hungry, we spend our money on building bomb shelters and developing the Iron Dome so that our children will be safe and sound.  Whereas we think twice and three times before taking action that could hurt their innocent civilians, they throw their children in the path of our bombs to gain world sympathy and PR advantage.  And they fire their missiles aimlessly into the centres of Israel’s most densely populated civilian areas.  These are facts that have been proven on more than one occasion.  Whereas we are prepared to take a risk in order to allow them the opportunity to prove that they are sincere about the “two states for two peoples” concept, they use every opportunity to destroy us so that they can have all the land, Jew-free, for themselves.

Please do not be fooled into believing that this is about the “occupation”.  This is about the future existence of a Jewish homeland.  The words in the charter of the PLO and in the Hamas charter, stating that their objective is to completely destroy the State of Israel seem blatant enough.  If they are not, the events in Gaza over the past 9 years should be clear enough for those who are interested to listen.  We all know that the Palestinians only arose and claimed the West Bank and Gaza as a Palestinian homeland after Israel captured these territories in the Six Day War of 1967.  Until Israel had possession of this land, there was never a reason for them to lay claim to it.  When the Israeli government turned Gaza over to them on a silver platter in 2005, we all hoped that times had changed and that they would use the opportunity to build on the two states for two peoples.  Instead of grabbing the chance to really build a state and a future for their people, they have spent millions of dollars and 9 years to build an infrastructure that is designed to attack and destroy Israel.

In wars and conflicts, you cannot support both sides.  You cannot bat for both teams.  At best, you can be a disinterested, objective bystander that takes neither one side nor the other.  More likely, you will take the side of one of the parties in the conflict.  When taking a stand, you are by definition in opposition to the second party to the conflict.  Despite your nice words about believing in Israel’s right to exist and her right to defend herself, you chose to don a Palestinian scarf at a time of war in Gaza.  You cannot sympathise with Israel, and appear with a Palestinian scarf around your neck at the same time.  Your actions speak much louder than your words.  When it came to making a public statement, you chose the Palestinians at the expense of Israel.  Why do you feel that it is acceptable to say that your “sympathy also lies with innocent Israelis exposed to threat at the hands of terrorists”?  Why does your sympathy not lie primarily with innocent Israelis, who have taken the risk time after time to search for the elusive path to peace in our land?  After all, these are your people.  These are the people who will look after you in the event that you may, G-d forbid, find yourself in serious trouble.  When you turn up at Ben-Gurion airport with your parents’ ketuba in your hand asking for citizenship of the Jewish homeland, they will not remember that you appeared in public with a Palestinian scarf.  You will be welcomed home to your ancestral homeland like all other Jews.  The Palestinians, for whom you stood up so brazenly in public, will also conveniently forget your scarf when they are searching for Jews to annihilate in the search for their version of the “final solution”.  Remember that, like you, the vast majority of Israelis seek peace and not war.  Unfortunately, this is a war that we are forced to fight, rather than doing so by choice.  Even when forced into something against our will, our new type of Jew does not shy away from this challenge.  We are brave and willing to do all that is needed to protect ourselves.  We are determined to succeed.  Your actions insult thousands of young men and women of the IDF (including my own sons) who go out of their way to fight a war in the most humane and humanitarian way possible, and whose actions give you the freedom to be a Jew representing your country in debating competitions in safety around the world.

You are most fortunate to have been born into a world that has a Jewish homeland.  I feel sure that your grandparents and great-grandparents would have wished to do all that they can to make you understand what it was like to live in world without one.  This privilege that you have, is also the one that allows you to live in relative safety and security as a Jew in your bubble in Victory Park.  It allows you to have a comfortable life in the knowledge that you have somewhere to fall back to in the event of any emergency.  Beware of taking this for granted.  Anti-Semitism is ever prevalent around the world.  The only force that prevents anti-Semites from destroying the Jews as they tried to do during the Shoah, is the State of Israel.  My recommendation to you is to appreciate, value and protect this huge asset.  Be grateful to those who are prepared to risk and to give their lives in the interests of ensuring that our Jewish homeland continues to exist, and continues to strengthen.  Do not be misled and misguided by those in the international press who confuse you into protecting our enemies at the expense of our Jewish state.  Her actions are not always perfect, and there is a great deal that you can criticise.  But nobody is perfect and no country is perfect.  If you search for faults, you will surely find them.  But be grateful and proud for the wonderful things that have been achieved, and for the way in which Israel gives all Jews around the world the backing to live as proud Jews wherever they are.  Israel will always protect you, and will give you much to be proud about.

Try to envisage for a moment what would happen if Israel unilaterally laid down its arms today, and refused to fire another bullet or missile.  Now try to envisage what would happen if the Palestinians did the same thing.  Which situation do you think is most likely to lead to peaceful coexistence between the parties?

I cannot hide the shame and anger that I felt in seeing you grab your five minutes of fame with that scarf around your neck.  You have shamed yourself, your family, your school and your community in my eyes, and in the eyes of many others.  You have misused your position in an unforgivable way.  I hope that, one day, you will have the huge honour to experience life as Jew in Israel, and will be able to understand the error of your ways.  Only when living here can you really understand the significance of what you have done.  I never wish you to lose your sympathy and support for the weak.  This is a characteristic that Jews have, and should be proud of.  But this should not be confused with the insult that you have dished out to Israel and her people by your actions at this time.  Shame on you.

Regards
Anthony Reich

South Africa Turning the Screws on Israel

South Africa's relationship with Israel has been a tenuous one to say the least, since the birth of the "new South Africa" and the ascent of the ANC to government in 1994.  This is hardly surprising, when considering the relationship between Israel and the ANC prior to 1994.  The military links beween Israel and the apartheid Nationalist government in South Africa did nothing to help the ANC feel positive towards Israel.  In their years in exile during the apartheid years, the ANC found a great deal of common ground with Yasser Arafat's PLO.  The two organisations cooperated and supported each other substantially during this period.  These links have not been broken since the ANC has come to power and the Palestinian Authority has been established.  All of this means that the relations between an ANC-led South African government and Israel will be cordial at best, and are unlikely ever to be warm or friendly.

The involvement of a number of South African Jews in the ANC's "struggle" never really helped to endear the organisation towards the Jewish community.  The fact that many of these Jews were and are virulently anti-Israeli has helped to engender a general feeling of contempt by the ANC organisation towards Israel.  The only saving grace in the ANC- Israel relationship has been the influence of Jews in big business in South Africa.  The Jewish community in South Africa, including the big names in the economy, have generally been strong Zionists.  The ANC has been smart enough to realise this, and has been forced to tread a careful path in displaying its contempt for Israel for fear of alienating these individuals and businesses, and the economic clout that they come with.  As Black Empowerment has worked to reduce this influence in favour of the new class of blacks who are seizing control of the economy for themselves, so the ANC has been allowed the freedom to turn the screws more tightly on Israel in the knowledge that this will not necessarily have the same economic consequences as it may have had previously.

Even though the ANC government's formal policy towards Israel appears unchanged, its actions display clearly that its position is tightening.  In the first instance, the SA government continues to support Iran at every opportunity.  This is despite the fact that Iranian leader Ahmadinejad has called for the destruction of the State of Israel at every possible opportunity, and the development of Iran's nuclear capability is clearly aimed at creating a threat against Israel.  While many countries have unfortunately chosen not to take a position against Iran, they are at least thoughtful enough not to support Iran.  The fact that the South African government has come out in support of Iran places it in a different category as far as I am concerned.  Former US President George Bush said "you are either with us, or you are against us".  Where Iran is concerned, South Africa is clearly against Israel.

The unfortunate episode of the labelling of goods from West Bank settlements, and the fact that South African government has decided that these goods should be differently labelled certainly sets South Africa aside from the rest of the world.  South Africa is the only country that has taken this outrageous step, and this is a sign of grave hostility.  The areas of Judea and Samaria were captured in a war, in a similar way to many other areas around the world.  The war was not one of aggression by Israel, but rather a defensive move to ensure that enemies of the type of Iran's Ahmadinejad did not succeed in their quest to wipe Israel off the map.  All fair and square, and in accordance with international law.  Is the South African government objecting to the fact that Israel has decided not to hand this area on a golden platter to those who would use it to attack Israel?  Does the South African government believe that those who are living in the settlements and producing the goods that are separately labelled, are not Israelis?  This is a step that is unprecedented, and entirely unwarranted.  Other than taking a hostile stance against Israel, this action is unlikely to have any impact on Israel or its economy.  The point seems to be a simple statement of hostility.

This action is supported by the ridiculous statement by a minister in the South African government, that South Africans should not visit Israel.  Although the statement made by Deputy Foreign Minister Ebrahim Ebrahim seems to be directly at odds with the formal policy of the government, nobody has responded to slap him down.  By implication, this suggests that the members of the government are not in disagreement with his statement.  An attempt by Mr Ebrahim to promote his own anti-Semitic agenda has served to expose the entire South African government as sympathisers-in-kind.

While the Israeli government has made some strong statements in response to the anti-Israel vitriol coming out of South Africa, accusing the South African government of implementing a form of boycott against Israel, the Israeli government is unlikely to take stronger action against South Africa.  This is because of the sizable Jewish community that remains firmly ensconced in South Africa.  Whereas the Israeli government may, under different circumstances, have taken firmer diplomatic action in response to such provocation on the part of any government, the South African government will be allowed to escape with less than what it deserves.  The Israeli government would prefer this scenario rather than putting the South African Jewish community at any risk.  The truth is that the current situation serves to place the community under increased threat by virtue of the clear anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiments coming out of the national government.  This should surely serve as a wake-up sign to the community that the situation is changing for the worse.

As the influence of the white and the Jewish community is weakened in the South African economy, the government will have view itself as having greater flexibility to operate against Jews and against Israel in the future.  It is difficult for me to see that the influence of the evangelical Christians in South Africa, who are important supporters both of the ANC and of Israel, will sufficiently sway the government such that it will take a less negative view of Israel.

In reality, there was never an expectation that the ANC government would be great supporters of the Jewish community and of Israel.  They were happy to act out the charade while it was in the best interests of the local economy.  Now that the economic interests are not the same as  they once were, the charade is likely to be abandoned with it.  While I would be happy to proved wrong on this point, it seems to me that the situation can only get worse and not better.

Twenty Years Since Mandela's Release

I was following the recent events in South Africa to mark 20 years since Nelson Mandela was released from Victor Verster prison on that fateful day in February1990. For South Africa, there can be no doubt that this day will go down in history as one of the most significant, if not THE most significant, in its history. I have the feeling that I have grown up with the young multi-racial South Africa, albeit from a slight distance.

The 20 year celebration brought a ton of personal memories flooding back for me. I remember so clearly the day that President FW De Klerk announced that he was unbanning the ANC, and that he would be releasing Mandela from prison. Rumours had circulated all day about the importance of the announcement that De Klerk would be making on TV that evening. When the announcement came, few South Africans could have been prepared for the enormity of its contents. It seemed to me to be a sudden change of direction from the policies that had been pursued in the preceding years. There was no gradual build-up to the dramatic political change. In current political terminology, it would be called a "turn-around" of the most extreme kind. I suppose I would have preferred it if there had been some warning about the events that were on the verge of unfolding in order to allow us to prepare ourselves for them.

Growing up in apartheid South Africa proved to be challenging for a Jewish kid in a small town. Even though it was clear that the apartheid system was not just or democratic, it is tough for people born into such a situation to differentiate. It was all that I knew and, by virtue of that fact, I grew to accept it as such. Despite this fact, I found my years at the University of Cape Town during the mid and late eighties to be quite tumultuous. Universities are inevitably highly politicised and liberal environments, and South African universities were a dramatic hotbed of anti-apartheid activity during the final years of apartheid. It is also true that the eighties proved to be particularly volatile years in the history of South Africa. My memories of politics on the university campus include a combination of undercover security agents spying on all activities, daily anti-government protests, lengthy detentions without trial and a general air of defiance and protest. Even though I was more focused on earning my degree, I could not avoid being affected by the general environment which prevailed on the campus and around the country. The security services seemed to have free reign to do almost as they pleased in depressing anti-government protest. Many protesters were arrested, detained for lengthy periods without trial and even killed by the forces in their attempts to do the impossible and quell the uprising. It was against this background that the sudden announcement of Mandela's release was received.

After giving a short period for the South African public to consume this huge change to the political landscape, a date was set for Mandela's release from prison. A massive welcoming gathering was arranged on Cape Town's Grand Parade. I remember sitting in my apartment on Sunday 11th February 1990 with our television tuned into the live feed from the prison showing the latest exciting developments. Through my lounge window, I could hear the noise of the expectant crowd awaiting Mandela's arrival at the Grand Parade. I decided that these events were too significant for me to be watching on my television, when I was only a stone's throw from live history in the making. The delay in Mandela's release from prison and arrival at the welcoming party allowed me sufficient time to get to the Parade to witness the unfolding events. It is a moment that will live with me forever.

Six months after these events, Janene and I left South Africa. This means that we have lived out of South Africa for almost as long as Mandela has been out of prison. The 20 years that have gone by have been as significant in our personal lives as they have been for South Africa. We have learned a great deal about survival, raising children and searching for our own identities. South Africa has similarly been through a "growing up" process by learning to cope with a new fully-democratic and multi-racial environment.

Hearing that 20 years have passed since these events brought me to a realisation as to how long ago I left South Africa. The truth is that, although I have found happiness and a real belonging living in the Jewish homeland, I can never get away from my South African roots. And I am not seeking to escape from them as they represent much about who I am as a person, and the values that I hold. The memories of my childhood days in rural South Africa are still very fresh in my mind, and feel like they occurred only yesterday. They will continue to be a very important part of me in my future as well.

Now that Mandela has all but completed his journey in helping to determine South Africa's future, it is clear that South Africa has a long path yet to tread. Even from my new homeland, I will continue to take a keen and active interest in all that happens in South Africa, and I will be willing her and her citizens every success in the future. Viva Africa.

Forced to Abandon the South African Connection?

Despite the fact that I have lived outside of South Africa for nearly half of my life, I have always retained a close affinity and connection with the land of my birth. This is not only because of my ongoing family connections with South Africa. I feel that South Africa has influenced many of the things that I still enjoy in life. I cannot escape my love for sport, sunshine, braais, boerewors and biltong all of which were cultivated in South Africa. For the first time since leaving Cape Town in 1990, however, I feel that I am being forced to reconsider my strong links to South Africa. Up until now, I have succeeded in balancing my South African roots with my allegiance towards my new home, the State of Israel and my Jewish heritage. Recent events are making this a great deal more difficult.

When the ANC government came into power in 1994, it was inevitable that there would be a clash between Israel and South Africa. The new South African government consisted of the former resistance fighters of the ANC. During its years of engaging in military opposition to the apartheid government, the ANC enjoyed support and close links with the PLO and other Palestinian factions. Even though the diplomatic relations between Israel and South Africa were retained by the ANC government, it was never likely that the relationship between the governments of the two countries would be close. Despite this fact, they did succeed in retaining relations in a way that made it relatively easy for former South Africans and Jews in South Africans to be in close contact.

Ironically, the events that are giving me difficulty in balancing my South African and Israeli/Jewish identities have been precipitated by Jews. First, it was Jewish ANC government minister Ronnie Kasrils who decided to put pen to paper in criticism of Israel's policies towards the Palestinians. His visit to Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh in 2007 was not helpful in promoting closer Israel - South Africa relations or in helping the position of the Jews in South Africa. The damage by Kasrils is, however, insignificant when compared to that done by Judge Richard Goldstone.

The publication of Goldstone's report into the Gaza war (Operation Cast Lead) has done immense damage to the status of Jews in South Africa, as well as that of former South Africans in Israel. Goldstone presented a report which was highly unbalanced and critical of Israel's actions, with only passing references to the significant efforts made by Israel to attempt to behave fairly and proportionately under very difficult circumstances. If this was not bad enough, he went even further by accusing Israel of committing war crimes. This is translated into accusing Israelis who fought in the war, of being war criminals. It has been suggested that Israelis should be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague on charges of war crimes arising from the Goldstone report.

The ICC was brought into existence by the Rome Treaty signed in 2002. Israel was not a signatory to this treaty, which means that the ICC does not have any jurisdiction in Israel or over Israelis. This is currently the only issue saving Israelis from possible prosecution. Even this safety net appears not to be 100% secure as evidenced by the recent threat to arrest certain senior army officers and politicians in the UK. South Africa is, however, a signatory to the Rome Treaty. Two organisations, the Palestinian Solidarity Alliance and Media Review Network approached South Africa's National Prosecution Authority (NPA) a few weeks ago with a list of some 75 South Africans who allegedly fought in Gaza. These organisations had previously initiated action against Lt. Col. David Benjamin who was on a visit to South Africa during August 2009. Their approach to the NPA is based on the fact that these names are South Africans who are contravening the South African law forbidding South African citizens to serve in foreign armies. It is also based on Goldstone's recommendation that those fighting for the IDF in Operation Cast Lead be sent to the ICC for prosecution. Because many former South Africans have retained their South African citizenship, it seems as though they may be at risk of prosecution either under South African law or by the ICC.

For ex-South Africans living in Israel, it seems that there may be an easy answer. If they have decided to make Israel their home, why not give up their South African nationality? This will ensure that they cannot be accused of serving in a foreign army and this may also help to avoid arrest on war crimes charges under the Rome Treaty. Even though some may find this to be emotionally difficult given the strength of connection that still exists between members of the South African community in Israel and their former homeland, there is a more significant issue which comes in the way.

A few years ago, message was sent around the community of South Africans in Israel advising that the South African government had issued an instruction forcing all former South Africans living abroad to use only a South African passport when travelling to South Africa. There is nothing that I have found in writing that confirms this regulation, but subsequent enquiries at the South African consulate in Tel Aviv confirmed this to be true. Besides the cost and inconvenience of maintaining an additional passport, our family and others like us have no issue in adapting to this regulation in the interests of staying on the right side of the South African authorities. With many family members remaining in South Africa, the likelihood that we would want to visit South Africa from time to time is high. Being on the good terms with the South African authorities is certainly our preferred approach.

With the new threat of possible prosecutions and arrests on war crimes charges in South Africa, a great dilemma arises for the South African community. Many of us or our children have served in the Israeli army, or will be doing so in the future. I am personally proud of the fact that my children will be serving the Jewish state and the Jewish people via their service in the IDF. For people like my children and their contemporaries, they are faced with the choice of risking arrest in South Africa or giving up their South African citizenship. Whilst the implications with the South African government of choosing the second option are not entirely clear to me, it has come to my attention that at least one former South African due to enlist with the IDF soon has been asked to give up her South African citizenship by the IDF. It seems as though the decision as to what to choose may be made automatically for those who will be joining the IDF in the future.

While I clearly oppose the accusation of any war crimes having been committed by the IDF in any of the operations that it has been involved in, I would welcome the possibility of continued good relations between South Africa and Israel. The fact that one South African Jew can cause so much damage and is able to destabilise a relationship that has existed for so long seems to me to be inconceivable. I hope that these unjustified actions will not force our community to abandon our South African connection.

Three South African Jews and the Gaza War

A side story arising from the Goldstone Report on the Gaza War has run in newspapers in certain parts of the world. The story surrounds the role played by Lt. Col. David Benjamin, an Israel Defence Force (IDF) reserve officer serving in the Military Advocate General's office during Operation Cast Lead. In these stories it is alleged that Benjamin committed war crimes in this role during the Gaza War.

I have known David Benjamin since we were at university together in Cape Town during the late 1980s. We were both leaders in different Zionist youth movements encouraging the Jewish children in South African to identify more strongly with their Judaism, and with Israel as the Jewish state. After completing his law degree in South Africa, he moved to live in Israel. Soon after making aliyah, Benjamin joined the IDF where he held many legal positions during the time of his service. He ultimately was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel when serving in the Military Advocate General's office as the head of the international law department. Although he had already resigned from the IDF prior to the outbreak of Operation Cast Lead, he is reported to have returned to his former position in the Military Advocate General's office during the Gaza War.

So why the focus on Benjamin? After all, he was not the Military Advocate General. Surely any accusations of war crimes directed against lawyers who advised field commanders as to what actions were allowable should be directed against the legal chief rather than somebody like Benjamin?

The twist is in the fact that Israel did not sign up to the 2002 Rome Treaty that brought the International Criminal Court into existence. As such, the ICC does not have jurisdiction to indict its citizens. South Africa, however, did sign up to the Rome Treaty. When Benjamin immigrated to Israel, he retained his South African citizenship whilst taking on Israeli citizenship. By virtue of the fact that he is still a citizen of South Africa, Benjamin falls under the jurisdiction of the ICC. It is claimed that the ICC in the Hague had been alerted to this fact by various pro-Palestinian groups and had begun an investigation into Benjamin's role in committing "war crimes". This was initiated following an interview that Benjamin conducted with Bloomberg.com. In this interview, he confirmed that the international law department was intimately involved in the planning of the Gaza War.

An opportunity to act further on this case presented itself when Benjamin travelled to South Africa after he was invited by the South African Jewish community to attend a conference on international law during war time. During his trip, South African prosecutors were asked to open an investigation that Benjamin had committed war crimes. In order to avoid any confrontation, Benjamin departed South Africa earlier than he had planned.

Whilst this opportunistic behaviour is no less than could be expected from those whose sole purpose in life is to damage and discredit Israel at every opportunity, some of the responses by members of the South African Jewish community were less than acceptable. In particular, the remarks issued by the director of the conference, Professor Dennis Davis, were shameful. Davis is a district court judge in South Africa and a lecturer in international law at the University of Cape Town. Davis is an outspoken and active member of the Jewish community in Cape Town and formerly had Benjamin as a student in his class when he was a law student. Davis spoke out against the comments made by Benjamin at the conference that Israel did not commit war crimes. Davis is quoted as saying that if Benjamin was still a student in his class, he would fail him!

It is not enough that a Jewish South African called Richard Goldstone is responsible for publishing a report into the Gaza War that does not attempt to reflect the extremes to which
Israel went in order to fight a war of necessity in a fair and moral way. His report accuses Israel of war crimes, and recommends the indictment of Israelis on these charges. We now have a Jewish South African judge in the form of Dennis Davis who adds insult to injury by going further than Goldstone in singling out an individual like Benjamin on such crimes.

Although both Goldstone and Davis are great legal minds, unfortunately their legal acumen is misguided in this case. There is no harm in holding Israel and the IDF responsible for its actions when these actions are independently contrary to accepted norms and standards. In the case of the Gaza War, however, the extremes to which the IDF went in order to protect the innocent civilians despite the despicable behaviour of Hamas in trying to exploit this fact, is deserving of commendation and not criticism. The time has come to speak out in favour of the wonderful job done by Benjamin and his colleagues. The time has also come to speak out against Goldstone, Davis and other self-hating Jews. I am ashamed to be a South African Jew when I am classed alongside such individuals.

It is my fear, with the increasing threat to Jews around the world and in South Africa, that the Jews living outside of Israel will be forced to turn more and more towards Israel to protect them and their Jewish heritage. Perhaps this is what is required for individuals like Goldstone and Davis to recognise the wonderful job done by Benjamin and other soldiers in the IDF to protect Jews and Jewish freedom around the world. It is a shame that certain Jews in the diaspora still cannot appreciate the value of the risks taken and sacrifices made in Israel to keep them safe wherever they are. Be assured that, in the unfortunate event of a Jewish emergency anywhere in the world, Israel will always take seriously its responsibility to protect and provide a safe haven for all Jews, even those who have turned their backs on Israel during a time of need.

Ostrich Syndrome

We all suffer from the "Ostrich Syndrome" from time to time. Most of you know what I am referring to. This is the moment that we all experience when it is easier to put your head deep into the sand instead of taking in what is happening around us. It is that moment when we prefer to maintain the status quo rather than be forced to act against things that are happening around us.

One of the most famous and tragic cases of Ostrich Syndrome was the behaviour of the German Jews during the period that led up to the holocaust. It seems that the financial and social advantages that the Jews of Germany were experiencing caused them to ignore the threat and rising strength of the Nazi Party. Those that did manage to overcome the difficulties associated with giving up on a very comfortable lifestyle and separation from their families were those that were ultimately best off. Unfortunately, most of those that behaved like ostriches did not survive the worst case of genocide to befall the human race.

I am reminded of this when I view some of the events taking place in South Africa today. After the tragic and appalling acts of the apartheid government, there were high hopes and expectations when Nelson Mandela and the ANC government were elected to power. These hopes, expectations and potential that were felt then have not materialised in any significant way. It is true that South Africa has experienced an extended period of economic growth, that a new and large Black middle class has arisen, that South Africa will be hosting the 2010 Football World Cup. So there are some good things to show from the past decade.

On the negative side, however, corruption has become endemic in all areas of local and national government and the country's infrastructure is straining under lack of investment and expansion. Most noticeable is the ongoing suffering by the large number of extremely poor people whose standard of living does not appear to have improved at all since the ANC government was elected. This has contributed to the most frightening aspect of society today - the lack of personal security and safety that has become part and parcel of life in South Africa.

Despite the fact that many people live behind barbed wire and electric fences, this does not seem to stem the brutal and indiscriminate attacks that they suffer in their homes. By going out, particularly at night, people take their lives into their hands due to the numerous muggings, car-jackings, rapes and murders that take place on a daily basis. This is surely not how life should be lived? For an outsider looking into South Africa, this is a very frightening way to live one's life.

The South African Whites seem to take this all in their stride as though this is a normal way to exist. This is particularly true of the Jewish community with whom I have most contact. They have taken all the necessary precautions to reinforce their homes and cars, to employ security companies to offer personal protection and know all the right moves when faced with an adverse situation. I get the impression at times that the continued preoccupation with relating one horror story after another about the misfortunes of others gives a common cause to rally around. It almost seems as though people gain a perverse pleasure from demonstrating their ability to survive in such a hostile environment against the odds.

I am the first to admit that there is no such thing as a country with only good things - no Garden of Eden in our world. When giving advice to people as to where would be best for them to settle down, I always suggest that they identify the things that are most important to them in their lives and a find a country that best accommodates these. As part of the package, it will be necessary to tolerate the less positive things that this country inevitably brings with it. In this context, South Africa has both good and bad elements to its package.

On the positive side, it is a country of enormous natural beauty and of huge opportunities. It also offers a lifestyle of great material wealth for the privileged classes, far beyond what equivalent people in other countries can enjoy. This frequently comes with large homes, fast cars, good food and domestic help in the home that is usually only available to royalty and the rich and famous elsewhere in the world. The negative aspects mentioned above, however, weigh heavily against the good things.

I do not underestimate the difficulty of moving from one country to another. The challenge of relocating to an area with a different culture and language is huge. Families with young children and the elderly find it even more difficult. I can personally vouch for this having moved country twice in the past 20 years. Despite this fact, many have demonstrated that, with sufficient will and belief in the reasons for doing so, it is possible to make such a move successful. What is more, it is preferable to make such a move in a planned and deliberate manner rather than being forced to do so during the course of an emergency.

It seems to me that many Jewish South Africans prefer the advantages of material wealth and social status over the the prospect of personal safety. To me, this is a strange choice to make, but everybody is entitled to decide what is best for them in their situation. The problem is that the next generation is being raised in fear of what may happen to them each day. They are also being raised to value material riches over personal safety.

I would like to believe that the decisions that people have made regarding their futures in South Africa have factored in all the alternatives. I hope that they have considered the positive aspects of living in South Africa, and have decided that this option is better than the advantages of living elsewhere.

Unfortunately, I cannot help feeling that Ostrich Syndrome plays a larger role than it should in shaping peoples’ decisions.