The Mail & Guardian surely has the right to decide for itself what position it wishes to take on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But its editorial (”Time to reject Sharon”) calling on all Jews to speak out against ”Sharon’s policy of mindless reprisal, and to press for peaceful solutions — beginning with formal Israeli recognition of the 1967 borders” is sinister and may even be read as a veiled threat.
I am not sure if this is the case or if the M&G has now become the guardian of our morals. It may even be well-intended, albeit misguided. What is obvious is that the editorial is loaded with questionable assumptions at odds with democratic decency; a facile analysis informed by an intellectual universe that harbours neither complexity nor humility: a simple equation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the struggle for liberation in South Africa.
Apartheid was indefensible; occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is almost indefensible. But it is in the embedded details — the ”almost” — wherein a deep moral conundrum resides. One cannot discuss the conflict — as the M&G does — without a historical context and sensitivity.
Sharon came to power as a product of the conflict. Violence and counter-violence have resulted in suffering and death on both sides. The Palestinian Authority (PA) has seemingly lost control, arguably aided and abetted by Israeli actions. Hamas — dedicated according to its own charter to the destruction of Israel — has gained support at the expense of the PA. Suicide bombings and counter-violence now define the neighbourhood.
It is foolish to presume omni- potence and lay blame on one side or the other. Arguments can be made either way. But one needs to question the wisdom of the M&G‘s simplistic judgement. It purports to have all the answers. More distasteful is its call on all Jews to challenge Sharon and to condemn the targeted killing of someone whom they agree has blood on his hands — at last count, more than 300 civilians.
The consequences of Sharon’s decision are at this point unclear and may well prove counterproductive. The morality of killing the sheikh is another matter. As a leader of a movement dedicated to the destruction of Israel — that is, a movement effectively at war with Israel — a case for Sharon’s actions does exist.
The M&G has every right to disagree and I personally have serious qualms. But to throw out a challenge to all Jews to share its views is breathtakingly arrogant and smacks of a medieval age when Jews were servi camerae, or serfs of the chamber. Such a call is unsuited to our democratic dispensation.
Jews are not answerable to the M&G; they are not guests in this country, responsible to and judged by the M&G. Debate is healthy; pontificating from on high and calling Jews into line is unacceptable.
South African Jews are South Africans. Many are fiercely loyal to Israel, others are highly critical and some wish that there were no Israel. I do not recall the M&G asking all Russians in South Africa to condemn the Putin government for its extra-judicial assassinations of Chechens, all Americans in South Africa to condemn George W Bush’s targeted killings and all Muslims in South Africa to condemn their co- religionists for what is being done in the Sudan by Muslims to Christians and animists, or what is being done in the name of al-Qaeda.
Were the bombings in Madrid also not ”mindless reprisals”?
South African Jews do not have a say in Israeli decision-making; their leverage through what you term ”financial and moral support” is nil.
Does the M&G want to round up Jews for misbehaving? I would have thought that in a democracy Jews are entitled to express a range of opinions, especially on issues as complex as those in the Middle East. And if our media is a yardstick, this is the case: from Ronnie Kasrils to the Chief Rabbi. That’s how it should be.
Jews do not need to be told in threatening tones what their position should be. Many feel equally outraged by the M&G‘s relative quiescence on suicide bombers, its lack of concern at the double standards of the United Nations and its equivocation with regard to Hamas. This is not to say they support Sharon, nor is it to say they don’t share with other South Africans a longing for peace and a two-state solution: Palestine alongside a secure Israel.
Identifying Jews as a collective and asking them to take a collective stand is ugly and tantamount to prejudice.
It smacks of ”collective punishment”; the association of the individual with the group. Can we anticipate the M&G asking Jews to leave the country if they fail to take what the M&G considers an appropriate collective position?
Jews alone are being singled out and challenged. This is anti-Semitic in effect, if not in intent.
Professor Milton Shain is director of the Kaplan Centre for Jewish Studies and Research at the University of Cape Town