They both knew there was no way he was staying home. Not after the videos he had seen, not after the emergency message he received, the message all policemen in the area received, the message they thought they would never hear: a call to respond to an invasion.
It didn’t matter that he had a broken shoulder and was scheduled for surgery in a few days. He was trained to defend the innocent, and nothing would stop him.
It was October 7th, and his country needed him.
Master Sergeant Ran Gvili of the Yasam Special Patrol Unit put on his uniform, took his father’s car, and drove to the police station. He met his team, donned battle gear, gathered weapons and ammunition, and drove straight into the eye of the storm: “The Al Aqsa Flood.”
The Last Israeli Hostage in Gaza: The Story of Ran Gvili | KAN 11
At the Saad junction, they found themselves in battle with the invaders. They helped party-goers escape the Nova massacre and reach safety. Ran was shot in the leg. He fashioned a tourniquet and battled on. At Alumim, he and other warriors managed to prevent the invaders from entering the kibbutz, saving those sheltering there — but at a terrible cost. The attackers had already slaughtered 22 workers from Thailand and Nepal and taken others hostage. Fourteen people fleeing the Nova party were murdered near the kibbutz, and five defenders of Israel were killed.
We think.
While learning through the news about friends and colleagues who had been killed, Ran’s brother, also a policeman, assumed Ran was home. After all, Ran was injured and scheduled for surgery.
When Ran’s phone rang, the battle was raging. His brother was shocked to hear him explain where he was and to learn that he had also been shot in the hand: “Don’t tell our parents. I’m shot, but I’m fine.”
Ran sent this selfie(below) on October 7th – his last photo.
Last selfie photo of Ran Gvili from the 7th October 2023
Separated from his team, with a broken shoulder and two gunshot wounds, Ran sheltered from the attackers and passed critical information to the relevant security forces, doing everything he could to bring help to the battle. When the invaders discovered his location, he fought them alone.
The bodies of fourteen terrorists were found at the point where he had been sheltering. Ran was gone.
It took more than fourteen to subdue him and take him to Gaza.
Intelligence officials discovered footage of his unconscious body being taken to Gaza. They informed the Gvili family that the injuries Ran sustained are not survivable — unless given emergency intensive care, which he did not receive. None of the liberated hostages saw him during their captivity.
No one knows for certain what happened to Ran. Until his body is returned, his family clings to the faint hope that this powerful warrior — their Rani —could somehow survive.
Lion of Judah. Despite the odds, Ran Gvili was an Israeli hero who ran into danger to save lives.
He was among the first to race toward the battle and is now the last who has yet to return home. His mother says Ran always made sure everyone else was ok before thinking of himself. It is like him to be last, to make sure everyone else goes first.
Hollywood has nothing on us. Our heroes are real.
I never met Ran, but I have met his mother, Talik Gvili, and seen her in action. She is a hero, a warrior of a different kind. It is no surprise that her son is a hero.
Since October 7th, Talik’s heart has ached for her Rani, but she has devoted her mind to defending our people. She has spoken in the Knesset and around the world, advocating for the release of all hostages through strength. Only victory over Hamas will protect us from future invasions. She says:
“I am the mother of a hostage. I do not want to be the grandmother of a hostage.”
One of the most extraordinary moments I have witnessed was between Talik Gvili and Einav Zangauker, mother of Matan, who at the time was held hostage in Gaza. I was accompanying families of hostages to the Knesset, where, during committee sessions, families were given the chance to speak to parliament members and other government officials. Each family spoke in turn; all listened respectfully, no matter what was said or how long it took. Some pleaded with the government officials to save their loved ones. Others explained that they expected their loved ones to be saved in a way that didn’t endanger the future of Israel.
Einav Zangauker unleashed her fear and frustration at the committee head, haranguing him with devastating accusations:
“The blood of my son will be on your hands. They will bring him back dead, and you will manage the funeral and the shiva.”
There were some seventy people in the room. We all sat in silence. The more she spoke, the more extreme her words became, and the more everyone cringed, devastated, in their seats.
Until Talik spoke.
It was like magic. I don’t remember her exact words, but with grace and dignity, she broke the torrent of Einav’s rage, refocused her, and calmed her to the point where she got up, walked around the table, hugged Talik, and sat down next to her, holding her hand.
Allowing us all to breathe again.
Cry Freedom. With the symbolism of the Statue of Liberty in the background , the late Master Sergeant Ran Gwili mother appeals for his ‘liberty’ from Gaza.
Talik has rightly received awards and praise for her wise and eloquent advocacy. After one event, I approached her and told her I admired her greatly but needed to correct one huge mistake in her speech. Startled, she focused on me. I said, “You claim that you aren’t a hero, but that ignores what heroes are. They aren’t just warriors in battle; heroes are people who go above and beyond what the average person would do in the same situation.” She looked at me, unmoving. I continued, “When this happened, you could have crawled into bed, pulled the covers over your head, and refused to move. It would have been much easier.”
Her eyes softened. She sighed and nodded. “That’s true. Thank you.”
Waiting for Ran. Itzik Gvili, says of his son Ran, “He didn’t think twice, he went and fought, even with two bullets in his body.” Addressing a crowd at Hostages Square, he speaks about his son in the present tense. “It’s hard for me to accept condolences. Until I see his body, I don’t speak about him in the past tense.”
Hero. Mother of a hero. I wish I could give her a fraction of the strength she has given for all of us, for our safety, for our future. Now her Rani, one of the first to race into the inferno, is the last in Gaza.
We say that “the last one out turns off the light.” Perhaps Ran, the last one out, will be the one who turns off the darkness that has taken over Gaza.
Perhaps he won’t come home until we make sure the darkness is extinguished. There is a job that has yet to be completed. We are responsible for making sure that happens.
About the writer:
Forest Rain Marcia is an American-born Israeli who lives in northern Israel. She’s a branding expert and storyteller. Her passion is giving voice to the stories of Israel illuminating its profound events, cherished values, and exemplary role models that transcend borders, casting Israel as an eternal wellspring of inspiration and strength for a global audience. Forest Rain made Aliyah at the age of thirteen. After her IDF service, she co-developed and co-directed a project to aid victims of terrorism and war. These activities gave her extensive first-hand experience with the emotional and psychological processes of civilians, soldiers, and their families, wounded and/or bereaved and traumatized by terrorism and war (grief, guilt, PTSD, etc). Throughout the years, she has continued to voice the stories, pain, and strength of traumatized Israelis to motivate others to provide support and counter the hate that threatens Jews in Israel, around the world, and Western civilization itself through the understanding that what begins with the Jews never ends with Jews.
While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves. LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).
An article that disappointed less from what it said and more from what it did not say.
By David E. Kaplan
I come across recently an article translated from Arabic penned by Abdel Rahman Shalgha published in the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat titled :
“Searching for Anwar Sadat”
In these troubled turbulent times, I reached out with enthusiasm to read this piece by an Arab journalist that was “searching” – his word – for an inspirational leader in the Middle East. His role-model was the assassinated Egyptian president, Anwar Sadat, a brave warrior who risked in peace as much as he risked in war, who rose above the fears and prejudices of the masses to take risks for the ultimate goal of peace. Ask Israelis of President Sadat and the image that comes to mind is more the man who sought peace than who prosecuted war and who bravely boarded a plane that flew him into the bowels of his enemy to address its parliament – the Knesset.
Peacemakers. Prime Minister Menachem Begin welcomes Egyptian president Anwar Sadat at Ben Gurion Airport on November 19, 1997 (Photo: Moshe Milner/GPO archive)
Some will recall his deep voice resonating from the Knesset podium saying:
“Any life lost in war is a human life, irrespective of its being that of an Israeli or an Arab. A wife who becomes a widow is a human being entitled to a happy family life, whether she be an Arab or an Israeli.”
Contrasting Sentiments. While Anwar Sadat and Golda Meir got on like a house on fire in Jerusalem, most the Arab world was ablaze with fury.
The warm response of the Israeli public was captured best at the time by Israel’s former PM Golda Meir, when addressing the Knesset on the 21 November, 1977, and directed these words to her former foe:
“Mr. President, I’m sure that from the moment your plane landed at Lydda Airport, and as you drove through the streets of Jerusalem, you must have felt, in all your encounters with the many people who turned out to meet you – the little children; the mothers with babies in their arms; the old people; the people who were born in this country, the second, third, fourth and fifth generations, and those who have come recently – that all, without exception, were overjoyed to see you in our Land.”
Such was the mood of Israelis in late 1977.
From Foe to Friend. Unlike the unhappy atmosphere in Egypt and neighboring Arab countries, Jerusalem schoolchildren with balloons and flowers cheer the arrival in Israel of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat on November 21, 1977 (Photo: Ya’akov Sa’ar/GPO archive).
SOMETHING MAJORLY MISSING
So, it was about this caliber of a man in the Arab world I was hoping to read in Abdel Rahman Shalgha’s November 2025 article and his opening paragraph was promising:
“In the collective memory of nations and the chronicles of their history, there are names, years, and even entire centuries that endure, untouched by the passage of time or the tumult of events. Among them are the names of kings, presidents, and statesmen whose legacies remain etched in both the hearts of their people and the pages of history. The late Egyptian president Anwar Sadat was one such man, born into an era of extraordinary transformation for Egypt, the Arab world, and the world at large.”
Then I kept reading. While interesting and informative, in the end, it was disappointingly deficient. Hoping to read about the man who sought and brought peace to Egypt with its greatest enemy, Israel – Not a word!
Price of Peace. President Sadat was the first Arab leader to recognize the state of Israel since its creation in 1948 and in September 1978, met with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in the US, where they negotiated a peace accord and, in 1979, a peace treaty. For this he paid with his life.
It was all about the man of war and nothing about the man of peace. It was about the man who spied and collaborated with the Nazis during WWII and who with “cunning” deceived the Israelis “that Egypt would not attack, only to shatter that illusion when Egyptian forces crossed the Suez Canal, breached the Bar-Lev Line, and rewrote the script of Middle Eastern history.”
But that “Middle East history” included finally the famous peace between Egypt and Israel, ensuring that countless Egyptian and Israeli lives were not to be needlessly lost.
Not a word about this!
The achievement of peace that should have been written as the highlight of the Egyptian president’s life deserves no mention? The word peace appears not to be in this journalist’s vocabulary – at least not in so far as to praise the attributes of his hero – Anwar Sadat!
Read below the rest of Abdel Rahman Shalgha article:
“In his memoir, In Search of Identity, he [Sadat] recounts the defining stages of his life, from his birth in the village of Mit Abu El Kom on the banks of the Nile to his rise as president of the Arab Republic of Egypt.
At the time, Egypt languished under British domination, its sovereignty curtailed, its military occupied, and its monarch reduced to a mere figurehead. Against this backdrop, a dark-skinned boy from the Nile’s banks absorbed the essence of Egypt – its history, struggles, and aspirations – and carried them within him.
Sadat wrote his life story in a simple, unpretentious style, describing the national and international figures who shaped his worldview. Among them, [Mohamed Darweesh] Zahran, a young Egyptian executed by the British after the Denshawai incident, stood out as a moral beacon whose courage and sacrifice burned indelibly in Sadat’s heart.
From his humble beginnings in Mit Abu El Kom to the charged atmosphere of Cairo – a city alive with political ferment and social tension – Sadat matured amid the turbulence of an occupied nation. He completed his secondary education and began a long, arduous journey through a labyrinth of nepotism and colonial control before finally entering the Military Academy.
After graduation, he served in various posts across the country, carrying with him an unyielding hatred for British rule. His first confrontation with colonial authority came with his involvement in the assassination of Amin Osman, a minister known for his staunch loyalty to Britain – a plot that landed Sadat in prison.
During World War II, as German and Italian forces advanced from eastern Libya into Egyptian territory, many Egyptians, Sadat among them, saw in the British defeats a glimmer of hope for liberation, even if it came through the hands of others.
In that spirit, Sadat helped plan an attempt to smuggle the nationalist officer Aziz Ali al-Misri into the Western Desert to contact the German command. The operation failed when al-Misri’s plane crashed, yet Sadat’s determination did not waver. Later, when two German spies in Cairo sought his help to repair a malfunctioning radio transmitter used to send intelligence to Berlin, Sadat, then in military intelligence, agreed to assist.
Discovered by British and Egyptian intelligence, he was imprisoned again and expelled from the army. Escaping confinement, he wandered the countryside in disguise as “Haj Muhammad,” working as a porter and laborer until a royal insider helped him return to the army and join the Royal Guard.
Sadat later recounted his efforts to organize a secret military network aimed at toppling the monarchy and ending British rule – efforts he claimed predated Gamal Abdel Nasser’s founding of the Free Officers Movement, though his colleagues in that movement would later dispute the account in their own memoirs.
I accompanied Sadat on his long journey through the pages of his autobiography, where he traced his life with all its trials, risks, and triumphs. Throughout, one sees a man in perpetual pursuit of an Egypt free from colonial chains. Perhaps it was Zahran, the martyred peasant of Denshawai, who served as the spiritual force sustaining him through years of struggle.
That thread of conviction runs through every stage of his life, from his seat on the Revolutionary Command Council to the emergence of the shrewd and daring strategist he became.
Sadat never held major ministerial posts and was never seen as a likely successor to Nasser. Yet upon Nasser’s death, he assumed the presidency and began, with quiet calculation, to consolidate his power, dismantling rival factions in a single stroke.
He reorganized Egypt’s military in preparation for war with Israel and redefined the nation’s alliance with Moscow. In an elaborate campaign of deception, he convinced Israel that Egypt would not attack, only to shatter that illusion when Egyptian forces crossed the Suez Canal, breached the Bar-Lev Line, and rewrote the script of Middle Eastern history.
In doing so, Sadat realized his lifelong dream: the recovery of Egyptian land, achieved with the boldness and cunning of a leader confident in his destiny.
I journeyed with Anwar Sadat through his remarkable life to say this: Amid the chaos, fragmentation, and imbalance that now define our region, perhaps it is worth revisiting the life of this man – not with nostalgia, but with a political mind attuned to lessons of endurance and foresight. For within Sadat’s journey, there may yet be a light to guide us over the dark hill of an uncertain future.”
And there you have it.
Siding against Sadat. Protests in Oslo on the 11 December 1978 against the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin. Sadat’s quest for peace with Israel was not welcomed in the Arab world with fellow states boycotting Egypt for breaking ranks and negotiating a separate treaty with the Jewish state. (Photo: Manuel Litran/Paris Match via Getty Images)
A well written in somewhat poetic praise of a manthis journalist “accompanied …. on his long journey through the pages of his autobiography,” admiring his life “with all its trials, risks, and triumphs.” Sadly, among Sadat’s “triumphs”, this journalist does not recognise, acknowledge or mention – even in passing – the monumental 1979 peace treaty with Israel. Think of it, together with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Sadat received the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize for their roles in the Camp David Accords, which paved the way for the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty and no mention of it!
How do you arrive at a point when writing about someone’s lifetime achievements and you deliberately omit being the recipient of a Nobel Prize?
Targeting Peace. A scene from the assassination of Egyptian president, Anwar Sadat in 1981.
Clearly for this journalist, Israel is unwelcome, a colonialist entity, a blot on the map, a stain on a region exclusively reserved for Muslims or Arab-speaking folk. Sadly, it’s a perspective shared by the citizens of most, if not all, the countries bordering Israel and explains why Sadat was shot in 1981, and why the trigger-fingers of the assassins represented a multiple metaphor for millions of fingers around the Middle East.
Cause of Death. Sadat’s death was attributed to “violent nervous shock and internal bleeding in the chest cavity, where the left lung and major blood vessels below it were torn.” In truth, the actual cause of death was that he outreached to the Jewish state to make peace with Israel.
Is it any wonder today that so many kids in the Arab world today are named Nasser after the uncompromising militant president that preceded Sadat, and very few, if any are named after the assassinated Anwar Sadat!
Whatever Abdel Rahman Shalgha is really “searching” for, it is not peace with Israel.
While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves. LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).
Behind the polished façade, the “gifts” of Gift of the Givers has a price tag.
By Allan Wolman
Back in the 1950s, The Platters made a hit song called The Great Pretender. Over the decades it was revived by any number of performers — most memorably Freddie Mercury in 1987. Since then, the world has never been short of “great pretenders”, not only on the entertainment stage but very prominently on the political one, where the list of contenders is endless.
Today I want to propose the greatest of the modern-day “Great Pretenders”: none other than Dr Imtiaz Sooliman, founder of Gift of the Givers, a man who has pulled the wool over an entire nation’s eyes and risen to become South Africa’s most admired humanitarian — both at home and abroad.
Parallel Power. Why is this man – Imtiaz Sooliman – treated by the media as a minster?
With every natural or man-made disaster anywhere in the world, Gift of the Givers is among the first to appear on the scene, ensuring their efforts are rewarded with generous front-page coverage — complete with a full-colour photograph of the good doctor in his trademark green shirt and boldly displayed logo. Not to mention the tsunami of philanthropical donations he attracts.
Sooliman has once again made headlines, this time regarding the mysterious “unknown aircraft” that recently landed at OR Tambo Airport in Johannesburg. I urge you to read this excellent exposé posted on Facebook by Ivor Blumenthal:
*[Editor’s note: Soon after this article was written, South Africa revoked visa-free access for Palestinian passport holders. Taking its cue from Sooliman’s outrageous initial accusation, the SA government followed blindly reiterating the antisemitic rhetoric of the Gift of the Givers CEO by speculating without substantiation that the mystery flight is an Israeli plot to ethnically cleanse Gaza.]
The South African media should hang their heads in shame. But as the obedient mouthpiece of a rotten and corrupt government, that same media — devoid of morality, integrity, or even the most basic sense of journalistic honesty — would never dare venture into the territory that exposes who and what this organisation really is — and, more importantly, what the man’s true agenda appears to be.
Over decades, Imtiaz Sooliman has cultivated an image of saintly benevolence, rushing from one disaster zone to the next, dispensing aid and compassion with no political or ideological motive, (I also once believed in the tooth fairy). Very few people living a ‘humble’ lifestyle could command aircrafts and other costly facilities at a moment’s notice, but Gift of the Givers opens more doors than presidents and monarchs. Scratch even lightly beneath the surface and a very different picture emerges — one of a shrewd operator who understands perfectly how to manipulate optics, press coverage, and public sentiment.
Unapologetic Law Breaker. In his own words, this man is a law unto himself.
BLOWING THE WHISTLE However, the true face of Sooliman and his Gift of the Givers is being revealed not by the media but by ordinary folk – non-Muslims – who not only see through but experience the ‘packaged’ deception. Watch the video clip below of a South African woman exposing the true face on this so-called Muslim human rights organization that weaponizes food aid by tying it to conversion. Her outrage disabuses the polished public image of Gift of the Givers, exposing it for leveraging hunger as a recruitment tool for Islam. It has been reported that food parcels have been distributed exclusively to Muslims, while vulnerable Christian families were told they will “get more” if they embrace Islam. Behind the polished façade, the “gifts” of Gift of the Givers has a price tag.
Gift of the Givers is a slick well-oiled reputational machine, capitalizing on every episode of suffering that Sooliman exploits to the full creating another opportunity for branding, hero-worship, and political leverage. The green shirt is no accident; it is a uniform designed for instant recognition, ensuring that Sooliman himself — not the cause, not the victims — becomes the headline.
And here’s where the media and gullible public looks the other way, ignoring the company this man keeps. He has no shame aligning himself to radical Islamic causes, rubbing shoulders with the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah and ISIS, openly stating on national television that he adheres to only one law, NOT the law of the land. That’s a statement that goes beyond mere arrogance, but showing his middle finger to his country and the world.
The False Humanitarian. At a protest against Israel in Cape Town on the 5 October 2024, ‘humanitarian’ charity ‘Gift of the Givers’ founder, Dr Imtiaz Sooliman stood beneath this banner “WE ARE ALL HAMAS” and engaged in antisemitic conspiracy theories, railing against Israel and Jews who “run the world with fear … and control the world with money”.
Aligning himself with the ANC ‘s agenda of open hostility to Israel and the Jewish people has elevated his stature within South Africa’s political elite affording him a hotline to government ministers who comply to his demands. All this while the media tip-toes around the mysterious aircraft incident at Johannesburg’s O.R. Tambo International Airport and allows Sooliman and his cunningly crafted ‘humanitarian’ Gift of the Givers to weaponize their aims.
Behind the veneer of humanitarianism, a toothless media lacking courage and hiding the truth from the public, feeds the man and his hidden agenda.
Asserting this point, Tim Flack writes in BizNews (8 December), that institutions in South Africa today:
“…have grown weak and individuals with charismatic branding have filled the void. Sooliman is the clearest example of this trend. He speaks like a minister, moves like a minister, negotiates like a minister, and is treated by the media as if he has the democratic legitimacy of a minister.
But he does not.
He is unelected. He is unappointed. He is unaccountable. And the country has quietly allowed him to operate as a parallel authority in everything from refugee management to foreign policy interpretation.
This is not humanitarianism. It is governance without consent.”
Its time for the media to do their job and expose the true aims behind the façades ofDr. Imtiaz Sooliman and his Islamic charity – Gift of the Givers.
About the writer:
Allan Wolman in 1967 joined 1200 young South Africans to volunteer to work on agricultural settlements in Israel during the Six Day War. After spending a year in Israel, he returned to South Africa where he met and married Jocelyn Lipschitz and would run one of the oldest travel agencies in Johannesburg – Rosebank Travel. He would also literally ‘run’ three times in the “Comrades”, one of the most grueling marathons in the world as well as participate in the “Argus” (Cape Town’s famed international annual cycling race) an impressive eight times. Allan and Jocelyn immigrated to Israel in 2019.
While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves. LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).
How do traumatized kibbutzniks build a new life amongst the rubble and remnants of personal horror?
By Gadi Ezra
(Courtesy of YNET news where this article first appeared)
Communities find themselves unwillingly at the center of a struggle between remembrance and renewal, underscoring the need for the state to better preserve national heritage.
Would you demolish Auschwitz? Of course not. The memory of the victims, the documentation of the crimes, the proof of the horrors — all must be preserved despite the pain, for the sake of future generations. But what if you had to keep living there? To face the destruction every morning? To rush to class or grab a coffee by passing through a murder scene frozen in time? In that case, the answer might be different. The need to move forward, rebuild and reestablish routine would all enter the equation.
This is precisely the heartbreaking dilemma the members of Kibbutz Be’eri recently confronted. Still trying to rise from the disaster, they voted by a narrow margin that life inside a memorial site is not life. The decision means clearing and demolishing the homes destroyed in the October 7 massacre. One house will remain, a testimony to what happened and to what must never happen again.
Killing Kids. A ‘Welcome to Our Home’ sign to a kindergarten on kibbutz Be’eri has not welcomed any kids since Hamas terrorists tore through it on October 7, 2023. (Photo: Baz Ratner/AP)
This is not a decision anyone can fairly criticize. No one can claim to know better than those who endured devastation and must now live again at the center of trauma. Whatever they say deserves a quiet amen. Yet what matters is understanding that Be’eri’s decision will not be the last on this issue. It opens a window into the present and future dilemmas of Nir Oz, Kfar Aza, Nirim, Nahal Oz, Re’im and other communities along Israel’s border. These are places that, against their will, have become focal points in a struggle between remembrance and renewal. That reality highlights not only the depth of the tragedy. It underscores the need for more effective state action in preserving the national heritage.
Silent Swing. Once an area of family fun, a Be’eri home’s patio and play area in the aftermath of the massacre.
The Tekuma Authority has allocated tens of millions to establish a national memorial for October 7, but its creation depends on legislation that remains unfinished. More than two years have passed since the massacre, yet the necessary administrative work is still incomplete. A state commission of inquiry is also deliberately avoided. As a result, the content that would fill any memorial institution is, by definition, partial and lacking. Such commissions are not only meant to assign responsibility. They are designed to form a narrative explaining how the country reached this point. Just as the Holocaust did not begin with the establishment of the death camps, October 7 did not begin on October 7.
Death and Destruction. One of the many houses which was burned and destroyed during the October 7, 2023 Hamas massacre.
The problem with this dynamic, in which the state moves at its own pace, is that life is not a made-to-order program. It does not wait for government directives, bureaucracy or paperwork. It pushes past every document on its way to the next stage and forces survivors to confront decisions they must make. A community’s ability to tell its own story must always be preserved. But had the authorities and political leadership operated with greater transparency and efficiency, the members of Be’eri could have considered how future national commemoration would be shaped. That would have allowed them to highlight aspects the state does not emphasize or raise issues that matter to them in a different way. Their decision would have been made in context, not in a fog.
Gazan ‘Stormtroopers’. Hamas terrorists taking civilians hostages from kibbutz Be’eri.
Disclosure: At the end of October 2023, I was there as a reservist. The walls of the dental clinic that still stood practically screamed. The path leading to it ran through the same buildings now slated for demolition. ZAKA teams were still searching them for remains. Crushed cars lined the road. Other homes appeared intact but were anything but. Bloodstains on balconies revealed what had happened inside. Still others remained as they were the day they were abandoned — to Gaza, to the next world or to evacuation hotels. In truth that scene has not ended. War does not finish when the last soldier crosses back over the border. Even after Ran Gvili returns, it will end only when the residents return home. It is the state’s duty to ease that journey. Shaping memory in a way that helps them make decisions is an inseparable part of that responsibility.
Tough Decisions. Once a family home, now a horrifying ‘memorial’ to lives snuffed out. Can people return to this site to once again live?
About the writer:
Gadi Ezra is the Former director of Israel’s national public diplomacy unit.
While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves. LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).
Fear that independent scrutiny will expose false narratives, Israel’s opponents discourage “See for Yourself” visits to the Jewish state.
By Kenneth Kgwadi
In one of the most influential TED Talks to date, acclaimed Nigerian author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie explores:
“The Danger of a Single Story.”
She argues that to truly understand any event or conflict, one must consider multiple perspectives; relying on a single narrative inevitably leads to distortion and misunderstanding. Her message is particularly relevant to the Israel/Palestine debate, where too many overlook or dismiss Israel’s story while presenting Palestine as the sole victim.
The recent visit to Israel by King Dalindyebo of the AbaThembu nation illustrates this dynamic clearly. His trip triggered criticism from individuals who seem determined to prevent others from examining the facts for themselves. Instead of encouraging open inquiry and balanced engagement, these voices prefer that the public adopt their preferred narrative – one that portrays Israel as the villain through carefully crafted misinformation and propaganda. Their response reveals an underlying fear:
that independent observation may contradict the narrative they have worked hard to entrench.
The fiercest critics of Israel often rely on claims of apartheid, genocide, and other exaggerated allegations that do not align with the realities on the ground. Deep down, these naysayers fear that independent scrutiny will expose the inconsistencies in their narrative. Every year, numerous individuals and delegations travel to Israel on fact-finding missions to see, experience and decide for themselves on the reports and agenda-driven narratives presented by international, local and social media. It would be profoundly irresponsible to accept these narratives at face value without challenging the claims and allegations for accuracy, context, as well as the agendas of those who disseminate them. Hence the immense importance of visits.
Royal Visit. A cousin of the late Nelson Mandela, His Majestiy King Buyelekaya Zwelibanzi Dalindyebo of the AbaThembu Kingdom in South Africa meets with Israeli President, Isaac Herzog in Jerusalem.
Tensions between governments — such as those of South Africa, Israel, and the United States — should not influence the relationships between ordinary people in these countries. Communities should not be vilified for cooperating across borders simply because their governments disagree politically. Human connection is often driven by shared histories, mutual interests, and collective aspirations, not by diplomatic rifts.
It was in this spirit that King Dalindyebo chose to visit Israel and engage directly with Israeli officials. As a leader, he sought firsthand clarity on the long-standing conflict rather than relying solely on secondhand accounts crafted by the media. His decision reflects a commitment to informed leadership: he wanted to see the situation with his own eyes, hear directly from those involved, and explore opportunities to build constructive relationships for the benefit of the people he leads.
STANCE OF SILENCE
What is particularly troubling about South Africa’s foreign policy under President Cyril Ramaphosa is the growing inconsistency that seems to define it. On the surface, the country presents itself as a defender of human rights across the world, most notably through its strong support for the Palestinian cause. However, this principled stance is not applied consistently. In many parts of the world, innocent and defenceless people are being killed by oppressive regimes, yet South Africa remains largely silent.
A few weeks ago, hundreds of people were reportedly killed in post-election conflict in the Republic of Tanzania, a fellow member of the Southern African Development Community (SADC). Despite the seriousness of this crisis, South Africa took no meaningful action to hold those responsible to account. The same can be said about Sudan, where acts of genocide are unfolding before our very eyes on television, but no steps have been taken to sanction or pressure those who are responsible. Zimbabwe presents another example: for years, the ruling ZANU-PF has violated the human rights of ordinary Zimbabweans, forcing millions to flee the country in search of safety and economic security. Yet Pretoria has maintained a stance of silence and non-intervention.
Tragedy in Tanzania. Far closer to home than Gaza, hundreds of protesters and others have been killed and an unknown number injured or detained in Tanzania following recent elections according to the UN human rights office (OHCHR), yet South Africa has not taken any action as it did against Israel.
This pattern of selective condemnation raises important questions about what truly drives South Africa’s foreign policy and undermines its claim to moral authority on the global stage. Blasted by so much mis and disinformation, the global ill-informed fail to understand that Israel is a functioning democracy, defined by an independent media, judiciary, executive, and parliament (Knesset), each operating without interference from the other. This is precisely why Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is currently facing corruption charges: the institutions of state have the autonomy to hold even the highest office-bearers to account. The left-leaning newspaper Haaretz is a clear example of a vocal and critical media outlet that conducts its work without fear or favour, often challenging government actions and policies in the strongest of terms.
Sudanese Suffering. While South Africa’s foreign minister was quick to call the Hamas leader following its orchestrated massacre in Israel on October 7 2023 to “offer support”, masses of displaced civilians on its own continent such as in war-torn Sudan (above) is of less concern. (Photo: AFP/via Getty Images)
VISIT AND VERIFY
There is a danger, like in all conflicts, of spreading lies to control the narratives, and people should be aware of that. Hence it is important indeed, essential for opinion makers, journalists, researchers, and all those who work in the business of information and knowledge to visit Israel and tell the story as it truly is, rather than relying on narratives circulated by others who may have political agendas to advance.
First-hand experience remains the most reliable antidote to misinformation.
Meeting with fellow South Africans. Unlike South Africa’s ANC leaders who showed no concern for South African-born Jews killed in Israel as a result of the attack from Gaza, His Majesty, AbaThembu King Buyelekhaya Dalindyebo met with Rabbi Doron Perez (right), father of Daniel Perez, South African born 22-year-old who was killed on October 7 during the Hamas attack, and his body was held in Gaza for nearly two years.
About the writer:
Kenneth Kgwadi is a research fellow at the Middle East Africa Research Institute (MEARI).
While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves. LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).
The University of Cape Town (UCT) was once a glittering jewel in South Africa’s – and the African continent’s – academic crown.
No longer.
That’s thanks to UCT’s unedifying recent history of being held to ransom by students and staff pushing political and ideological agendas.
It has become as one writer put it, “a public university applauding the removal of Jews from a space they helped build, under the polite cover of modern political language.”
UCT’s Council is its “supreme governing body responsible for policy, strategic direction and ensuring sound governance and financial sustainability,” As such, it should be a bulwark against institutional capture.
Cry the Beloved Campus. The 2024 Israel Apartheid Week at UCT saw present senior representatives from the ANC, Al Jama-ah, the EFF, and Palestinian Solidarity Campaign where taunts and insults were directed at Jews such as: “Child killers”; “We are Hamas”; “October 7 will happen again”; “You f**king b*tch”; and “I will place your photo all over this campus you P*es”.
However, one of its Council members, Dianna Yach, has become embroiled in yet more public controversy that is chipping away at that bulwark. Yach faces scrutiny after UCT’s abrupt announcement on October 30, 2025, that it was switching off life support after 56 years for its “most cherished cultural landmark,” the Irma Stern Museum. The spotlight is on Yach’s role as Chair of UCT’s Irma Stern Museum Committee at the time of UCT’s decision to sever its ties with the museum.
As a Council member, Yach is already mired in damaging allegations, including lying under oath and serious breach of fiduciary duties, in a landmark lawsuit launched by Prof Adam Mendelsohn, head of UCT’s Department of Historical Studies.
Mendelsohn launched the lawsuit after UCT adopted the so-called “Gaza conflict resolutions” in June 2024. A ruling is expected early next year.
POLITICAL, IDEOLOGICAL EXPEDIENCY
UCT’s decision to sever support for the Irma Stern Museum came as a shock to supporters. Stern is widely acknowledged as one of South Africa’s most prolific and powerful artists, one who played a leading role in introducing avant-garde art to the country.
Some saw UCT’s decision as political and ideological expediency. UCT compounded that by shrouding the decision in secrecy, ratifying it on October 18 and only announcing it after being called out publicly.
Preservation concerns have centred over structural deterioration and maintenance challenges of housing Stern’s collection in The Firs, her Cape Town home since 1927. Reports of the collection now in “secure storage” pending uncertain refurbishment plans have fuelled fears of irreparable damage to the irreplaceable integrity of South Africa’s only artist’s house museum.
Heritage researcher Phillippa Duncan has described UCT’s decision as yet more “cultural bloodletting” and “a systematic lack of respect for history, older buildings and objects that require care.”
Stern’s whiteness and Jewishness made things “a little more difficult” by “not fitting in with UCT’s political conversations,” Duncan says. She does not believe that race and religion were “primary triggers” for UCT’s decision.
Jews Unwelcome. What kind of ‘safe’ environment is it for Jewish students at UCT when (as captured on video) a demonstrator, smacked the kippah (a traditional Jewish head covering) off a student’s head, while he was praying, and when confronted refused to apologise?
HIVE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
I think that’s charitable. The primary triggers may lie, more likely, in the hive of conflicts of interest buzzing under the many different hats Yach wears.
Among others, Yach chairs UCT’s Human Resources (HR) Committee; is a member of the UCT Remuneration and Governance Committees; serves “by invitation” on UCT Law Faculty’s Law Clinic Advisory Board; and is one of Council’s two Senate-elected donor representatives.
She is also the Chairperson and the executive director of the Mauerberger Foundation Fund (MFF) Board, one of South Africa’s oldest Jewish, philanthropic organisations and a donor to UCT and the Irma Stern Museum for decades.
That places Yach squarely in the crosshairs of overlapping donor and governance roles, with duties and loyalties to UCT and the MFF potentially pulling in different directions.
Her maternal grandfather, Morris Mauerberger, an industrialist and a committed Zionist, founded the MFF in the late 1930s. His philanthropy included regular support for Zionist organisations and projects that strengthened Israel’s infrastructure and education.
Felling a Family Legacy. A proud Zionist was the late Morris Mauerberger, one of South Africa’s leading industrialists and Jewish philanthropists whose Mauerberger Foundation supported a multitude of causes in Israel but is today managed by his granddaughter Diana Yach who some critics believe is not following the path he forged for MFF support for the Jewish state.
Mauerberger’s will expressly allocated half of the MFF funds in perpetuity to Israel, the other half split equally between South African Jewish and non-Jewish communities.
The MFF’s decades-long support for Israeli projects includes:
– the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
– theTechnion – Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa (where there is a Mauerberger building) and
– direct involvement in establishing Ben Gurion University of the Negev in 1969.
Lasting Legacy. The Mauerberger name is proudly embedded in the hills of Haifa in shaping education and research in the Mauerberger Building at Israel’s prestigious Technion – Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, Israel oldest university and with four Nobel laureates having been associated with the university.
RED FLAGS WAVING
Yach took over as MFF executive director in 2013. Since then, she has appeared intent on taking the MFF down a different path from the straight and narrow one her grandfather forged – if wildly waving red flags are any indication.
One red flag is her support, well-documented in court papers on public record in Mendelsohn’s lawsuit, for the Gaza resolutions.
The boycott includes, by implication, all tertiary institutions in Israel that the MFF supports, as these can be interpreted, particularly by the BDS movement, to form part of the greater Israeli military establishment.
Suffice to say, blanket academic boycotts on shaky foundations are fundamentally incompatible with the core values of any university worth its academic-freedom salts.
Yach appears oblivious to conflict emanating from her support for resolutions that diametrically oppose her grandfather’s legacy – and, perhaps more importantly from the perspective of potential conflicts of interest, the MFF’s stated mission of support for Israel.
ISRAEL AND PALESTINE
Another red flag is few public reports since the horrific terror attack by Hamas on Israel on October 7, 2023, of MFF donations to the Jewish state – apart from vague references to support for “mental health programmes”.
Yet another flag is reference in an affidavit Yach submitted in Mendelsohn’s lawsuit to MFF donations to “Israel and Palestine”. That will resonate well with anti-Israel groups active on UCT campus, among them South African Jews for a Free Palestine (SAJFP) and UCT Alumni for Palestine, with which Yach is closely allied.
This raises questions about Yach’s involvement with these entities and under which of her multiple hats it lies?
Yach is also actively involved in alumni affairs and wears a further hat as a member of UCT’s Alumni and Development Advisory Board.
Before UCT Convocation’s AGM and Elections on December 4, 2025, Yach nominated UCT law lecturer Caitlin le Roith, the public face of SAJFP and publicly backed by UCT Alumni for Palestine, to run for the Executive Council (Exco) election. Her nomination was seconded by an SAJFP member and was successful.
Convocation ended up top-heavy with a president and four of five Exco members firmly in anti-Israel camps. The elections became a battleground with the hallmarks of a hijacking, purge, even a “pogrom” against Jews.
The aims, as supporters of newly elected officials swiftly and gleefully declared on social media, were twofold:
– to defeat the Zionist bloc (a mythical creation of their own making)” and
– ensure that UCT is “never a home for Zionists”.
If any rhetoric proves that Zionist really is the anti-Israel lobby’s code word for Jews, that was it.
INVERTED RED TRIANGLES
SAJFP leaders have distinguished themselves, if that’s quite the right word, as enthusiastic spreaders of that code word and by using inverted red triangles on social-media posts to celebrate deaths of Jewish soldiers in Gaza.
The Nazis used inverted red triangles to distinguish political groups in concentration camps. After October 7, Hamas began using the symbol as a propaganda prop to identify Israeli military targets. The symbol has spread to anti-Israel protests, especially on university campuses and social media.
The Anti-Defamation League cautions that the symbol’s ties with Hamas help to normalise terrorism and extremism under cover of “resistance”.
Yach raised eyebrows – and hackles – in September 2025 when she donated R1-million of MFF funds to Dr Imtiaz Sooliman, founder-CEO of Gift of the Givers, for medicines for children in Gaza.
Many consider Sooliman to be an incorrigibly vocal, virulent opponent of Israel and all Jews who support it. He speaks publicly under banners claiming, “We are all Hamas”. He routinely punctuates his rhetoric with antisemitic tropes about “Zionists” who rule the world with money.
Sooliman still faces claims (hotly denied) that Gift of the Givers has funnelled funds to Hamas and other terror groups active in the Middle East for decades.
Yach is impervious to criticism of the MFF donating to a man implacably opposed to her grandfather’s stated mission and vision for the family foundation.
Sooliman has been nominated for a UCT honorary doctorate. UCT’s Council was expected to vote to accept his nomination at its regular meeting on December 6.
Suspicious Support. Unable to voice disapproval, the bust of Morris Mauerberger looks on at his granddaughter Dianna Yach presenting a cheque of one million rand to Give of the Givers’ controversial founder and CEO, Imtiaz Sooliman, who proudly appears at South African anti-Israel demonstrations under banners claiming, “We are all Hamas”.
REVIEW OF PUBLIC POWER
In the meantime, as Mendelsohn’s legal team notes in heads of argument, the lawsuit has generated “noise” around “geopolitics, antisemitism, genocide and accusations of bad faith” that drowns out what it is really all about.
The application’s merits turn simply on a “review of public power,” his lawyers say.
That review covers allegations against Yach of lying under oath and serious breach of fiduciary duties involving her allegedly deliberately withholding crucial information on predicted loss of donor funding if UCT adopted the resolutions.
It also covers UCT’s adoption of the resolutions despite robust communication beforehand from a major funder, the Donald Gordon Foundation, clearly identifying a significant breach of a clause in their donor-funding agreement.
Breach has legal consequences. It culminated in termination of DGF’s funding relationship with UCT.
In her affidavit, Yach appears to believe that the DGF had no evidentiary “dogs” barking loudly enough to alert Council members to the serious possibility of funding withdrawal.
DGF trustees have confirmed that its dogs were present throughout, barking loudly and clearly.
FUNDING HAEMORRHAGE
And when the predicted donor withdrawal materialised, the bite was devastating.
UCT instantly haemorrhaged R220-million DGF funding for its Neuroscience Institute and lost the opportunity of a more than R500-million DGF donation for a new private hospital.
The Dell Foundation withdrew R7-million in student support, agreeing only to continue support for current students but not to admit any new ones to its programme.
Another question the review raises is why Yach and other Council members decided that “expressing indignation at Israel’s conduct (in Gaza) outweighs the futures of hundreds of prospective students at UCT who have lost funding”?
Yet another question is:
Why they decided that rejecting the IHRA definition of antisemitism was more important than R750-million for both the Neuroscience Institute and a brand-new, state-of-the-art hospital, “without even knowing that such donations were at stake”?
They appear not to have thought through all the implications of the resolutions for UCT of donations from any donors with strong Israeli ties in future.
Yach strenuously denies any wrongdoing. I wouldn’t have expected her to do otherwise.
As Mendelsohn’s lawyers contend, she and certain other fellow Council members may be exposed to damages claims from UCT for non-disclosure of pertinent financial information.
UCT as “an organ of state controlling public funds earmarked for educational purposes” is, therefore, under “obligation to investigate whether it has such a claim, and if advised that it does, to pursue it.”
Yach and fellow Council members can take comfort knowing they have UCT’s full backing – for now. Despite the serious allegations against her, Yach remains in her multiple positions of power and influence.
That raises the question of whether her position as UCT’s HR Committee Chair has insulated her from the consequences of alleged non-disclosure of pertinent information, or at the very least, an inquiry into her behaviour?
INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION
Another question is why UCT chose to act only against Mendelsohn.
UCT suspended him for lodging the lawsuit, citing colleagues’ complaints that he was unfit to head UCT’s Department of Historical Studies. An independent investigation exonerated him and found that the complaints stemmed from colleagues’ dislike of his views on the resolutions.
Despite the exoneration, UCT has yet to reinstate Mendelsohn. One could reasonably expect Yach, as HR Committee Chair, to have nudged UCT to remedy that. One would be routinely disappointed.
UCT’s Council has fresh faces and voices after last year’s elections that offer hope of new vision, perspective and direction.
The same cannot be said for UCT’s Convocation. It may be ready, willing and well-placed to accede to growing demands effectively to “cleanse” UCT of troublesome, pesky Jews.
A UCT academic notes in response that “Jews have lived this pattern (of blatant Jew hatred) many times before in many countries…, the world recognises it only in hindsight” but “South Africa is watching it unfold in real time” on UCT campus.
It is telling that the academic has authored the response anonymously to protect her own safety. That speaks volumes about UCT as a campus that has become an increasingly dangerous place for Jews, despite official statements to the contrary.
The academic describes the Convocation elections as UCT’s “Kristallnacht 2025”.
Here is an excerpt: “No windows were smashed. No buildings burned. No mobs gathered. Instead, the purge arrives through motions and voting tallies. Through polite language and procedural respectability. Through the illusion of moral clarity.
“The result is the same. Jewish identity is framed as racism. Jewish belonging becomes conditional. Jewish safety is treated as optional.
“Yet here we are. A public university applauding the removal of Jews from a space they helped build, under the polite cover of modern political language.
“If this is what human rights discourse has become, then the words have lost their meaning.”
Unfolding alongside that collapse of moral meaning is a dystopian irony of ironies: Jews are among those contributing to UCT’s attempts to rid its campus of Jews who happen to be Zionists.
That leaves UCT urgently in need of Council members who prioritise education, ethics and human rights over politics and ideology. It requires leaders prepared to put their political ideologies aside and work together to stem the rising tsunami of antisemitism (under the guise of anti-Zionism) currently engulfing the campus.
If not, UCT will never reclaim its once glittering, global reputation as a bastion of higher learning and academic freedom.
*News Flash:
Dianna Yach is facing a call from a prominent South African-born Harvard Medical School neurology professor to stand down or be fired as Chairperson and executive director of the Mauerberger Foundation Fund (MFF) Board. Prof Jeremy Schahmann, a University of Cape Town (UCT) medical school graduate, makes the call in a letter emailed to the MFF Board before its special meeting on Friday, December 12, 2025. He describes Yach’s support for the “Gaza conflict resolutions” as “unfathomable”. Her statements and actions effectively “violate the MFF commitment to academic freedom and MFF’s long history of deep support for Israel,” Schahmann writes. “They aim to torpedo academic engagement between Israeli and UCT academics. They erode donor support for UCT.” He pays tribute to Yach’s grandfather, MFF founder Morris Mauerberger, as a man who “understood the need for philanthropy” to support the foundation’s commitment to “academic freedom and long history of deep support for Israel.” Yach should resign or be fired to “allow the MFF to return to its proud past focus”, Schahmann writes.
About the writer:
Marika Sboros is a South African freelance investigative journalist with decades of experience writing fulltime for the country’s top media titles on a wide range of topics. She started her career as a hard-news reporter in the newsroom of the now defunct Rand Daily Mail, a campaigning anti-government newspaper during the worst excesses of the apartheid era. She commutes between South Africa and the UK.
While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves. LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).
An opportunity wasted as the Pontif threw his faithful under the wheels of his own proverbial Popemobile.
By Jonathan Feldstein
Growing up in Chicago as a White Sox fan, it’s safe to assume that Robert Francis Prevost was very much part of the baseball culture. It’s also safe to assume that he knows the term “swing and miss.” As Pope Leo, it’s astounding to see him swing and miss, not once but three times in the context of his brief visit to Lebanon.
Baseball Fan. Before emerging Pope Leo, Robert Francis Prevost was a die-hard Sox fans and is seen here (left corner) with close friends at a 2005 White Sox World Series game at U.S. Cellular Field.
Arriving in the war-torn and Hezbollah dominated country, Pope Leo delivered public remarks ranging on a variety of topics – peace, religious coexistence, the country’s economic crisis, political divisions, and lingering effects of the Israel-Hezbollah war. He even delved into international diplomatic issues that would otherwise be far afield from his theological role as head of the Catholic church, seen by many as a foul ball.
His first strike was not saying anything to ensure the protection and well-being of Christians in Lebanon, long threatened and attacked by Islamists. His best attempt, but definitely a swing and miss, was to make a passive statement urging native Christians to remain in Lebanon and be part of the country’s pluralistic past.
Leo did not, however, explicitly address the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, Lebanon’s requirement to disarm Hezbollah by the end of 2025, or the sectarian threats and violence of Islamists that created the Christian exodus from the country where Christians once represented more than half the population. Rather than doing so, he tepidly waited until his airport departure press conference boldly stating:
“The Church has put forward a proposal urging Hezbollah to lay down arms and prioritize dialogue,” adding:
“Armed struggle brings no benefit: renounce violence and engage in constructive talks.”
Pope’s Peace Prospects? Stepping onto the ground in war-torn Lebanon with such promise, what impact did Pope Leo have and what opportunities were lost?
Leo placed himself in the center of a months-old ceasefire that is weeks away from failure. It was a pageant play of the absurd. Urging Christians to remain without addressing the threats to them and the obligation to protect the Christian population is analogous to telling an abused wife to remain in her abusive home without ensuring her protection! Essentially, he threw his faithful under the wheels of his own Popemobile.
If the Pope of all people is not going to speak out to truly protect Christians in Lebanon, who will be more righteous than the Pope? The irony is that in the past, Israel has shown more interest in Lebanon’s Christians than many millions of Christians. One vivid example is that my son’s commanding officer in the IDF is a Lebanese-born Christian whose family was among thousands rescued from certain persecution if not slaughter by Hezbollah’s Islamists in 2000.
I am reminded of my friend, Sami, who once cried to me how Hezbollah ruined his life, and begged Israel to eliminate the Islamists.
Pope Leo’s second strike were his comments en route to Lebanon, calling for a “two-state solution” regarding Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. He was mute on protecting Lebanese Christians but put Israel in the crosshairs, suggesting that creating another Islamist Arab state narrowing Israel’s borders and threatening the Jewish state is the “only path” to peace and justice for Israel and Palestinian Arabs.
Speaking to reporters, Leo opined:
“We all know that at present Israel still does not accept this solution, but we see it is the only solution that could offer, let us say, an answer to the conflict they continue to live. We are also friends of Israel, and we are trying to act as a mediating voice for both sides, helping to bring about a solution that is fair for everyone.”
Adding to the swing and miss, Leo shared these comments in the wake of his meeting with Turkey’s Islamist President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Pandering to the Islamist who harbors Hamas terrorists and slaughters Kurds, Leo shared that Turkey has an important role in the Middle East, rather than accurately calling out Erdogan’s dangerous threats, in the interest of “coexistence”. One has to wonder why Leo made Turkey the site of his first international trip since being elected, and remained mute on the Islamist’s open threats, converting a former landmark cathedral -the Hagia Sophia – to a mosque, and striving to revive the Ottoman caliphate.
Mosque with a Message. As the religious and spiritual center of the Eastern Orthodox Church for nearly one thousand years, the landmark cathedral, Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, was again converted into a mosque, this time by Erdogan’s Turkish government in 2020.
Strike three was the swing and miss of pandering to Islam rather than standing up boldly in the face of threats Islamists have wreaked, and suggesting a political or diplomatic solution to a problem that rewards and emboldens Islamic terror and a theology that considers Jews and Christians including the Pope as dhimmi – tolerated second class citizens. Rather than pandering to Islamists in Turkey and Lebanon, and truly offering thoughts and a solution in the theme of his visit, “blessed are the peacemakers,” Leo should have done a deep dive into his own faith offering an actual Christian solution for peace, rather than balking and threatening Christians and Israelis in the same stroke.
MISSED OPPORTUNITY
Pope Leo was at least right when he said that “There is no peace without conversion of hearts,” so how much better to have used his platform to build on his own words to his Muslim audience. In the face of Islamic threats, talk about reconciliation sounds nice, but it does not make persecuted Christians or anyone else safer.
Pontiff’s Platforms. Young Robert Prevost (today Pope Leo) is seen here (left) with Pope John Paul II (right) in the 1980s. While John Paul II boldly used his pontiff’s platform to fight against dictatorships and is credited with helping to end communist rule in his native Poland and the rest of Europe, it appears Pope Leo prefers not to ruffle feathers in his pursuance of peace.
He could have offered a Christian solution that involves a “conversion of hearts,” rather than simply mumbling pleasant rhetoric that instead of bringing peace in the Middle East will push everyone further from it.
Beating around the bush in the shadow of Hezbollah’s ‘empire’ made the Islamists laugh their way back to their bunkers as they plot future chaos and misery.
About the writer:
Jonathan Feldstein - President of the US based non-profit Genesis123 Foundation whose mission is to build bridges between Jews and Christians – is a freelance writer whose articles appear in The Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, Townhall, NorthJersey.com, Algemeiner Jornal, The Jewish Press, major Christian websites and more.
While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves. LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).
As the US was justified in killing Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, Israel is justified in liquidating Hamas leaders wherever they reside.
By Neville Berman
September 11, 2001 was a day that shocked the world. On that day 19 Islamic terrorists hijacked 4 commercial airlines and used them to attack America. 2,977 people were killed and thousands more were injured.
That evening, President George W Bush was informed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that they had identified an Islamic organization known as al-Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, operating out of Afghanistan, as being responsible for the attacks. After the Taliban, who governed Afghanistan, rejected American demands to expel al-Qaeda and extradite its leaders, America ordered an attack on Afghanistan.
Justice for All. If it was acceptable that “Justice has been done,” as President Barack Obama said in announcing the death of Osama bin Laden in a U.S. military operation in Pakistan, May 1, 2011, why not for the Hamas leaders who perpetrated the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust?
Osama bin Laden went into hiding and evaded capture. America offered a $25 million reward to anyone supplying information that would lead to the capture of bin Laden. False information poured in.
For years bin Laden managed to send tapes with recordings of his speeches from his hiding place, to the Al Jazeera TV station in Qatar. The tapes were then broadcast to the 430 million households that watch Al Jazeera broadcasts around the world. Most of the speeches promoted the Islamic concept of Jihad against the West. Bin Laden was determined to bring down the West. The Palestinians were of no interest to him and he never mentioned them.
For years the relentless search to locate bin Laden continued. Tens of thousands of cell phone calls were recorded and analysed. Electronic messages and aerial photography from satellite imagery were studied. After over 9 years of searching, the CIA finally believed that they had traced the courier that was delivering the tapes to Al Jazeera from a house in Pakistan. The evidence was not 100% conclusive that Osama bin Laden was actually living in the house, but was persuasive enough for President Obama to authorize an attack on the site. On May 11, 2011, Operation Neptune Spear was put into action. A team of navy seals were flown by Black Hawk helicopters into Pakistan. They managed to enter the compound, locate and kill Osama bin Laden and several of his aides and family. They also retrieved a trove of electronic discs and files that shed light on al Qaeda. Bin Laden’s body was brought back for positive identification and burial at sea. The killing of bin Laden was seen as a turning point in the fight against terror.
In 2005, Israel unilaterally demolished all Israeli settlements in Gaza, and withdrew entirely from the area. They then handed control of the territory to the Palestinian Authority (PA) led by Yasser Arafat. Two years later, Hamas violently took control of Gaza by killing the leadership of the PA in Gaza. Hamas is a militant Islamic organization that is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood that aims at a world living under Sharia law. Hamas does not hide their intentions. The Hamas Charter calls for the killing of all Jews and the elimination of Israel and the establishment of a Palestinian State from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
From the moment Hamas took control of Gaza they promoted hatred as a way to radicalize the population. Under the guise of a liberation movement, Hamas infiltrated every aspect of the lives of two million people living in Gaza. They infiltrated the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) for Palestinian refugees. They radicalized the curriculum of all UNRWA schools in Gaza and promoted suicide bombing, jihad and martyrdom. They robbed banks in Gaza. They stole thousands of tons of humanitarian food aid and sold it to the people in Gaza at inflated prices. They collected taxes on all goods imported into Gaza. They set up monopolies that controlled cell phone services, petrol and gas supplies, and all other essential services. They built an army of radicalized terrorists, whose intention was nothing less than retaining absolute control of Gaza through force, and aimed at eliminating the State of Israel. They built hundreds of kilometres of tunnels under hospitals, mosques, schools and houses in order to hide missiles and military equipment and to be used to attack Israel. They built their headquarters in tunnels directly below hospitals. They used civilians as human shields to protect themselves from Israeli retaliation. They killed or maimed anyone who opposed them. They fired over 27,000 rockets into Israel. All of them were aimed at civilian targets. They broke every accepted norm of civilized behaviour, and ruled themselves out as ever being a peace partner. They brought death and destruction to the people of Gaza.
To the outside world they presented themselves as victims of Israeli occupation. Fake news about an Israel siege on Gaza, and Israel committing crimes against humanity, became their passport to an outpouring of humanitarian aid, especially from the gullible liberal west. Official figures published by the UN show the countries that financed UNRWA in 2023. The European Union and Britain were the largest contributors with 53%, followed by America and Canada with 38%. Japan and Australia contributed 5% and Muslim countries contributed 4%. Saudi Arabia donated $17 million out of the $1.2 billion UNRWA budget. It is clear that the West has an agenda to ensure that the Palestinians remain a threat to Israel, while the wealthy oil exporting Arab countries pay lip service to supporting Hamas. They see Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood as a direct threat to their way of life and rule.
Eight of the top leaders of Hamas, left the squalor that they had created in Gaza, and went to live with their families in Doha, Qatar. They arrived with billions of dollars that they had embezzled and stolen from the people of Gaza. They do not care at all about the poverty and destitute lives of the people in Gaza. On the contrary, the catastrophic pictures of poverty in Gaza are their passport for more humanitarian assistance to flow in. The more aid that flows in, the richer they become.
On the morning of October 7, 2023, Hamas attacked Israel. They attacked a music festival and nearby kibbutzim. They proudly filmed themselves committing barbaric crimes and openly boasting about killing, raping women of all ages, mutilating bodies, burning babies, and destroying whatever they could. They killed over 1,200 people and took over 250 hostages to Gaza. In deference to the families of those killed and taken hostage, the films taken by the terrorists have not been widely distributed by Israel. They are simply too shocking to be shown.
Israel’s ‘Ground Zero’. Like the site in New York where once stood the Twin Towers, the site in Israel where a massacre took the lives of your revelers at a music festival and shattered the Jewish nation.
Immediately after the attack on October 7, Israel set itself the goal of returning every hostage and eliminating Hamas. Now you cannot eliminate an ideology, but you can reduce the capacity of your enemies to be able to carry out their destructive aims. One of the ways of doing this is to eliminate their leaders. In July 2024, Ismail Haniyeh the overall political leader of Hamas who had been living in Qatar was assassinated while visiting Iran. The level of Israeli intelligence required to succeed in assassinating Haniyah in a pin point manner while in an apartment in Tehran, shocked Iran. On October 16, 2024, more than a year after Hamas attacked Israel, Yahya Sinwar the leader of Hamas in Gaza was killed. He was succeeded by his brother Mohammed Sinwar who was in turn eliminated on May 13, 2025. Both were killed in Gaza.
Killing Killers. Like the vow of US presidents from Bush to Obama to eliminate bin Laden, so Israel vowed to kill Haniyeh and other leaders of Hamas after the Gaza-based terror group’s devastating October 7 attack that killed 1,200 people and saw 251 taken hostage.
On September 9, 2025 Israel decided to attack the 7 remaining leaders of Hamas who were living in Qatar. These leaders are terrorists in every sense of the word. They helped plan the attacks on Israel and they radicalized the people in Gaza. The attack did not go according to plan. Instead of killing the leaders of Hamas, 5 lower-level members of Hamas and one member of the Qatari security force were killed by mistake. None of the billionaire leaders of Hamas living in Doha were killed.
Now comes the double standards of the world towards Israel. When America killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, no one accused America of attacking Pakistan. When Israel attacked the leadership of Hamas in Qatar, the whole world accused Israel of attacking Qatar. Israel did not attack Qatar. It attacked Hamas leaders living in Qatar. There is a huge difference. The double standard is obvious.
To add insult to injury, on September 25, 2025, the Prime Minister of Israel. Bibi Netanyahu, while attending a meeting with President Trump in the oval office, was ordered to personally apologise to the Prime Minister of Qatar in an arranged phone call. He was also ordered to promise that Israel would never attack Qatar in the future. It was a deliberate humiliation of Israel’s elected prime minister. In trying to mollify Qatar, Trump sent the wrong message to the world. America should not be approving sanctuary for terrorist leaders in any country, especially not Qatar. Qatar is using its bountiful financial resources to advance a very serious double game of promoting chaos across America, while pretending to be an ally of America.
Coerced Call. Following Israel’s attack on the leaders of Hamas in Doha, President Trump orchestrates a call in the White House on September 25, 2025 where Israeli PM Netanyahu was ordered to personally apologise to the Prime Minister of Qatar and to promise that Israel would never attack Qatar in the future. The US had no qualms about taking out the leader of Al–Qaeda in Pakistan.
No matter how great a friend President Trump has been to Israel, it seems reasonable to assume that in the same way that America attacked the leaders of al-Qaeda in Pakistan, Israel has the right to attack the leaders of Hamas in Qatar. What happened in the oval office does not augur well for the future of the American Israeli relationship.
About the writer:
AccountantNeville Berman had an illustrious sporting career in South Africa, being twice awarded the South African State Presidents Award for Sport and was a three times winner of the South African Maccabi Sportsman of the Year Award. In 1978 he immigrated to the USA to coach the United States men’s field hockey team, whereafter, in 1981 he immigrated to Israel where he practiced as an accountant and then for 20 years was the Admin Manager at the American International School in Even Yehuda, Israel. He is married with two children and one granddaughter.
While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves. LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).
While global pressure for the two-state solution accelerates, maybe time to apply the brakes and study the facts.
By Peter Bailey
World leaders are living in the past when they talk about two states being the only solution to the “Palestine Problem”, when in reality their real concern is the “Jewish Problem”, without being honest enough to say so. The two-state solution was applied in 1921 when the League of Nations accepted the British proposal that Palestine east of the Jordan River become an Arab State, hence the birth of Transjordan, today the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Mandate Palestine west of the river was set to become the Jewish Homeland, in terms of the Balfour Declaration and the subsequent San Remo Resolution. The two-state solution which has been touted since 1967 is thus in reality, a three-state solution. First, a short history lesson, which will establish the background and basis of the original two-state solution, while confirming my reasoning that the current demand is in fact for a three-state solution to the Arab Israel conundrum.
The leaders of Britain, France, Italy, Japan and many others appeared most anxious to punish Israel by recognising a mythical State of Palestine in light of Israel’s defensive war against Gaza, following the vicious and criminal terrorist attack on Israel by Hamas on 7 October 2023. Leading the pack in this ill-timed, uninformed and imprudent quasi- recognition was French president Emmanuel Macron, who together with his partners in this folly were clearly not in lockstep with their predecessors who attended the San Remo Conference 105 years earlier. Britain, France, Italy and Japan saw no problem then in accepting the bona fides of the Balfour Declaration by including it in the San Remo Resolution dealing with the future of the Levant, an area comprising modern day Israel, Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. With the exception of Israel, which had to proclaim its own independence in 1948, the other states were soon established by the Mandatory Powers in terms of San Remo in territories that had formerly been part of the Ottoman Empire before its defeat in the First World War. The establishment of the Jewish Homeland was thwarted by successive British governments.
Conference’s Consequences. Delegates to the monumental 1920 San Remo conference in Italy which has had far-reaching consequences for all the peoples of the Middle East not least, for the Jewish people who had been scattered across the world for two millennia. Despite the biblical enshrining into international law “the title deed to the land of Israel to the descendants Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”, over a century later, the very legitimacy of the Jewish state in their ancient homeland is still being challenged.
The First World War brought four unique individuals together in London between 1916 and 1918. The fabled four were British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, British Foreign Secretary Sir Arthur Balfour, South African Defence Minister General Jan Smuts and scientist Chaim Weizmann, President of the British Zionist Federation. Lloyd George and Balfour were both Christian Zionists, while Smuts, informed by his knowledge of Jewish history together with his rural religious South African background had an ingrained belief in the biblical Promised Land as the historical Jewish homeland. The association of these global statesmen led to the Balfour Declaration, which was no accident of fate, but rather a merging of ideas based on political realities, historical knowledge and religious idealism.
The essence of the Balfour Declaration, issued by Sir Arthur Balfour in 1917, was a British undertaking to promote the reestablishment of the Jewish Homeland in Palestine, considering the historical right of the Jewish People to the territory. The San Remo Declaration confirmed the establishment of the division of the Levant into several territories under French and British Mandates, which would lead to the eventual self-determination of the local residents. The inclusion of the Balfour Declaration was to ensure that one element of that self-determination would be the establishment of the Jewish Homeland in historical Israel.
The San Remo Conference was convened 105 years ago with the express purpose of deciding the future of the Middle East region that had been part of the recently defeated Ottoman Empire. Present at the conference were the leaders of Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Belgium and Greece, as well as the leaders of the Zionist Movement.
Following the conference, the San Remo Declaration, incorporating the 1917 Balfour Declaration, was issued, providing the legal basis for the establishment of the League of Nations British Mandate over Palestine, amongst several other Mandates. Sir Arthur Balfour remarked at the time that this confirmed the “historical right of the Jewish people to their ancestral homeland.” While Lloyd George and Balfour were committed to the establishment of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine, their tenure in government was unfortunately destined to be short-lived, and their promise of a Jewish Homeland left unfulfilled.
Lloyd George was replaced by Conservative party leader William Bonar Law on 23 October 1922. Bonar Law, whose primary concern was an amicable arrangement to settle Britain’s War Debt with the United States, paid scant attention to Palestine. He was seriously ill with throat cancer and resigned in May 1923, to be replaced by Stanley Baldwin on 23 May 1923. The San Remo Declaration granted had Great Britain Mandatory responsibility for Mesopotamia and for Palestine in terms of the Balfour Declaration. Our concern is with Mandate Palestine, which has two distinct regions, one east of the Jordan River, and the other west of the river, extending to the Mediterranean coast. The failure of Great Britain to honour and carry out its obligation of establishing a Jewish Homeland in terms of the Balfour Declaration lies at the heart of many of the current problems facing Israel in particular, and the Middle East in general.
Unlike their predecessors who approved of the San Remo and Balfour Declarations, contemporary politicians analysing the history of Israel and of the Jewish People without considering the facts, has resulted in a bizarre revision of that history, led by the Palestinian mythmakers and their fellow travelers.
The original sin which lies at the root of the Israel Arab conflict can be defined as the general acceptance of the Arab myth of indigeneity to the land they call Palestine, sans any verifiable historical evidence. The same land is referred to as Israel by the Jewish people, with reams of verifiable historical evidence as to their indigeneity. The time is long overdue that the 193 member states of the United Nations recognise this truth, after which they would have a solemn duty to educate the Palestinian masses that they have no prior right to the land of Israel. Acceptance by all of the rights of the Jewish people to Israel, could result in a reset of the relationship between Israel and the Palestinian leadership, which in turn, has the potential to result in a mutually acceptable conclusion to the never ending conflict.
HISTORY OF ISRAEL AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE
The beating heart of Israel is the city of Jerusalem, the holiest city in Judaism, while the Arab Muslim world claims Jerusalem as a holy city in Islam, refusing to acknowledge the prior rights of Jewry to the same city. There are two indisputable facts regarding Jewish and Muslim claims to Jerusalem. The first being that the Muslim religion came into being between the years 600 and 620 of the common era, while Jerusalem is historically confirmed as the centre of Jewish religious life and home to the Jewish Temple at least 1,100 years earlier.
Roman historian, Gaius Plinius Secundus (23/24 – 79 CE), known as Pliny the Elder described Jerusalem as by far the most famous city of the East, while fellow Roman historian, Publius Cornelius Tacitus, (c. 56 – c. 120 CE), described it as “the capital of the Jews, with a temple of enormous reaches.” The following excerpt (translated) from Historiae V, the fifth volume of Tacitus’ Histories, leaves the reader in no doubt as to the Jewish character of Jerusalem:
“But the city stands on an eminence, and the Jews had defended it with works and fortifications sufficient to protect even level ground; for the two hills that rise to a great height had been included within walls that had been skillfully built, projecting out or bending in so as to put the flanks of an assailing body under fire. The rocks terminated in sheer cliffs, and towers rose to a height of sixty feet where the hill assisted the fortifications, and in the valleys, they reached one hundred and twenty; they presented a wonderful sight, and appeared of equal height when viewed from a distance. An inner line of walls had been built around the palace, and on a conspicuous height stands Antony’s Tower, so named by Herod in honor of Mark Antony.”
While Pliny the Elder talks about the Essenes, a Jewish sect, in his history, Tacitus confirms that Jerusalem was the Jewish capital as well as corroborating the existence of the Temple, known in Judaism as the Second Temple. Neither Pliny nor Tacitus mention an Arab presence nor the existence of a mosque on the Temple Mount, simply because Islam did not exist in their era, only appearing on the world stage some 5 to 6 hundred years later. While there has been much conjecture about the existence of the First Jewish Temple, built by King Solomon according to Biblical records, there is sufficient proof placing the Jews in control of Jerusalem at least 1,000 years before the arrival of Mohammed and Islam on the world stage.
One of the results of the Roman conquest over Israel was the renaming of the region, particularly Judea and Samaria, as Palestina, in an effort to destroy the Jewish identity of the region, hence the name Palestine. One of the results of the birth of Islam was the military conquest of the entire Levant by Muslim Arab forces between 634 and 638 CE, the establishment of the Rashidun Caliphate and the subsequent Arab colonisation of the entire region. The Arab/Palestinian claim to Palestine originates from this colonisation, giving them some entitlement, while the claim of the rights that go with indigeneity can be debunked without further ado. The idea that Arabs are indigenous to Israel is of relatively modern origin, emerging around the same time as the modern Zionist movement and the subsequent birth of Palestinian nationalism, concomitant with the British Mandate over Palestine.
Apparently misinformed by the mythical contrived history of Israel, the 2025 United Nations General Assembly seemed to have a one-track agenda – the establishment of a Palestinian State in addition to the State of Israel, west of the Jordan River, popularly known as the Two State Solution. This was without any consideration for, or perhaps a lack of accurate knowledge, of the historical background. The map of Mandate Palestine below clearly indicates that in 1921, Britain divided Palestine into two separate units, the Arab entity of Transjordan, later the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, east of the Jordan River, with the clear intention that territory west of the Jordan would become the Jewish Homeland. That this was in fact the original Two State Solution has been long forgotten. The Arab Emirate of Transjordan was recognised by the League of Nations in September 1922, the first step to the implementation of the San Remo Declaration. The second step, the establishment of the Jewish Homeland fell by the wayside together with the Lloyd George government.
The small area in black with the legend – area ceded to Syria 1923 – this is the Golan Heights that were intended to be part of the Jewish Homeland, but removed.
The resignation of David Lloyd George on 19 October 1922 as the result of a financial scandal was followed by the election of a new government signaling the end of Britain honouring the terms of the Mandate. The establishment of a Jewish homeland became a very low priority, while Britain meticulously limited Jewish immigration to Palestine in order to maintain an Arab majority. Simultaneously with its Jewish immigration policy, Britain introduced a second Two State plan, while ignoring its own decision creating Transjordan in 1921 as the first step towards an Arab and a Jewish state in Mandate Palestine. The new two state plan, creating a second Arab state west of the Jordan River became the rallying cry of the Arab community. This was resolutely, and in many cases aggressively opposed by the Zionist movement, which demanded the application of the San Remo and Balfour Declarations. Trapped between Jewish determination and Arab demands brought about by its own perfidious plans, the British Government decided in 1947 to return the Mandate over Palestine to the United Nations.
1947 United Nations Partition Vote.
The General Assembly subsequently approved a partition plan in 1947, totally ignoring the Mandate division of Palestine, rather voting for a grossly unfair partition of the Eastern half of Palestine as shown on the above map. Needless to say, the Arab world refused to abide by the U.N. vote, now calling for a single Arab State, which would include a “Jewish component”. The Zionist movement in turn reluctantly accepted the vote on the basis of:
Half a loaf being better than none.
Britain vacated Palestine on 15 May 1948, the day after David Ben Gurion had proclaimed the Independent State of Israel in the region west of the Jordan River. The nascent State of Israel was immediately attacked by the surrounding Arab States in an attempt to strangle the Jewish State at birth. The rest of the story is the modern history of Israel, together with a never-ending call for the establishment of two states following Israel’s stunning victory in the 1967 Six Day War. History also records that every offer by Israel of an independent Palestinian State has been spurned, regardless of the terms. The Two State solution with no Jewish State has become the new global cry on behalf of the Palestinian people, while the Palestinians themselves chant:
“From the River to the Sea”
This amounts to a call for a single state west of the Jordan River. Back to the future, I conclude with the all too familiar quote by legendary Israeli diplomat Abba Eban, who said in 1973:
“The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”
About the writer:
The writer, Peter Bailey, a military history buff, was a Major in the South African Army Reserve before making aliyah in 2013. He is the author of two books: Street Names in Israel; and Men of Valor: Israel’s Latter Day Heroes.
While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves. LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).
The planeload of Gazans arriving in South Africa has so far been a saga of silence and falsity.
By Lawrence Nowosenetz
There is something deeply wrong with the way this story has been framed in South Africa. For a week, the country has been fed a fake narrative that suits the political and activist sector that favours casting Israel as a malignant player. The South African media swallowed it whole, without questioning the source, the motives, or the glaring contradictions.
On 13 November a commercial jet belonging to Global Airways landed at OR Tambo Airport, Johannesburg carrying 153 people from Gaza. They had lawfully departed from Gaza through the Israeli Keren Shalom crossing to Ramon Airport, a civil (not military) airport near Eilat in Israel and had flown to Nairobi, Kenya.
For 9 hours Border Management officials barred them from disembarking from the aircraft due to lack of documentation. They did not have exit customs stamps of Israel and entry visas to South Africa. They had not sought refugee status with the United Nations prior to their departure. Nor had they applied for asylum under South African immigration or refugee law. The Department of Home Affairs was apparently unaware of their arrival and regarded their entry as illegal. Eventually, 130 were granted 90-day tourist visas and entered South Africa under the care of a local Muslim charity, Gift of the Givers. The remainder transferred to their ultimate destination.
The narrative of the South African Government was that it did not want to collaborate with Israeli “ethnic cleansing” and the travellers had no legal documentation to enter South Africa. Imtiaz Sooliman of Gift of the Givers presented himself as the heroic interlocutor of the crisis. Politicians claimed confusion and ignorance. Commentators repeated the same talking points and as usual blamed Israel for everything while blindly accepted the Palestinian Authority’s version without hesitation or scrutiny.
Who’s The Boss? Interestingly in this image appearing in the SA media covering the unfolding and confusing saga of the arrival in Johannesburg of Gazan passengers, the large face of the Dr Imtiaz Sooliman of the Islamist charity, Gift of the Givers (left), dwarfs from (left to right) South Africa’s president, Cyril Ramaphosa, Dirco Minister Ronald Lamola and Home Affairs Minister Leon Schreiber. (Photo: Lulama Zenzile / Gallo Images / Die Burger)
Yet the one group that the media should have been listening to has been completely sidelined. The people who actually made the journey from Gaza to South Africa.
TESTIFYING TO THE TRUTH While newsrooms were still recycling press statements, Tim Flack, a PR professional specialising in crisis management and media relations, did the basic work that journalism used to value:
He spoke to the individuals involved.
(Click on the picture for the X post)
Two Gazan women spoke to him independently. One who is in South Africa and another who travelled on to Indonesia.
-Both used the Al Majd humanitarian pathway that has been operating quietly and legally.
– Both voluntarily applied to leave Gaza.
– Both willingly boarded the flights.
– Both thanked Al Majd and Israel for coordinating their safe exit.
According to Tim Flack, their testimonies destroy the pre-packaged narrative about abandonment, scams, trafficking, forced removal and Imtiaz Sooliman’s new buzzword:
“Ethnic Cleansing“.
These testimonies completely contradict the claims made by Sooliman who in pushing for an investigation by the South Africa President, took to the media in an Al Jazeera style operation of blame Israel at all costs. The testimony of these women clearly undermines the political theatre that played out in South Africa.
FLIGHT CONTROLL TO OUT OF CONTROL One of the women shared a WhatsApp directive that she allegedly received from the Palestinian Embassy in South Africa. It was not a request – it was an instruction.
Hereunder is the translation:
“We are about to issue an official press statement regarding the situation of the Palestinian group that arrived from Palestine. It is very important that you all commit to not issuing any statements on social media and not communicating with any press outlet. If any journalists contact you, please direct them to speak with Sara. [ Presumably Sarah from Gift of the Givers] The purpose of these instructions is not to restrict your freedom, but to protect your privacy and to ensure a better legal situation for you. We do not want any statements being made outside the approved framework, because that would create obstacles for the group.”
The Embassy’s message was clear:
* No talking to media.
* No social media posts.
* Only speak to a designated individual who is not even a government official named Sara Oosthuizen who works for Gift of the Givers.
* No public statements outside the approved framework.
This reads like a gag order disguised as concerned counsel.
Even more sinister, is the claim by the Gazan woman passenger that the Palestinian Authority forced the embassy in Indonesia to cancel visas earlier in the year just as another group of Gazans was preparing to leave. Those visas were unduly revoked under political pressure.
The flights being legal raises the important question of why the Palestinian Authority attempted to block people from leaving Gaza legally and peacefully:
Could it be that an orderly and legal departure of Gazans does not fit with the Palestinian narrative of Gaza being “an open-air prison”?
Clearly, it refutes that there is no truth in the South African statement that the Gazans are being “expelled” or that they are barred from returning.
Happy Landing. While a smiling Palestinian ambassador to South Africa, Hanan Jarrar, is seen here (centre) meeting on the plane with Gazan passengers, it is noted that her boss, the Palestinian Authority attempted to block people from leaving Gaza legally and peacefully. (Photo:/Embassy of the State of Palestine via Reuters)
The core issue I am addressing is:
What is the explanation for such media submissiveness to deliberately ignore reporting the full story?
Is governmental pressure being applied and perhaps ‘duly assisted’ by the conniving Israel-hater Imtiaz Sooliman? And why are journalists not investigating the actions of the Palestinian Authority (PA) with the same intensity and zeal they apply to Israel? Many questions; too few answers!
‘ON BOARD’ WAS ALL ABOVE BOARD The story about South Africa being blindsided does not stand up to scrutiny. Palestinians do not require visas for visits up to 90 days. It’s on the South African Department of Home Affairs website.
The South African government officially announced in September 2023 that Palestinians with valid Palestinian passports are visa exempt travellers. The only requirements for entry are valid travel documents and perhaps proof of resources for accommodation and intent to return.
As to the false and malicious allegation against Israel regarding the failure to stamp the Gazans passports on exit, Israel did away with this practice in 2013. This is common knowledge and to have over-dramatically pedalled to the media this false accusation as did Gift of the Givers’ founder and CEO Imtiaz Sooliman was nothing less than slander to besmirch the Jewish state.
The plane carrying the Gazan passengers could not have landed without South African approval as the third country and Israel publicly confirmed that the exit was coordinated. France24 too confirmed that the unnamed third country was South Africa.
Air traffic control at OR Tambo was always aware of the incoming flight and its landing schedule.
Despite all of this, South African media outlets continued to present the false narrative that the Gazans arrived in some irregular fashion.
The facts say otherwise.
The law says otherwise.
The testimony of the Gazan women passengers says otherwise.
MEDIA’S SCANDELIOUS ‘SOUNDS OF SILENCE’ Several questions remain unanswered.
Why are the testimonies of the most affected people – the Gazan passengers – not being reported?
Why are the media outlets in South Africa failing to investigate a significant lead in the story that respected media relations expert Tim Flack exposed?
Why are the investigative journalists not doing their job by tenaciously pursuing the allegations of the Gazan passengers against the Embassy of the Palestinian Authority in Pretoria for trying to subdue them into silence?
Why have Sooliman’s outrageous claims not been challenged against available evidence?
Why is the public subjected to one exclusive politically motivated narrative that is only against Israel?
In Search of Safety. Many stories to be told, what is preventing journalists from interviewing these passengers as to why and how they left Gaza and if they are happy with their decision? (Photo: Embassy of the State of Palestine / South Africa / via Facebook)
Failure to all of the above sadly affirms a quiescent mainstream media that is subservient to the South African government, the Embassy of the Palestinian Authority in South Africa and the Gift of the Givers being their enablers and abetters.
The shabby truth is that once the Rainbow Nation, South Africa is now a country where crime and corruption are part of the unwritten constitution, and in step with this decline, turned its foreign policy against true democratic Western interests and values to which it pays lip service. Instead, it embraces BRICS and the so-called global South which includes rogue nations such as Iran. It pursues a perverted and hypocritical stance on human rights which is passive about the ongoing atrocities in Sudan, Yemen and massacres of Christians in Nigeria and other African countries.
TIME FOR TRUTH This saga is not only about a flight from Gaza. It is about how narratives are manufactured, manipulated and spun and how easily journalists abandon independence and human empathy. The human aspirations of the Gazan travellers and their quest for a better life does not seem to be a topic worthy of pursuit.
Journalism is debased when a particular narrative – in this instance demonisation of Israel – becomes paramount, either because it aligns with the prevailing popular worldview or so that a journalist can hold onto his or her job without offending.
A CALL FOR MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITY Migration from conflict zones in the Middle East has become commonplace hence not complicated to report on. When people who survived the Gaza war speak, the responsible act is to listen to their personal account. There was no shortage of tearful accounts of Gazan suffering during the war but suddenly this fails to be of interest when Gazans leaving for a better life wish to tell their story! Why?
Two Gazan women, thousands of kilometres apart – one still in South Africa the other now in Indonesia – each told the same story. They explained how they left Gaza legally, willingly, and were grateful for all the assistance they received.
They also revealed how they were subjected to pressure and intimidation after landing in South Africa and explained how the Palestinian Authority played a disruptive role in the pursuance of their plans for a new life outside of Gaza. Is this the narrative the anti-Israel lobby do not want to hear? That there is life outside of Gaza free of Hamas?
Ignoring these corroborative testimonies amounts to a moral and media failure.
Life after Gaza. Is it pictures like these from a news network video clip of Gazans arriving at OR Tambo airport in Johannesburg that the PA and Hamas don’t want the world to see?
By failing to follow the facts and track the truth – the guiding principles for any journalist – these professionals would be doing a disservice to their audience. There is a story is out there to be told, a true story from passengers who will testify to their personal experiences and the paths they have opted to pursue. It is time for the media to step up and ask the questions they should have been asking from the very beginning.
About the writer:
Now retired, Pretoria-born human rights and labour lawyer, Lawrence Nowosenetz practiced at the Pretoria and Johannesburg Bar. Recipient of a Fulbright Scholarship, Nowosenetz completed an internship in the USA and served as a part-time Senior Commissioner at the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) as well as a panellist at Tokiso Dispute Settlement – the largest private dispute resolution provider in South Africa. He has also served as an Acting Judge of the Hight Court, South Africa.
While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves. LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).
