Israel’s 1967 Borders

Standard

“Israel’s 1967 Borders must be secure and must be recognized.
They will not be secure unless they are recognized.”
Lord Caradon, then the United Kingdom Ambassador to the UN and the key drafter of the
resolution.

Resolution 242 is the cornerstone for what it calls “a just and lasting peace.” It
calls for a negotiated solution based on “secure and recognized boundaries” –
recognizing the flaws in Israel’s previous temporary borders – the 1948 Armistice
lines or the “Green Line”– by not calling upon Israel to withdraw from ‘all
occupied territories,’ but rather “from territories occupied,” now legally occupied
by Israel with the consent of the Security Council.
The United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 242 in 1967 following
the Six-Day War. It followed Israel’s takeover of the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza
Strip from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria, and the West Bank from Jordan.
The resolution was to become the foundation for future peace negotiations. Yet
contrary to Arab contentions, a careful examination of the resolution will show
that it does not require Israel to return to the June 4, 1967 Armistice lines or
“Green Line.”
Resolution 242 was approved on November 22, 1967, more than five months
after the war. Although Israel launched a pre-emptive and surprise strike at
Egypt on June 5, 1967, this was a response to months of belligerent declarations
and actions by its Arab neighbors that triggered the war. In addition, Egypt had
imposed an illegal blockade against Israeli shipping by closing the Straits of
Tiran, the Israeli outlet to the Red Sea and Israel’s only supply route to Asia – an
act of aggression – in total violation of international law. In legal parlance, those
hostile acts are recognized by the Law of Nations as a casus belli [Latin:
Justification for acts of war].
The Arab measures went beyond mere power projection. Arab states did not plan
merely to attack Israel to dominate it or grab territory; their objective was and is
to destroy Israel. Their own words leave no doubt as to this intention. The Arabs
meant to annihilate a neighboring state and fellow member of the UN by force of
arms:
· “We intend to open a general assault against Israel. This will be total war. Our
basic aim will be to destroy Israel.” (Egyptian President Gamal Abdel-Nasser,
May 26, 1967)

A Post on the New York Post and the Post Stark Murder Fiasco

Standard

One of my Jewish brothers was murdered over the weekend. This makes me very sad. One of my Jewish sisters is now a widow. Seven of my Jewish nieces and nephews lost their father. Few things tug more at the heartstrings than children who will grow up without a father because his life was knowingly taken by human murderers. From a personal angle, the murder of Menachem Stark is a tragedy. It hurts so much.

By all accounts, Stark was a member in good standing in his Chasidic community. He gave charity generously. He helped those in need. He was well regarded in his social circles. This is the side of the man that was known in the insular Chasidic community.

There may have been another side to this man. Stark was a high roller. He was involved in huge business deals and multi-million dollar investments. The world of the wheeling and dealing real estate mogul is a far cry from the quiet streets of Williamsburg. Many Chasidic men live with one foot in each of these two very different worlds.

kidnap4n-1-web

Photo: VINNEWS

It seems that over the weekend he succumbed to the outside world. Someone wanted him dead. Someone from the part of his life that was a mired in litigation, massive loans, a less than sterling reputation as a landlord, and a world with associates who would not feel at home in Stark’s shteible or Shabbos table chose to kill him. Stark met his Maker in the wake of unspeakable violence. To snuff out the life of a human being is the most heinous of crimes. There is no restitution. There is no forgiveness. It’s a crime that is deserving of the stiffest punishments available. In my view, murder is never justified. No matter the circumstances.

Almost all the discussion about this man and his death are about a headline in a tabloid newspaper. The Sunday New York Post ran an article that enumerated many of the allegations and rumors regarding Stark’s business dealings. The article was sordid and hardly journalism but the point of the article was that because Stark had so many potential enemies there were a lot of potential suspects in the murder investigation. It’s an immature angle to the story, but that was their angle. The front page was a photo of Stark in his Chasidic garb with the following headline: “Who Didn’t Want Him Dead?”

It’s hard to imagine a more provocative, attention grabbing, sensationalist headline. Especially because the true king of sensationalist headlines is the New York Post. They do it all the time. It’s also ironic because so many frum Jews in the more insular communities of New York have always thought of the Post as a friend of Israel and the Jews. They share the paper’s conservative bent and thus always thought the Post was something of value. Most serious people have known that the Post is trash for a long time. To them, the headline was gross, but it wasn’t a betrayal. The headline was obscene, but it was completely in character. (Just a few weeks ago, the Post editorial team ran a despicable article saying that New York City was too generous in its meager assistance of the homeless family of Dasani whose story was heartbreakingly portrayed in a superb in-depth article in the New York Times. That’s typical. Disgusting, but typical.)

In response to the terrible headline in the Post, many politicians have called for boycotts of the Post. Other spokespeople have condemned the Post. I join in those condemning the headline and I think the Post doesn’t belong in the home of a God Fearing Jew. It’s trash. We take the trash out. We don’t bring it in. Page Six is enough of a reason for the Post to be assur. Many people have politely called the Post to express their outrage. I admire them for their advocacy.

It seems to me that the headline is terrible because it makes a murder victim into an object of character assassination. It does not wonder who would commit such a heinous crime. It wonders what kind of person becomes an enemy to so many others. That’s an awful angle to take on a murder story. Although, I don’t doubt the Post has taken this approach to other murders. I just wouldn’t know because I don’t read the Post.

Some Chasidic bloggers have penned responses to the Post headline. I think they have a right to be outraged. But I do think some of the outrage is misguided and counter productive. I know that we are in pain, but we still must be responsible and accurate.

First, the headline says “Who Didn’t Want Him Dead?”. The headline was written by an editor. It was not written by any of the journalists assigned the story. Threats have been made to a journalist. I heard this from someone who knows the journalist personally. Photoshopped images of the journalist captioned “Who Wouldn’t Want Him Dead” have been produced. If you are mad about the headline, please direct your anger to the appropriate party. Do not threaten

Second, please learn English. The headline does not imply that his death was justified in any way. Nor does it give license to kill all slumlords. Please. The headline means that there are a lot of potential suspects because of his many colorful business associates and dealings. No sense in generating anger because of a misreading of the headline.

Third, he wasn’t just a philanthropist. It’s appropriate to eulogize our loved ones and community members by remembering them fondly. Even (and I am not making a moral equivalency here) mob bosses are remembered fondly at their funerals. But we cannot confuse the glowing positive memories with the harsh realities of the real world. We’ve all done things that we wouldn’t want announced at our funeral. But just because they are not cried over at our funeral does not meant that they are not true.

Fourth, let’s try to be consistent. If we hate sensationalist journalism, let’s not do it ourselves. Let’s not support the Post. Let’s try to be balanced and measured in our writing. Combating hyperbole and shoddy journalism with histrionics and wild accusations helps no one.

Fifth, let’s shelve the anti-Semitism card on this one. There is nothing different or unique about this disgraceful Post headline than any others. It has nothing to do with him being a Jew. It has nothing to do with him being a Chasid. It has everything to do with the fact that this is a really interesting story. Crying anti-Semitism when there is none is the easiest way to helping create real anti-Semitism.

Sixth, enough with the Hashem Yinkom Damav please. If the first reaction to death and murder is to take revenge, I think we have to consider whether we have a serious character issue.

So let’s join together and tell the Post how disgusted we are with this story and headline. Let’s also tell them that we don’t like their other nasty headlines either. Let’s be honest and truthful about what we do and do not know. Let’s not cry anti-Semitism.

Most of all, let’s try to compensate for any chillul Hashem that is occurring by increasing our efforts to be mekadesh Hashem. Let’s remember that the first question we will be asked when we reach the Heavenly Court is whether we dealt honestly in business. Let’s make sure that we pass that test. Let’s see if we can generate the same kind of outrage that we have about this headline for things that actually affect our communities. Headlines are harmless. Abuse and corruption are crimes with real victims.

Finally, I can only assume that the Stark family is going to be enduring a very difficult emotional and financial period. I am sure that their community will take good care of them as they always do. Perhaps some solidarity from us outsiders to their community would be a fine gesture in this difficult time. If only as a token of unity, I think it would be an appropriate thing to do. Families of murder victims deserve our help and camaraderie. Let’s give it to them.

– See more at: http://finkorswim.com/2014/01/06/a-post-on-the-new-york-post-and-the-post-stark-murder-fiasco/#sthash.Hmz2djIT.dpuf

PA leader: Stages plan to eliminate Israel is basis of PA policy ( Reblogged)

Standard
Abbas Zaki, close associate of Mahmoud Abbas,
says a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders
is only first stage in the PA’s program
because “the inspiring idea cannot be achieved
all at once. [Rather] in stages”
by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik

Senior Palestinian official Abbas Zaki posted on his Facebook page an interview he gave to Syrian TV in which he said the PA will only agree to a treaty with Israel if the Palestinian state is established on the 1967 lines. However, he stressed that ’67 lines would only be the beginning. After that, the Palestinians will continue with the stages plan:

“Even the most extreme among us, Hamas, or the fighting forces, want a state within the ’67 borders. Afterward, we [will] have something to say, because the inspiring idea cannot be achieved all at once. [Rather] in stages.”

Click to view

In an interview on Al-Jazeera TV in 2011, Zaki also mentioned this PA stages plan and referred to “the inspiring idea,” explaining that it means the end of Israel. He said that Mahmoud Abbas shares the goal of eliminating Israel in stages, but that the PA says it only wants a state along the 1967 borders because it is unacceptable politically to say you want to destroy Israel:

“You can’t say it to the world. You can say it to yourself.”

Zaki stressed that the goal is clear-cut because if Israel were to return to the 1967 lines, it certainly could not survive: “Israel will come to an end.”

This is Zaki’s full statement from 2011:

“The agreement is based on the borders of June 4 [1967]. While the agreement is on the borders of June 4, the President [Mahmoud Abbas] understands, we understand, and everyone knows that it is impossible to realize the inspiring idea, or the great goal in one stroke. If Israel withdraws from Jerusalem, if Israel uproots the settlements, 650,000 settlers, if Israel removes the (security) fence – what will be with Israel? Israel will come to an end. If I say that I want to remove it from existence, this will be great, great, [but] it is hard. This is not a [stated] policy. You can’t say it to the world. You can say it to yourself.”
[Official PA TV, Sept. 23, 2011]

Expressing his refusal to recognize Israel earlier this year during a public lecture, Abbas Zaki started to refer to Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport as “Israel’s Airport,” but then stopped himself and corrected himself:

“When Mr. Obama came to the region during his visit, as soon as he arrived at the airport of Isra… [corrects himself], I mean, the airport where the Israelis are. I don’t want… [corrects himself] this whole country is ours, and Allah willing, the airport will also return to us.”
[Official PA TV, April 8, 2013]

Click to view

Zaki sitting in place of honor one seat from M. Abbas at Fatah event in 2011.

These statements coming from Abbas Zaki are significant because he is a senior Palestinian official and a very close associate of Mahmoud Abbas. He was sent to Syria as Mahmoud Abbas’ personal representative a few months ago and has spoken at public events representing Fatah.

Another important statement reiterating that the PA is employing a stages plan to defeat Israel was expressed recently by PA Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud Al-Habbash in
a Friday sermon in the

presence of Mahmoud Abbas. Al-Habbash, speaking after the current round of peace talks was announced, said that the PA’s negotiations with Israel are modeled after the Hudaybiyyah agreement between Islam’s Prophet Muhammad and the tribes of Mecca. Recounting that Muhammad signed a 10-year truce, and yet two years later conquered Mecca, the minister stated: “This is the example and this is the model.”

Official PA children’s TV also teaches children to aspire to Israel’s destruction. Earlier this year the PA TV host told children:

PA TV host: “And of course we will never forget that we have land that was occupied in 1948, which will return to us one day. Remember well, children. Also [remember] to safeguard our folklore, our national games, the folklore in all its forms, our dress and our food and our games and anything that forms the Palestinian folklore – we have to safeguard it. If we don’t safeguard it, then the occupation might steal it as well, as it stole our land. Right? Do you agree with me? Bravo!”
[Official PA TV, Feb. 23, 2013]

Bringing up children to see all of Israel as “occupied” territory and as “stolen Palestinian land” that will “return” at some future time are significant components of Palestinian Authority ideology that are never expressed to Western leaders or Israelis, and are denied during peace discussions. Zaki’s description of the peace process as intended to lead to Israel’s destruction is consistent with these messages to PA children and many other internal messages the PA leadership sends to its population.

See more documentation here.
To read a detailed analysis of the PA’s continuing and ongoing deception and violations of its international commitments see PMW’s book, Deception which documents that the PA policy of saying it wants peace in English is contradicted by its internal political, social and cultural activities, its leaders’ statements and its education of youth in Arabic. Click to see reviews or to purchase Deception.

The following is an excerpt from Abbas Zaki’s recent interview:

Syrian TV host: “When they talk about [the US] imposing a solution, we know that it will be deficient.”
Member of Fatah Central Committee Abbas Zaki: “You can relax. We find ourselves united for the first time. Even the most extreme among us, Hamas, or the fighting forces, want a state within the ’67 borders. Afterward, we [will] have something to say, because the inspiring idea cannot be achieved all at once. [Rather] in stages.”
[Official Syrian Satellite TV Channel, Dec. 23, 2013]
The following is a longer excerpt of the sermon delivered by PA Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud Al-Habbash comparing negotiations with Israel to Muhammad’s Treaty of Hudaybiyyah:

“We hate war. We don’t want war. We don’t want bloodshed, not for ourselves, nor for others. We want peace. We say this because our culture is founded on this, and because our religion is based on this. Yes, we want peace, but not any peace. We want a peace based on justice, therefore the Palestinian leadership and the PLO have not missed any opportunity for peace…
The Palestinian leadership’s sense of responsibility towards its nation made it take political steps about 20 years ago (i.e., signing the Oslo Accords). Despite the controversy, despite much criticism and much opposition by some, it brought us to where we are today: We have a [Palestinian] Authority and the world recognizes the [Palestinian] state.
All this never would have happened through Hamas’ impulsive adventure, but only through the wisdom of the leadership, conscious action, consideration, and walking the right path, which leads to achievement, exactly like the Prophet [Muhammad] did in the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, even though some opposed it…
The hearts of the Prophet’s companions burned with anger and fury. The Prophet said: ‘I’m the Messenger of Allah and I will not disobey Him.’ This is not disobedience, it is politics. This is crisis management, situation management, conflict management…
Allah called this treaty a clear victory…
Omar ibn Al-Khattab said: ‘Messenger of Allah, is this a victory? Is this logical? Is this victory? We are giving up and going back, and not entering Mecca. Is that a victory?’ The Prophet said: ‘Yes, it is a victory.’
In less than two years, the Prophet returned and based on this treaty, he conquered Mecca. This is the example, this is the model.”
[Official Palestinian Authority TV, July 19, 2013]
Previous Bulletin Next Bulletin

 PMW Bulletins Archive

Israeli Arabs: We Do Not Want to Live in Palestinian State ( Reblogged)

Standard

WHY RECOGNITION OF ISRAEL AS THE JEWISH STATE HAS BECOME SUCH A BIG DEAL

Standard

Demands that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state have become a major stumbling block in John Kerry’s search for a settlement to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, said Palestinians’ refusal to formally acknowledge the country’s Jewish character had become the key topic in his discussions with Mr Kerry.

Palestinian officials admitted that Mr Kerry has pressed the issue with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president, who has so farrefused to bend.

“The Americans have made it very clear that [recognition of Israel as a Jewish state] is their position,” one Palestinian official told The Daily Telegraph. “They talk about it in meetings with our side and make an issue out of it. We have made it very clear that we are not going to sign any agreement that recognises Israel as a Jewish state.”

Israel as a Jewish State is not a strange idea; in fact throughout its history, the Jewish people have recognized themselves as a religion/nation tied to a specific land. Which is why United Nations Resolution 181, the original partition resolution passed by the UN in November 1947, called for dividing Palestine into Independent Arab and Jewish States.

Israel’s Independence Proclamation (it has no constitution) refers to the new state’s Jewish nature no less than 19 times and as well as guaranteeing equal rights to all inhabitants “irrespective of religion, race or sex.”

WE DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948, the People’s Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ, the People’s Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called “Israel”. 

THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

The Magen David (Jewish Star) on the Flag of Israel is also a public affirmation of Israel’s Jewishness.

So why hasn’t the question of Israel’s Jewish become an issue before this Prime Minister?  The simple answer is that the Palestinians didn’t make it an issue.  Take a look at the history.

From 1948-1967 there was no issue with what is today called the Palestinian territories, the West Bank was part of Jordan, Gaza was part of Egypt.  BTW the PLO began its terrorist activities in 1964–before the Six-Day-War.

Israel has only been negotiating with the Palestinians for approximately 20 years. Until Oslo in 1993 the Palestinians believed they could destroy the Jewish State militarily. Afterward their goal changed. As I described in a Hot Air piece on Sunday morning:

While the number of Palestinian refugees in 1949 was somewhere around 800,000 (there were 900,000 Jewish refugees from Arab states) today the number is over 4 million. The Palestinian refugees are the only example in history where the number of refugees has grown without a population shift. These refugees are also unique in that the UN counts the original refugees, their children, grandchildren, first cousin twice removed on their mother’s side, friends etc. as refugees.

Abbas’ hardline refusal to recognize Israel is part of the stated strategy to destroy Israel. The purpose of this unique artificial growth is one of the stated Palestinian goals is to flood Israel (within the green lines) with Palestinian Muslims. Being a democracy, if Israel allows herself to be flooded with those 1948 refugees’ along with descendants of those 1948 refugees, she will cease to be the Jewish State. Instead Israel will be just another Muslim country in the Middle East

But still it didn’t become an issue, because the deal that Arafat had negotiated (and then walked away from) in 1999 with Israeli PM Barak, did not include the Palestinians flooding Israel with the extended families of refugees. Arafat had negotiated a symbolic right of return of only 50,000, so the question of Israel’s Jewishness was not an issue.

After Arafat walked away from the deal and started the Second Intifada, Ariel Sharon became PM. By then there were no negotiations, Sharon was trying to stop the horrible wave of terrorism. The next PM Ehud Olmert proposed a similar deal as Barak, so again it was not an issue.

In 2010 as negotiations were still going on, Fatah the ruling party of the Palestinian Authority issued a new Charter.

The Internal Charter of Abbas’ Fatah Party written in 2010 did not remove Fatah’s rejection of Israel’s existence as a Jewish state (or any other kind of state) nor did it remove its support  of terrorism against Israel. It speaks of

“sacrific[ing] our souls, blood, time and effort. All these are the weapons of the revolutionaries … our tragedy continued throughout all those long years. You must know that our enemy is strong and the battle is ferocious and long. You must know that determination, patience, secrecy, confidentiality, adherence to the principles and goals of the revolution, keep us from stumbling and shorten the path to liberation. Go forward to revolution. Long live Palestine, free and Arab!”

The Charter speaks of the “enemy” and does not mention accepting Israel as a Jewish state or even as a state.

Also, it does not mention any replacement of the Fatah Constitution, which calls for

 “Opposing any political solution offered as an alternative to demolishing the Zionist occupation in Palestine” (Article 22) and insists that “Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People’s armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated” (Article 19).

Therefore even if Abbas means what he says about “recognizing” Israel and can convince his party to go along, based on the Charter and the Constitution that recognition is useless without the rest of the sentence “…as a Jewish State.

Netanyahu’s reaction to the 2010 action was to make sure the Palestinians would stop their quest to destroy Israel by flooding the country with the extended families of the refugees, he moved the Jewish State demand from the background to an overt issue.

In October 2010 negotiations were going on to convince Netanyahu to extend the Judea and Samaria building freeze. Netanyahu made a very simple offer to the PA. If you were to recognize Israel as the Jewish State, we will extend building freeze indefinitely. As reported by Al Jazeera the answer was a resounding no:

Netanyahu’s proposal met with swift rejection from senior Palestinian officials.

“The whole world holds Netanyahu responsible for what is happening in the region, after he chose to push ahead with the settlement project at the expense of an advance in the peace process. Settlement freeze is a commitment Netanyahu should respect,” Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, told Al Jazeera.

Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior official of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, described the settlement issue as “an aggression on Palestinian rights and land”.

“What Israel calls itself is an Israeli matter that does not concern us. The two issues are not related,” he told Al Jazeera in reference to Netanyahu’s condition that Palestinians recognise Israel as a Jewish state.

Nabil Abu Rudainah, the spokesman for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, said a return to peace talks required a freeze on settlement building by Israel.

“The issue of the Jewishness of the state has nothing to do with the matter,” he told the Reuters news agency. According to Al Jazzeera Abbas replied almost imminently with a resounding no.

The “I recognize Israel” quote is nothing but a ruse…time and time again the Palestinians have refused to recognize the JEWISH State of Israel. And the only reason to reject that recognition is that the Palestinians ultimate goal (as stated) is the destruction the Jewish State if Israel.

No love at Rhodes University?

Standard

 

 

There’s a widely used quote by Martin Niemöller that I love: “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.”

I was reminded of this quote as I read Larissa Klazinga’s article in the SA Jewish Report titled: “Rhodes University: Not a Home for All”. I am not interested in much of Klazinga’s article per se but more the extent to which her story offers an important teachable moment about white masculinist racism, whiteness and privilege and how it is as harmful to white women as it is to black people. Klazinga’s story is a clear example of how it’s only when whiteness rejects them, that many white women start speaking out about exclusionary processes and silencing done by white men at predominantly white spaces like Rhodes.

Klazinga in the seven page piece chronicles her two year journey as a self-identifying “Jewish lesbian” and the “anti-Zionism” she has encountered leading to her leaving Rhodes in 2013. A self-identified “Zionist”, Klazinga says she was not prepared for the “bigotry” and “the vitriol directed [at her] over the past two years” and is in shock.

While working at Rhodes for over a decade “conceptualising and organising a myriad of transformation initiatives [aimed at] highlighting gender-based violence, xenophobia, racism and other human rights abuses” she managed to displease Roger Adams (the Deputy Dean of Students) by her support of Israel. What interested me the most is Klazinga’s conclusion that Rhodes “has become a totalitarian institution” and that she was shocked that she was not “allowed to speak, even in private … At Rhodes. In 2012.”

This is something many black Rhodes alumna have been saying for years (myself included) for we know Rhodes is not a home to all. We also know the violent silencing that often occurs at predominantly white institutions of higher learning in SA, the “Ivory towers of white supremacy”.

The Progressive Youth Alliance (PYA) at Rhodes faced disciplinary action, were convicted and had to do community service for inviting the ANC secretary general, Gwede Mantashe, in 2010. When they were going to bring Julius Malema, Rhodes called the police and surrounded the venue with heavy police presence (although he didn’t eventually come). In their statement at the time the PYA noted that while leaders from the Democratic Alliance (DA) and the Congress of the People (Cope) could come and talk at Rhodes without hassle, there was always contention, fear and resistance with the ANC. They concluded that Rhodes University “is led by counter-transformation forces … because Rhodes University is still run by the same ‘old boys club’ that subscribes to the racist philosophies of Cecil John Rhodes …”

This was in 2010, and one of the reasons I am interested in understanding why Klazinga who held such an important office at Rhodes only realised in 2014/2013 how autocratic the university is when so many black students have been saying this for years. Part of the answer to this lies in that many white women only speak out about oppressive white (male) systems and institutions, not when they still enjoy white privilege, but after that system rejects and turns on them.

In her pioneering Stanford Law Review article “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color”, Professor Kimberle Crenshaw writes about the importance of intersectionality especially the intersection between gender and race. While Klazinga claims to have been doing intersectional work at Rhodes, her article exposes her white privileged gaze and how oblivious she is to the authoritarian treatment many black students are continuously subjected to, how they are silenced and often excluded from the university for their political views and associations.

The big lesson here is the importance of intersectionality and that whites should not wait to speak when out against injustice and white authoritarianism when their privilege is threatened. Klazinga herself says she never thought her Zionism would be the reason she left Rhodes, and this is because she saw her struggle narrow and isolated for instance from the struggles of the (mostly black) PYA members.

But Klazinga is marinated in white privilege and will do just fine as a white woman with incredible social capital (including an attorney), a generous settlement with Rhodes and higher education, which is more than I can say for the many young black women and men I saw continuously silenced and excluded from the university in debt, without degrees and quite frankly depressed. No one spoke out for them.