David Abel
Sifrin is quite right – the two-state solution is dead in the water and it’s time for the SAZF and SAJBD to acknowledge this realty.
The way forward for Jewish/Zionist institutions in the Diaspora is simply to follow the lead of the elected authorities in charge of the Jewish homeland’s affairs at any given time, whether or not that policy is compatible with their own government’s interests.
The Israel government always represents the majority (big or small) of the country’s electorate who decide the policies best suited to their interests within the circumstances of the day.
In a democratic society like Israel’s, governments come and go as circumstances dictate and who knows better than the Israelis themselves, who walk the walk daily, what is in their best interests.
Zionists/Jews in the Diaspora need to take their cue unequivocally and unapologetically from the Israel government of the day, explaining to others that Israel is a sovereign nation whose government is answerable only to its electorate, like any other democratic country.
Most importantly, that will take the burden off the shoulders of bodies like the SAZF and SAJBD in trying to explain Israel policy in terms acceptable to their host governments.
And, at the end of the day, relationships between countries are based on mutual interests – such as boosting each other’s socio-economic development – not on the basis of each other’s domestic affairs.
That is why, in spite of the negative rhetoric and posturing to the contrary, trade between South Africa and Israel is growing, why the sharing of military intelligence and defence matters, for example, between the US and Israel remain intact in spite of the animosity between Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu.
There therefore is no need for Jewish communities to fret when Israel and other countries disagree from time to time. That is the task of Israel’s embassies throughout the world to sort out diplomatically.
For instance, is the SA Muslim Judicial Council called upon to explain to the SA government why ISIS is beheading Christians and others in the Middle East? Of course not. Why then should the SAJBD and SAZF be subjected to that responsibility when Israel decides to do something the SA government might not like.
The task of Jewry worldwide is to give practical and demonstrable support to the only Jewish government of the day, irrespective of any difficulty involved. For that, ultimately (as history has shown) is what is in Jewry’s best interests.
National vice-chairman, Likud SA
Myron Robinson
May 21, 2015 at 10:51 am
‘David whilst you are very eloquent you are incorrect. Whilst the SAZF may be obliged to follow the Israeli Govt. of the day as individuals surely we have a right to disagree with Israeli Policy. Whilst I am as passionate supporter of Israel as you are I do not support Netanyahu as I believe that a lot of his policies are flawed. For example more than 60% of the West Bank can be given up without compromising Israel’s security. Even Netanyahu knows that but politically it would be suicide for him. Whether that will bring peace is probably doubtful but it is at least a starting point. Conversely if labour or the left wing came in I would not expect you as an individual to endorse their policies.’
Choni
May 22, 2015 at 8:59 am
‘Very well put David. I would add that for Mr. Sifrin, and Jewish leadership to suggest that certain Israeli policies might be harmful to the well-being of our Jewish community, is preposterous, demeaning, and insulting.’
nat cheiman
Jun 1, 2015 at 1:57 pm
‘Just imagine the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, leaving for Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Italy.
As migrants, they may achieve a good life over there.’
David Abel
Jun 3, 2015 at 7:54 pm
‘Myron, when Barak and Olmert were ready to give up 90% the Palestinians still did not come to the table. They simply cannot abide the idea of a Jewish state in their midst. I agree that individual Jews in the diaspora could disagree with the policies of an elected Israel Government, as long as they do not bring the Jewish homeland into disrepute or align themselves with the enemy narrative. That would be shooting themselves in the foot, and certainly not in their best interest.
‘