Politicsweb's James Myburgh digs deep for a convoluted defense of Israel
People have drawn political and ideological lines over South Africa's genocide case against Israel at the ICJ in the Hague. Western countries, with the exception of Ireland and possibly Norway, the rightwing and Jews are against it while the global South, Russia and leftwing support it. Almost without exception there's hypocrisy on both sides.
Neither side has questioned the escalating tit-for-tat violence committed by Israel and Hamas. But as a fully recognised state and regional military and economic power, Israel bears greater responsibility for its actions. Its refusal to recognise a two-state solution, its occupation and settlement of the West Bank, Netanyahu's past facilitation of Hamas because it suited his political agenda and greed for power and disproportionate responses to Hamas attacks, which is causing far more Palestinian than Israeli deaths, indicates the scales are against Israel despite its right to defend itself.
The South African media, and others around the world, see the ICJ case as a moral victory for SA (see my recent post), ie for the ANC government. Foreigners are excused for not understanding the ANC's motives (Al Jazeera gave it a try though) but local commentators are not. They've quickly moved past criticism levelled against the ANC immediately before the ICJ case - corruption, mismanagement and incompetence - to now calling it SA's purported moral superiority and something Mandela would be proud over.
However, they too barely mention the event that led to the ICJ case: Hamas' atrocities on 7 October. Similarly, Israel's and the Jews' supporters don't mention Gazan lives lost - over 25 000 - and the humanitarian crisis as Israel conducts revenge on Hamas as it makes Gaza uninhabitable by indiscriminate bombing. The arguments from either side are binary and not objective, as were those presented to the ICJ judges by both sides on 11 and 12 January.
The latest to weigh in with comment is James Myburgh, publisher and editor of Politicsweb. Unlike most SA media, Politicsweb has posted articles for and against the Palestinian and SA case, or to put it another way, for and against Israel, although the latter predominate. Politicsweb is rightwing and so it stands to reason where its/Myburgh's sympathies (PW gives a platform to contributors who would not find opportunities in SA's mainstream media). But there's no reason why comment and analyses should be biased to one (or the other) side and misrepresents the facts.
In a piece dated January 24 titled "Hitlerism returns to the Hague (sic)" (Hitlerism, returns?), Myburgh writes about the "heinous old Nazi libel that lies at the heart of the SA gov[ernmen]t's genocide case against Israel". By this he means gross antisemitism and that, as Hitler and the Nazi's put it, Jews were allegedly responsible for everything wrong in the world.
Antisemitism has been thrown about a lot since SA announced the case late December. This and the other term used, including by Netanyahu, is "blood libel". It's ironic because it's the same put-down of alleged racism the ANC has successfully used to shut up (white) critics, which the rightwing and Myburgh have also criticised them for. But here's he using allegations of antisemitism, or racism against Jews, in defence of Israel and Jews.
Incidentally, Muslim/Arab and other foes of Israel deny they're antisemitic, an allegation Israel and its supporters regularly claim so much that it's lost its force. They say they're anti-Zionist. (Most Jews would not feel comfortable with Zionism.) There's no doubt, though, Netanyahu and the extreme right government coalition in power, among them senior cabinet members who said Gaza should be "nuked" and Gazans are "human animals", are not only Zionists but extreme, bigoted, racist ones.
Anyone who has seen pictures of what is happening in Gaza now, with over 25 000 dead, thousands displaced, famine and disease a reality and Gaza City a ruin, ought not to confuse justified condemnation of Israel with antisemitism. Even Israel's staunchest allies the US and West have pleaded with Netanyahu to minimise casualties - many calling for a ceasefire - which he's refused to do. With Russia's attack on Ukraine there's no similar confusion: people understand it's not the Russian people at fault but Putin and his clique.
To his credit, unlike other Israel defenders, Myburgh acknowledges the "terrible" situation in Gaza (he says only 21 000 were killed which makes me think the article was drafted weeks ago and he forgot to update it), but like them he's silent of any responsibility Israel in general and Netanyahu and cabinet members in particular should carry for the ongoing conflict, since October and before. He dismisses comments these made about Palestinians - human animals etc - as in the heat of the moment, ignoring the fact that because of who they are, the comments carried weight to the nation. Significantly, since IDF's attack, Israeli soldiers have been witnessed behaving dreadfully to Gazans, dead and alive. These are war crimes.
Yet Myburgh and the rightwing latch onto and are outraged about anything the ANC, EFF and leftwing say about whites and Afrikaners in particular, eg "kill the Boer". When Julius Malema and others say it's meaningless words, Myburgh et al condemn them for racial hatred and hate speech. But here he's defending (white) Israelis and Jews for saying worse about (black/brown Palestinians). The irony and hypocrisy! (James, don't complain about Malema's kill the Boer song again.)
Myburgh's Hitlerism piece is long, as his articles often are, but unfortunately, is less cogent for it. He gives the account of 1930s Nazis Julius Streicher and Otto Dietrich who were "leading inciters" of genocide against Jews and later prosecuted at Nuremberg. He then goes to the case before the ICJ, mentioning the death and destruction in Gaza. He disingenuously and incorrectly equates it to the Allied bombing of Germany during World War Two to minimise Israel's culpability. (A different war, a different time and different methods. US President Joe Biden said Israel should "not make our mistakes" like in Iraq and should conduct a focused campaign against Hamas. Incidentally, Hamas' senior leaders are not even in Gaza.)
The rest of Myburgh's piece is to parse SA's key legal point about Netanyahu urging the IDF "to remember Amalek" - IDF must smite (there's speculation about whom he actually meant: all Gazans or Hamas only but it's generally understood to mean all Gazans) men, women, children and animals. To seek justification for Netanyahu, and rebut SA's legal team's presentation at the ICJ, Myburgh examines the Old Testament, quoting passages from Deuteronomy, Exodus and Samuel. He also quotes from sermons 1940s rabbis gave on Amalek.
Israel's legal team too tried to walk back Netanyahu's words, and at the time of the hearing Netanyahu made another speech saying only Hamas are being attacked. But words, even in Hebrew, have meaning particularly when Netanyanu, a seasoned politician and demagogue, repeated them. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...
Myburgh's long article, with extracts from documents and Nazi newspapers, became even longer and practically unreadable when the next section was about "Hitler's prophecy" about the Jews. This section had little argumentative value except incendiary - to generate Jewish/Israeli and rightwing anger against SA's case and Israel's critics, of this conflict and its Palestinian policy in general. It was depressing and I did not read it.
Myburgh concludes with a section titled "racial defamation at the Hague". He reiterates key points he wrote at some length before. He writes that "allegations of atrocities and will-to-exterminate ...can be used for indescribably evil purposes".
Nowhere in his excessively long and self-indulgent essay does Myburgh even try to analyse the history of the region (Politicsweb' sometime contributor Mike Berger did a couple of days before but, as to be expected, could not find any fault with Israel) and Israel's and Netanyahu's own part in it. (Netanyahu refused to meet family of hostages and there have been protests about the way he and his government is handling it.) One cannot take Myburgh as anything but a biased apologist for Israel and Netanyahu, which is odd because politically Netanyahu is further right than he himself.
(On this point, I'm getting tired of another two political analysts, Greg Mills and Ray Hartley, who're constantly barraging the ANC re the ICJ case while remaining silent about Israel's actions in Gaza. They are very competent analysts so their silence is construed as blind support for Israel.)
Myburgh can be a good analyst when he sticks to SA politics. But he has this tendency to write about conspiracy theories and matters beyond his competence, here the Bible. Biblical scholar he's not. His convoluted exegesis in opportunistic support of Israel - a state he, like most of South Africans, have no close ties to - shows how far he and those like him are willing to go to defend the indefensible.
The ICJ ruling is today.
Comments
Post a Comment