• Advertise here

Blog Awards

  • Sablogpolitics

  • Sablogpolitics

  • Sablogrunnerupgroup

  • Sablogrunneruppost

  • JIB


« Rosh Hashanah Message from the President of South Africa | Main | Hamas: Kill more Jews! »

October 05, 2008


Religious Fundamentalist 1

Excellent tactics Doron! Repeat the lie often enough and people might believe it. I refer in particular to your attempt to claim that you've answered Joel's questions and then repeat the same bland statement that lead to his question - and ditto for the serious flaw in the Weisglass comment not to mention the dubious "logic" driving your assertion.

Thanks for the well researched facts. While I don't believe that a partisan organisation is per se inherently dishonest, nevertheless Btselem (in particular), Bimkom and ACRI have showed themselves to play fast and loose with facts when it comes to delegitimising Israel. It seems they define "truth" as being 'the statement that will aid their cause'.

Consequently, quoting them adds nothing at all to your position save that there exist other equally deluded people.


Doron, I have to also challenge your statistics.

The Palestinain Centre for Human Rights tells a vastly different tale - and claiming that most of the deaths occurred in the Gaza strip is a cop out. This surely cannot be repulsed by citing the number of beds in Israel.

Quoted from PCHR's 2007 annual report -

In 2007, violations of the right of life and attack on personal security seriously escalated in the OPT. In 2007, 500 Palestinians, including 47 women and 45 children, were killed and at least 2,220 others were wounded by Palestinians.

In the context of internal fighting between
the armed wings and security services of Fatah and
Hamas movements, which was characterized by grave
breaches of international humanitarian law, including
willful killing, 311 Palestinians were killed. The two
parties of the conflict perpetrated grave breaches of
the provisions of international law concerning internal
armed conflicts, including willful killing, extra-judicial
executions and firing at fighters after laying down their
weapons. Eyewitnesses talked about killing a number
of wounded persons inside hospitals; abduction and
torture; using houses and apartment buildings in the
fighting, endangering the lives of civilians; obstruction
of access of medical and civil defense crews to areas
of clashes.

Violations of the right of life in 2007 were not limited
to internal fighting, as 107 Palestinians, including 21
children and 11 women, were killed and 547 others
were wounded as a result of the misuse of weapons
by known and unknown armed groups, in the context
of the state of lawlessness plaguing the OPT.

In 2007, 18 Palestinians, including 3 children, were
killed and at least 160 others were wounded by Palestinian
security officers during processes of law enforcement
in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Excessive
force was used to disperse both peaceful and violent
demonstrations and gatherings, and during armed
clashes with Palestinian clans. Regrettably, no investigation
was conducted in such incidents and no legal
action was taken against shooters.

In 2007, 52 Palestinians, including
4 women and 4 children, were killed and 225 others,
including 31 children and 17 women, were wounded
in personal and clan disputed. In some cases, armed
groups supported clans in such disputes.

In 2007, 2 Palestinians were killed by Palestinian armed
groups in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip for alleged
collaboration with Israeli security services.

In 2007, 14 Palestinian women, including a 16-yearold
girl, were killed “to protect family honor.”

Other statistics from Israeli sources indicate over 600 deaths.

The same report says that 394 Palestinians were killed by the "IOF".

Why won't any South Africans inspect these abuses as part of their 'human rights missions"? You didnt, Dugard never did, Tutu never did. What gives?

Let's remember the old maxim that it is a fallacy to presume that the victims of oppression are always morally superior.


Reference for the above:


The SAAZD ( South African Anti Zionist Delegation) did not inspect these abuses because it was NOT a SAHRD ( South African Human Rights Delegation).

You write;
"Your other criticism is that we didn’t address Palestinian violations against Palestinians, and I accept that. Important, yes, but the idea that this omission means we somehow missed the boat is silly."

Is it silly? Or are the highly selective findings of your so called "human rights" delegation "silly"?

South Africa

Black Goth Lady Halloween Wig red and black straight hair wig with criss cross parting.


Would Doron Isaacs, Nathan Geffen, Andrew Feinstein and Dennis Davis be included amongst the Jews that Hamas Parliament Member Fathi Hammad believes should be killed? If they are, couldn't the non-Jewish members of The SAHRD immediately intervene to save them? I suggest that The SAHRD immediately goes to Gaza and ascertains whether the Jewish members of the delegation are at risk. If they are, Aziz Pahad should take the matter up with the Hamas govt.
Although, I do not agree with what Doron, Nathan etc are up to, it is completely unacceptable that they are now being threatened by Hamas.


I think Doron makes a very interesting point in the last paragraph that hopefully we will have a change to flesh out. As I understand it he does not believe that there are adequate incentives currently for the Israeli government to leave the territories and thus he is attempting through the tour to create more.
I disagree. I believe that the horrors of this conflict as experienced by Israel are enough for them to try everything to end it. There is nothing pleasant about the occupation for Israelis. No Israeli mother wants to send her child to police Palestinian towns or man check points. But the problem is that the costs of not staying in the territories as seen by the rockets from Gaza seem to most Israelis much higher than the costs of occupation. The trick is not to increase the cost of occupation but lower the perceived costs of withdrawal. The SAHRD would be much more successful if they worked on mechanism to ensure that Israel can safely withdraw from those territories.


Viewpoint - Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge
A million tiny ripples of hope+

"the tragedy of the Palestinian people whom Edward Said has so aptly described as the 'victims of the victims', who now have to endure dispossession because of the unspeakable crimes that some white people committed against other white people."
Black people are much nicer. Even "coloured people" like Eddie Said are nicer than whites. If you invite them round for breaking of the fast, you will realize that they are even nicer than your relatives.
(Btw.. this is hush-hush ...Mugabe isn't actually black. It's all done on photoshop. He's actually a white South African from Randburg.)

"We went to see what is not well reported".
Oh yes! Oh yes! A scoop.
If Jonny Steinberg goes to NewYork and writes another book about it, he could get a Pullitzer. Assuming he has US citizenship.

"I did not go there with solutions in mind or to make peace"
How silly! If she had gone there to make peace, everything might be ok now.

"As we sang Nkosi Sikelel' iAfrica together in front of the police station
outside the Tomb of the Patriarchs or the Ibrahimi Mosque, it brought back to me
how the world did not turn away from our struggle, and that we should not turn
away from the struggle for freedom, and justice, peace and security in
Nozi can rest assured that singing SA's anthem could have a ripple effect. A bit like the butterfly's wing.
Of course, if they were singing out of tune, it might not be quite so effective.
I hope that Dennis Davis was singing. His rabbi tells me that he has a lovely voice.



How exactly does the Weisglass interview imply that Gaza is not a valid example. Lets assume for a second that your warped extrapolation is valid and that Hamas thought that since we gave them Gaza in order to keep Judea and Samaria that gives them the right to build an army, an arsenal the size of a small country and to lob 10 000 rockets over the fence. How is this a legitimate justification on their part? Even if this assumption is true, how does this justify throwing bombs as kindergardens over the fence? The answer is it doesn't and no matter which way you twist it the facts remain these: They asked us to leave, we left, they bombed us. Absolutely nothing good has come from the withdrawl. We are now faced with a situation that in order to stop the firing of rockets into our home we will have to launch a massive military operation, one that will cost many Jewish lives. No whilst I cannot say that this does not worry you, you have never given any indication that it does, so I will just say that dead Jews upset me.

You have constantly sidestepped (as I would if I was you because it blows your argument out of the water) the following points.
1) The terrorist attacks existed before Israel conquered Judea and Samaria, so what idication is there that they will end if we leave.
2) The Arabs you call Palestinians formed an organization (the PLO) who's charter is was to destroy Israel 4 years before the 6 day war. When you say occupation you think of Judea and Samaria, when they say it they mean the whole of Israel.
3)Hamas has never claimed that the terrorism will end if we leave Judea and Samaria, so why would we leave, we have nothing to gain and everything to lose.
4) The so called Palestinians have shown no signs of compromise no willingness to live up to commitments made even at Oslo. I refer you to the film relentless. Whilst this is a clearly emotional film the facts quoted therein are undisputed. I warn you not to claim that this film is biased for 2 reasons. Firstly, should you make this claim you will need to explain how and where, and secondly your own resources are clearly biased with (especially in the case of Bestelem) a mission statement that is overlty onesided.

Doron, I clearly do not expect a reply, you have not answered any other of the questions posed to you and I expect to be treated no better than my fellow bloggers on this site. So let me just ask you to be honest with yourself and ask yourself one question. What is it exactly that you want Israel to do and how will Israel survive, or at least remain secure, under your solution.

Religious Fundamentalist 1

Mike, you make a very good point on the "cost/benefit" analysis. Since this is a discussion about "palestinian human rights" where palestinian means an arab in WB or Gaza and not palestinian passport holders (i.e. pre-1948), and specifically not Jews since aforesaid areas must be Judenrein, let's consider the "cost/benefit" analysis of Hamas and Fatah.

Clearly in their current estimation the benefits of their current strategy of internecine fighting and an all-out terrorist assualt on Israel coupled with large scale flanking manouvers in the media and the assistance of foreign "human-rights" dignitaries/mercenaries far out-weigh any suffering they feel they are undergoing.

Throw in a little dash of hope that they might be winning (due to Israel's retreats against the ropes) and a sprinkling of 70 virgins for eternity vs two eyes in a black caftain and it's a no brainer that the current strategy is "working".

The benefits being offered have been made clear time and again, with minor adjustments but the removal of Israel and all the Jews altogether is not something on the table, but is something perceived to be achievable.

It is thus obvious that Israel is not in a position to influence the benefit. Israel is however in a position to influence the cost. If the cost is high enough the "palestinians" will gladly fade back into the fog of history from which they invented themselves.

The question is thus only whether Israel is prepared to make the effort and pay the sum in terms of international condemnation and today's morally relativistic victim cutlure to make the palestinian cost a price not worth paying. If you're wondering whether Israel can afford this, ask yourself whether it can afford not to pay that price, or rather - if that price will not ultimately HAVE to be paid anyway.


You write:
"I support one tactic, moral pressure, focused on the Occupation, never the state’s existence. The Human Rights Delegation was an instance of this."

I will now ask you a very simple question. I am sure that you can understand the question. I doubt, however, whether you will have the good faith to answer it...

... " How does the "moral pressure' exerted by The SAHRD differ from the "moral pressure" exerted by Ronnie Kasrils?"


Sorry, I have to point out an irony.

if heaven forbid Doron would get his way, and the so-called Palestinians were given a state covering the entire they desire, then even he himself won't be allowed to visit places like the Kotel. Remember that pre-1967 Jews were not allowed to visit Jordanian controlled Jerusalem.

He is being used by the Arabs and they will make him feel safe for as long as they find him useful. If ever they feel he isn't he will be the first to be discarded.


Benny Morris has written a scathing review of Segev's book on 1967:

"But apart from the descriptions of various aspects of the war's aftermath, 1967 is one vast, tendentious historical misjudgment. Unfortunately, this has become one of Segev's calling cards... As for Tom Segev, his book points readers and scholars in no worthwhile direction. Its argument is not merely wrong; it also makes a small contribution of its own to the contemporary delegitimation of Israel." - Provocations, The New Republic

Morris replies to the false claim about the generals planning an attack on Jordan in the following interview:


Doron suffering from cognitive dissonance doesn't answer a single question posed to him by any of us, he doesn't even acknowledge a single point raised by any of us, but endlessly repeats his old lies as if they never were refuted. All this is about as predictable as the sun rising in the east this morning.


Thanks for that Youtube link TC. Do you have a good link to his review of Segev's book?



It is evident that Doron Isaacs is a champ at propaganda but a chimp at proper analysis.

One has to conclude that he lacks the intellectual capacity to engage in a debate.

However, his refusal to answer questions is clear evidence that he has lost the argument by default.


PLease note:

If you re-read the introduction to this debate you will note that we specified that Doron and Joel will each deal with some (probably 3 each) questions that we select from the comments as part of their final posts in this debate. I.e. after their debate that they are having with each other has completed.

For the moment they are debating each other. Whilst I encourage probing questions and criticisms directed at both Doron and Joel, I don't think we can expect them to start debates with each one of us in the comments whilst they are still debating each other.

They are, of course, entitled to engage in the comments, but we did specifically agree that it is not expected.

Again, their final entry(s) will reply to questions raised from the floor. Just like things would work were this a live debate.

Please, let's not resort to childish name-calling and let's focus squarely on the issues.


A lot of people, myself included, have been angered by the SAHRD's approach.


I am not expecting Doron to address all our questions, as it would obviously be far too time consuming, but he should have a go at as many as possible.

"Childish name calling" unfortunately emanates from The SAHRD's refusal to methodically answer the questions that have been posed.

Let us be very clear... The SAHRD has had open access to the main-stream SA media. People like myself, however, have been effectively excluded from the public debate. As a result, my critique has not been addressed.


Moreover, If Doron is too busy to personally answer the myriad of question that have been posed, why can't he ask one of his many supporters to get involved in the debate? I would imagine that 90%+ of the SA population, who have heard of The SAHRD, actually support The SAHRD.
At the moment, Doron is only receiving criticism on this blog. He needs somebody to effectively rebut the onslaught of hostile questions if he is unwilling/unable to do so himself.


I too have been denied a voice by all of SA's print media (including the Jewish Report hwere I'm luck to get two letters a year published, but which gave ample space to SAHRD propaganda).

My name is auto-deleted by that great paragon of fairness Drew Forrest, when I try write letters to the M&G which we well know prints every anti-Israel propaganda piece it get's its hands on.

Isn't it the height of chutzpah for someone like Doron Isaacs, who together with his Israel-hating friends, has the entire SA media at their diposal, to moan about the right of reply on this relatively unknown blog.

They simply cannot tolerate not dominating every single forum and news outlet,90% domination of the media is not enough for them.

Doron Isaacs has a dammn cheek to say he is in any way hard done by.
It is us Zionists who are denied a voice.



I wonder how eager Doron has been to engage in " Crossing Swords". My feeling is that The SAHRD considers the Supernatural forum to be of marginal importance. Let's face it, our readership is small.

As a result, I doubt whether Doron is concerned about what we have to say. If this debate was being published in full on the letters page of The M&G he would be more obliged to respond to the critique.
Unfortunately, on Supernatural, it is water off The SAHRDucks back.



I refer to your quoting Tom Segev on the history of the Six Day War.

No historian, including Tom Segev, has disputed the fact that King Hussein of Jordan received several pleas from the Israeli Government not to enter the war. These were ignored. Israel also undertook great diplomatic efforts to avoid the outbreak of war. ( These are detailed in Michael Oren’s book: Six Days of War). This is clear evidence that Israel made every effort to avert war and not to enter the West Bank. Simply put, had Jordan not entered the war, Israel would not have entered the West Bank. There would have been no “occupation”.

Tom Segev, in his book also refers to several meetings between November-January (1966-1967) of Israeli cabinet members, the IDF and Mossad where a decision was taken NOT to capture the West Bank! So in fact Israel PLANNED NOT to take the West Bank. Your argument (quoting Tom Segev) that the generals intended to conquer the West Bank anyway, is contradicted by Tom Segev himself! On the other hand, Michael Oren in his book, details the many Arab plans to destroy and annihilate Israel.

Tom Segev’s comment regarding the perceived existential threat to Israel prior to the war, was made with hindsight! He himself details the desperate preparations that Israeli society undertook in preparation for the war. Michael Oren in his book documents that 10,000 graves were dug and that sports fields were set aside by Rabbis as cemeteries. Dr. Oren also details the huge military threat of Israel’s Arab neighbours at the onset of the war. Israel’s continuous military preparedness is necessitated and determined by the existential threat posed by her neighbours. The fact that Israel was so decisively victorious was as much a surprise to Israel as it was to the rest of the world including the Arabs! The Israeli euphoria following the war, was as a consequence of enormous relief and surprise!

As an aside, you refer to new IDF archives which have recently been made public. Tom Segev and Michael Oren have both used these extensively. Unfortunately, Tom Segev makes no reference to Arab documents (the few that are available) and does not list any Arab references. To a large extent his book is anecdotal.

Dr. Oren on the other hand, list references of interviews with Egyptian, Jordanian, Syrian, Palestinian, Israeli and Russian military personnel. He also has an extensive reference list of articles, newspapers and books in Arabic. Dr. Oren’s book, in my opinion is a far more accurate and credible reference to the Six Day War.



Shmuel ben Dov

What is needed here is not trading point for point, who wrote what as if it were gospel. For example, Isaacs relies on Segev and if Segev wrote it, it is the whole truth and nothing but the whole truth. His selective use of statistics reminds me of the adage that statistics can be used as a drunkard uses a lamppost, not for enlightenment, but for support, and then he has been found wanting.

What really needs to be understood and disseminated is an analysis of what is driving him, Geffen and Davis and the others in the self-appointed “delegation”. What is behind their moral inversion?

I have watched Isaacs for a long time. The people he associates with, his history and actions in Habonim and his continued influence on his successors in that youth movement, the people he is impressed with and tries to emulate. I have even suspected that from more or less the time he invited Ronnie Kasrils to debate at the Habonim Machaneh, he has been a fifth columnist for this man and his wicked agenda, originally into Habonim and now into the South African Jewish Community. Under the facade of intellectual debate, the aim is to drive a wedge into the traditionally Zionist South African Jewish Community, caste doubt in their minds about what is happening in Israel and turn them against Israel. In addition the question has to be asked, is Ronnie Kasrils quietly behind all of this? How much of this strategy was decided on in a sub-committee at Polokwane last year? Is this a natural extension of Isaacs’ involvement at UCT in constructing a wall across Jameson Steps, is it two years ago, to protest Israel’s Security Fence?

I believe Isaacs has seen how people like Davis have furthered their careers and ambition by ingratiating themselves to the ANC and wishes to emulate this in his own career, all of this at the expense of Israel and the South African Jewish Community. A cheap and easy route to follow with great rewards possibly within the ANC/SACP, where I have reason to believe he is now a member of both parties. Honesty here from him would assist us all to see where he comes from.

What cleverness is it to involve all sorts of people in a “delegation” who have minimal knowledge about Israel and the Palestinians and are already loaded with bias? What wisdom is there in involving Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge and her husband and setting her bias firmly against Israel when she is destined to be a very powerful person in the next South African government? Is this even in the best interest of South Africa? Madlala-Routledge’s husband recently spent months in the West Bank area as a volunteer for the World Council of Churches, great “supporters” of Israel, monitoring Israel’s alleged transgressions involving Palestinians and the Security Barrier. Joel Pollack, in his excellent article in the Cape Times, has pointed out that the “delegation’s” conclusions were set up long before they left for Israel. The purpose of involving Madlala-Routledge is obvious, furthering his career with the ANC/SACP. Ronnie Kasrils will need a successor and Isaacs plans to be the man. A tame Jew in the court of the ANC/SACP, tame to his masters, but extremely aggressive towards Israel and his own people. Our history is replete with such people and he will be no exception.

This debate, the publicity it engendered in South Africa essentially is limited to South Africa. It has made no impact what so ever on or in Israel and has no relevance there at all. It contributes nothing to Israel. It does buy into the policy and approach of the ANC/SACP. What is driving him and what is the psychology behind it all? Ambition and self-interest.

Geffen has been a busy boy too, according to what Isaacs writes. How much of Geffen’s attitude towards Israel is driven by the fact that he is gay and has a Muslim boyfriend? It may not be politically correct to ask such a question, but too bad as it has relevance. Interesting that he cannot influence his partner in the opposite direction.

Davis, already referred to above, is a classic example of a self-serving ambitious little man. Many descriptive adjectives can be applied to him and they would all fit. He has a long record of doing whatever it takes to further his career. His debate with Mike Berger featured on this blog has clearly shown him up for what he is.

And in assessing all these individuals, let us not forget the obvious trait of malignant narcissism. As for the “delegation”, it is a front, a charade and a masquerade: a front for immoral politics, a charade of public presentation and a masquerade whereby two dozen people pretend to think, care and lead though they know their boat doesn’t float.

“This individual who, alas, came out of my tummy, is a liar, an impostor, a parasite and, especially, a little upstart ready to do anything for fortune and fame,” Ceccaldi, 83, writes in L’Innocente, an autobiography.


The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this Blog

Contact Us

  • Email_1

Events & Lectures

  • Advertise your event or lecture here

News Feed

Comments Disclaimer
