Category: International Relations

KICKING THE GENOCIDE CAN FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD

The ICJ saga of SA vs Israel – an update.

By Lawrence Nowosenetz

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has recently kicked the genocide case brought by South Africa against Israel further down the road. It has authorised the filing of a second round of written submissions (court pleadings). The first round of pleadings consisted of a memorial and counter memorial.  The court was requested by South Africa last month that a second round of pleadings was required because of the complexity of the case and the volume of Israel’s counter-memorial with numerous annexures. Israel also filed objections to the court’s jurisdiction and the admissibility of South Africa’s application.

Article 49 (3) of the rules of the ICJ provides: 

“The Reply and Rejoinder, whenever authorized by the Court, shall not merely repeat the parties’ contentions, but shall be directed to bringing out the issues that still divide them.

In a ruling dated 29 May 2026, the ICJ has given South Africa until 22 November 2027, to file its reply and Israel has until 22 May 22, 2029, to submit a rejoinder.  

Dr Gilad Noam, a member of Israel’s legal team said in a post on X dated 31 May 2026:

“… it demonstrates that South Africa’s allegations are wholly unfounded and that this is a case that should never have been brought in the first place. This case constitutes a manifest misuse of the Genocide Convention and of the Court itself. Regardless of how long it may take, the only tenable outcome remains the dismissal of South Africa’s claims in their entirety.”

What is the significance of this extension of time limits and the filing of further documents and what does this mean for the future of the case?   

Clearly Israel’s counter memorial, its statement of defence has seriously derailed the entire case of genocide brought by South Africa. This is not surprising. The memorial filed by South Africa was filled with tendentious and inaccurate material which cannot stand scrutiny.

South Africa’s Basket Case. Dr. Gilad Noam, Israel’s Deputy Attorney General at the ICJ Ruling in January 2024, recently posted on X that “South Africa’s allegations are wholly unfounded and that this is a case that should never have been brought in the first place.” (Photo: ICJ.)

Legal wisdom has it, that if you cannot make out a decent case in your founding papers, you will be most unlikely to fix it in reply.  The odds are that the case against Israel was at its high point in December 2023 when it brought the application for provisional measures but since then it is on a downhill trajectory as it has to embark on damage control to try and rebut Israel’s counter memorial. No doubt it will seek to introduce new material based on events subsequent to filing its original memorial. This is a two-edged sword. Much of the hype and misinformation about starvation, bombardment, violence against civilians, children etc has now been extensively researched by Israel and it is in a far better position to critique the unreliable reports by UN agencies and humanitarian organisations based in Gaza, many based on Hamas and lacking verification and sound methodology. Israel will be afforded the opportunity to offer these critiques in its rejoinder as well as its own careful research. Some of the reports stripping away the genocide case against Israel have already been published, for example the report of 311 pages published in September 2025 by the Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies in association with Bar Ilan University (BESA) entitled:

 “Debunking the Genocide Allegations: A Re-examination of the Israel-Hamas War from October 7, 2023 to June 1, 2025”.

Let’s rewind.

On 29 December 2023, South Africa filed an application in the ICJ claiming that Israel was in breach of the Genocide Convention seeking preliminary urgent measures from the court to prevent genocide. This was less than three months after the invasion and atrocities by Hamas in Israel on 7 October 2023.  Yet South Africa was able to assemble a fully researched account of Israel’s previous conduct in Gaza in earlier wars and an up-to-date record of the new war.

This application follows a similar approach to the 2019 Rohingya genocide case   brought in the ICJ by the Gambia on behalf of the Organisation for Islamic co-operation against Myanmar. On 23 January 2020, the ICJ issued an order for provisional measures ordering Myanmar to prevent genocidal acts against the Rohingya Muslims. Since then, two rounds of memorials were also filed and the case was heard in January 2026. Judgment is expected in about six months.  A relatively smooth passage yet at least seven years will have passed before a final outcome.

In the Gaza case, the court issued a provisional ruling on 26 January 2024 which has been widely misunderstood and often wilfully misrepresented. South Africa hailed it as a success and a vindication of its genocide claims. The ruling went down 5 to 2, with judges Julia Sebutinde  (Uganda) and Aharon Barak (Israel) dissenting. Former president of the ICJ, Joan  Donoghue, clarified that the court decided the Palestinians had a “plausible right” to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court. She emphasised that, contrary to some reporting, the court did not make a ruling on whether the claim of genocide was plausible, but found that there was a risk of irreparable harm (my emphasis).  A far cry from establishing actual genocide in any shape or form.

Playing with Plausibility. The words of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have been subject to intense scrutiny since South Africa brought its case and has centred around the use of the word “plausible” in the ruling. Then-president of the International Court of Justice Joan Donoghue said the ruling had been misinterpreted.

For those unfamiliar with legal procedures, in proceedings for interim or provisional measures, the threshold of proof is not as high and easier to establish than in a final adjudication. A mere likelihood or plausible risk of harm suffices. In South Africa, this is called a prima facie case.  However, in a final hearing, proof of genocide is far more onerous.  Proof of genocidal intention is called dolus specialis (special intent) which amounts to evidence which allows no other conclusion. The normal standard of proof of criminal intent is beyond a reasonable doubt. Dolus specialis does not even allow any reasonable doubt. Genocide is the ultimate crime against humanity and this term has been carelessly and promiscuously bandied about in condemnation of Israel by many countries, activists and human rights groups alike without any respect for its true international legal meaning. 

The case has progressed as follows:

  • On 28 March 2024, following a second request for additional measures, the ICJ issued an order for further emergency measures, that Israel must ensure basic food supplies, in order to allay famine and starvation allegedly facing Gaza. 
  • On 24 May 2024 a further order was issued requiring Israel to cease operations in Rafah. The court was divided. The Israeli, German, Ugandan and Romanian judges interpreted the ruling as not requiring a ceasefire in Rafah, and allowing for defensive operations against Hamas including the rescue of hostages. Israel continued its operations as it interpreted the order likewise.   
  • In April 2024, the ICJ requested filing of pleadings in the main case i.e. determination of violation of the Genocide Convention.  South Africa submitted its memorial in October 2024, and after being granted an extension of time limits, Israel submitted its counter memorial in March 2026.

There is more.

  • Between May 2024 and December 2025 several countries joined South Africa against Israel including European countries Ireland and Belgium. Somewhat less countries have stated their support for Israel including the UK and the USA. Canada and Australia remained neutral. It bears mentioning that Ireland intends arguing for an expansion of the concept of ‘genocidal intent’ to include blocking by Israel the supply of food to Gaza.  Someone seems to have missed the point that food could also enter Gaza through Egypt.  No one is pointing fingers at Egypt.  

The Presidency of South Africa issued a statement on 2 June 2026. It noted that a second round of pleadings is common in ICJ cases. It is indeed correct that in the Rohingya genocide case there was indeed a second round where the parties were afforded time limits of 6 months, but what the Presidency fails to explain is why South Africa requested 18 months to file its reply. According to the Presidency –“South Africa’s response is a simple one: self-defence is not a defence to genocide, there is none.”  

In South African parlance this called a blaps or howler. Faux pax if you like. Why did the South African legal team plead complexity to the court in asking for a second round of pleadings and extended time limits if Mr Ramaphosa says South Africa’s case is simple.   

The Presidency got it breathtakingly wrong. Israel’s case is not simply self defence. It is based on a firm foundation of lawful military action in compliance with humanitarian law and the law of war (jus in bellum) as well as absence of genocidal intent.  Astute observers are asking whether South Africa’s case will hold up at all.

Clear Distinction. Following the misuse of the term for political propaganda against Israel,  former president of the ICJ, Joan Donoghue, clarified in a BBC interview that the ICJ did not rule that the core claim of genocide was plausible but that the Palestinians in Gaza have “plausible rights to protection from genocide”. (Photo: Biography file, ICJ)

It is unlikely that the ICJ will hear the case any time soon, perhaps an outcome can be expected after 2030 if at all.  By then a new government will have been elected in South Africa which might adopt a different foreign policy which is not aligned with the adversaries of Israel. Even if the case is unwisely pursued by South Africa, it will yield insuperable factual and legal hurdles which will ultimately be its nemesis.     

      



About the writer:    

 Born in Pretoria Lawrence Nowosenetz obtained his BA at University of the Witwatersrand and LLB at the University of South Africa. He has been admitted as an Attorney in South Africa and as an advocate in South Africa. He practiced at the Pretoria and Johannesburg Bar and worked as a human rights and labour lawyer at the Legal Resources Centre a public interest law firm. Lawrence was Awarded a Fulbright Scholarship and completed professional internship in the USA. He was a a labour arbitrator and mediator, part time Senior Commissioner at the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) as well as a panelist at Tokiso Dispute Settlement. He was a member of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies and Pretoria Chairman. He has also served as an Acting Judge of the High Court, South Africa. He now lives in Tel Aviv.







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).

                      

ONE OF THE SMALLEST COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD, ISRAEL CONSUMES THE BIGGEST CHUNK OF ARAB DAILY NEWS COVERAGE

Media Watch:  Arab world is watching Israel like never before says Arab journalist.

Explaining this phenomenon is veteran Arab journalist and author Nazir Majli, widely known for his extensive career as a political correspondent covering Israel and the Middle East for the London-based daily Asharq Al-Awsat. He has served as the publication’s Israel bureau chief, offering analysis and breaking news across both Arabic and international media. Reported in Ynet, Majli questions how Irael seems impervious to the negative impact many of its actions are having on Arabs in the region who were growing to the idea – once an anathema – of closer ties with Israel following the Abraham Accords. He characterizes Israel by its conduct as “a subcontractor for Hamas,” for the self-inflicted harm damage it is causing.
Let Majli explain – it is well worth a read.

David E. Kaplan
Editor, Lay of the Land


ARAB WORLD WATCHING ISRAELI MEDIA LIKE NEVER BEFORE, BUT ISRAEL IS FAILING TO UNDERSTAND WHY

By Nazir Majli

No country draws the attention of the Arab world more than Israel. Perhaps it began as “know your enemy,” but it did not remain only that. Many Arabs wanted knowledge and answers. For years, they learned about Israel mainly from hostile Arab sources, mobilized media, propaganda and incitement. Many believed that distorted picture until they encountered another truth.

Israel’s achievements in science, technology, security, high-tech and the economy raised more questions and increased the demand for reliable information.

When that demand became real hunger, Arab media faced a major challenge. Major newspapers such as Asharq Al-Awsat and Al-Hayat began employing Arab citizens of Israel as correspondents in the early 1990s. Al Jazeera later joined, followed by Al Arabiya. Today, there is no influential Arab channel or newspaper without a correspondent in Israel. Even Hezbollah-linked Al Mayadeen has commissioned reports from Arab Israeli journalists.

Since Oct. 7, 2023, the Israeli voice has reached the Arab nation live and from the source. Netanyahu’s speeches and those of his ministers have been broadcast live with simultaneous Arabic translation and later quoted in news bulletins. Studio discussions were repeatedly interrupted for statements by Israeli leaders.

Even as Israeli planes bombed universities, schools, mosques and churches, even as thousands of women and children were killed and homes were destroyed in Gaza and in West Bank refugee camps, the voice and image of IDF spokesman Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari appeared on screens in Palestinian and Arab homes. Every appearance was broadcast and translated reliably for Arab audiences.

Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, who before October 7, 2023 was an unfamiliar face in Saudi Arabia is seen here interviewed in June, 2024 by Al Arabiya. Al Arabiya, Saudi Arabia’s alternative to Al Jazeera and has no problem giving repeated airtime to Israel’s army spokesman.(Credit: Still from Al Arabiya IDF Spokesman)

At the same time, while Israel practiced military and self-censorship over IDF operations in Gaza and later Lebanon, and while broadcasters, reporters and commentators in Israeli studios often concealed the harsh consequences, Arab media made sure to carry the other voice — the Israeli one.

It was openness against opacity. Veteran Arab journalists remembered the 1960s, when Israel projected great self-confidence and often told the truth, while Arab media concealed it.

After 50 years of deeper and more authentic Arab familiarity with Israel, there is no longer one united Arab hostility toward Israel. There is an internal Arab conflict over Israel. The Abraham Accords were one of the clearest expressions of that change.

Hamas, inspired by Iran, attacked Israel in an effort to destroy that process. Israel’s harsh, unconventional and destructive response turned it, in effect, into a subcontractor for Hamas, helping it advance that goal and damaging the new Arab current that wanted normalization with Israel.

What had been seen as Israeli wisdom suffered a severe blow after Oct. 7.

The questions I now hear from Arab colleagues, influencers and policy figures have become much harder. Covering Israel for the Arab world has become more difficult. Israeli policy is seen as a gamble with everything on the table. Even those who hate Hamas, Iran and Hezbollah cannot digest Israel’s conduct throughout the war. Many believe this policy is helping the extremist axis.

Top Israeli journalists from Channel 2 are seen here on 3 June, 2026 on Iran’s PRESS TV.

Even friends of President Donald Trump, who strongly supports the Israeli government, do not understand how Netanyahu has placed everything in his hands.

They ask me:

 “Don’t you think about the day after? Is there no responsible body analyzing reality, examining scenarios and drawing professional conclusions about the future? How is policy made in Israel? What are the considerations? How do Israelis understand the value of good neighbors? Even if there are military achievements, why not use them for a diplomatic horizon? The first rule of wars is to end them with political achievements. Is Israel waiting for Trump to do that work, too?”

A wealthy, educated woman from Gaza, now a refugee in Egypt and known for opposing Hamas, asked me in despair: “Don’t Israelis have children? Don’t they think about their future? Do you know that my grandson talks about revenge?”

A Syrian intellectual living in Canada, who celebrated the fall of the Assad family’s regime, canceled his plan to return to Syria with his family because of the uncertainty there.

Yonit Levi from Israel’s Channel 12 appears on UAE news channel. For decades, the appearance of Israeli speakers in Arab media was the stuff of science fiction. To the Arab mainstream press, Israel was a monolithic, distant entity, “the Zionist enemy”, whose voice was permitted only through the rigid filters of local propaganda and censorship. However, the last three decades have triggered a dramatic revolution, transforming Israelis from unseen adversaries into regular, and often fiery, participants in Arab public discourse.

“What do the Israelis want from Syria already?” he asked. “A country without an army, extending a hand for peace and ready to cooperate against terrorism — why is it met with such hostility from Israel?”

A senior Egyptian diplomat I met in Tel Aviv told me: “You know how much I hate Iran. But Israel has been exposed. For me, it is the second Iran in the region. What it did in Gaza conveys weakness more than strength. The arrogance of its leaders and the talk of turning Israel into the most powerful force in the region and the world express a sick internal weakness.”

Former Israeli army spokesman Daniel Hagari and Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar on Al Arabiya

A senior official in Abu Dhabi, once an enthusiastic supporter of the Abraham Accords, spoke of deep shock.

“What Hamas did was not only carry out a cursed, murderous attack,” he said. “It also pulled Israelis out of judgment and strategic thinking, dragging them into sacrificing future generations to a dark future.”

He recalled Netanyahu’s 2015 comment at the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, when he was asked whether Israel would forever live by the sword and answered, “Yes.”

“Do Israelis understand what that means?” the Abu Dhabi official asked. “What leader promises his people wars for life?”

With pictures like this of Gaza-based Palestinian photographer Mahmud Hams documenting buildings destroyed in Israeli bombardment at the Bureij refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip on November 2, 2023, the writer questions if Israel realizes that such exposure in effect turns the Jewish state into “a subcontractor for Hamas,” damaging the “new Arab current that wanted normalization with Israel.” (Photo: AFP)

The Arab world is watching Israel more closely than ever. But attention is not support. Israel’s words are translated, its leaders are heard and its military briefings are broadcast. Yet everything Israel says is now weighed against what Arab audiences see.

The question is whether Israel understands what it is showing them.”

A FAILURE OF FOCUS

The ‘Palestine-Israel question’ has overshadowed the atrocities taking place across Africa.

By Kenneth Kgwadi

Most African countries reclaimed their political independence in the late 1950s, with Ghana becoming the first sub-Saharan African country to attain independence, paving the way for several others to follow suit. This ushered in not only joy and euphoria, but also the hope that black self-rule would prioritise the interests of their respective countries, their people, and the broader African continent. However, too many countries have fallen short of this aspiration.

It still does not make sense that the profound and visible atrocities taking place across Africa do not receive the same level of global attention afforded to the Palestinian cause. The suffering on the continent stretches back centuries, from the era of slavery to the present day. Many African countries continue to endure repression at the hands of those who were once regarded as liberators during the struggle for independence.

Pan-African Optimism. Ghana’s independence in 1957 proved a pivotal event signaling the shift away from colonialism on the African continent. Two years after Nkrumah  in 1964 pushed a constitutional amendment that makinge Ghana a one-party state and himself the life president, he was overthrown in a military coup.

Thousands of Africans continue to lose their lives to radical Islamist extremism, poverty, crime, poorly managed health outbreaks, civil wars, and state persecution. Yet, despite the scale and persistence of these challenges, such injustices often fail to attract adequate international attention and sustained global concern.

A silent war is taking place on our doorstep in the province of Cabo Delgado, where people from all 17 districts have been displaced out of fear for their lives following the brutal killings perpetrated by Islamic State Mozambique. The group has been terrorising the country since 2017, leaving thousands dead and many more displaced.

Horrendous Hypocrisy. While South Africa feigns concern for the Palestinians in Gaza, it ignores virtually on its doorstep where Islamic State Mozambique (ISM) is responsible for a significant portion of the over 6,500 total fatalities recorded since the Cabo Delgado insurgency began in 2017. Monitoring groups estimate that the group has killed thousands — including at least 2,800 civilians — while displacing over 400,000 people across the region.

Yet the South African public remains largely detached from what is unfolding in Mozambique. At the same time, many complain about the growing influx of Mozambicans into South Africa, despite the fact that many of these migrants are fleeing violence and insecurity while seeking safety and economic opportunities to sustain themselves and their families. The humanitarian crisis in Cabo Delgado serves as a reminder that migration is often a consequence of conflict, instability, and the failure to address the root causes of human suffering in the region.

There is a compelling need to invest in political, strategic, and military interventions to address the crisis in Mozambique, as it directly affects South Africa in several ways. Mozambique is one of Africa’s countries with significant economic potential, yet it remains unable to fully realise that potential because of the ongoing conflict. With its relatively advanced defense capabilities and larger economy, South Africa is well positioned to play a meaningful role in helping to resolve the current tragedy in Mozambique. Such efforts would contribute to creating a more stable and conducive environment for economic development, which could in turn reduce migration pressures between the two countries. A prosperous Mozambique would also become a stronger economic partner, helping to stimulate regional growth and create much-needed employment opportunities.

Playing Politics. Mounting pressures and tensions closer to home, South Africa’s ANC leadership prefers to focus on falsely accusing Israel at international courts.

It remains concerning that South Africa often expends substantial political capital on issues and conflicts taking place thousands of kilometres away, while opportunities exist to use that same influence to improve the socio-political and security conditions of people on the African continent. Greater investment should be directed towards helping to rebuild, industrialise, and develop African countries in order to create a more prosperous and stable continent. Such an approach would contribute more directly to the advancement of African societies than engaging in avoidable diplomatic confrontations with Western nations, which offer limited tangible benefits to the socio-economic development of the continent.



About the writer:

Kenneth Kgwadi is a political scientist, columnist and 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).

WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?

Any deal that leaves Iran’s Islamic Republic regime intact leaves the threat intact.

By Marziyeh Amirizadeh

I am not saying the goal of the United States is to do so, but any negotiation with the Islamic Republic only serves to keep the Islamic Republic regime alive.

Another day.

Another month.

Another year.

Another decade.

That, precisely, is the goal of the Islamic Republic. To stay alive. To control 90 million Iranians. To spread its extremist Islamic ideology across the world. And to threaten the United States, Israel, and the West at every turn.

The goal of the United States and the West should be to hasten the Islamic Republic’s demise, not to negotiate and prop it up.

What is happening in Iran today was exactly the plan of the reformists, who have cultivated significant influence inside the United States. Their goal has always been to appear rational, to present themselves to the West as the adults in the room. They are not. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing, designed to subjugate Iranians for decades more while spreading their extremist ideology around the world. In America, that means undermining our values by hijacking the very freedoms they seek to eradicate.

The reformist plot was straightforward: remove Khamenei, capitalize on the deep dissatisfaction inside Iran to create a flicker of hope among its people, and then simply shed the skin of the regime through a cosmetic change in leadership. Put the reformists in charge. Allow America to claim credit for eliminating Khamenei, making him a martyr, while the system itself remains entirely unchanged.

Consider something most observers have missed. With the successful American and Israeli strikes across Iran, targeting Islamic Republic leaders including the former Supreme Leader and commanders of the IRGC and Basij, not a single reformist has been eliminated. Not one. Their agents outside Iran have only grown more influential. How is that possible unless those agents have already deeply infiltrated American and Western institutions? They have been promoted across major media platforms, granted credibility and influence, operating under the guise of being opposition voices while actively working to protect the regime’s survival.

People like me who genuinely oppose the regime have been blocked from mainstream media for years. Despite the war and the slaughter of Iranians, we are still prevented from reaching major platforms because the reformists and their agents work to keep us out. I remember this mafia-style system from my childhood in Iran. I know how they play the game. If eliminating someone from a rival faction is what it takes to keep the regime afloat, they will not hesitate. The regime’s survival always comes first.

‘Deal’ing with Iran. For the writer the goal of the United States and the West should be to hasten the Islamic Republic’s demise and not to negotiate and prop it up.

So, what is actually at risk from any deal with the Islamic Republic?

When the United States suddenly halted its military operation against the regime, it was clear something was happening behind the scenes. The regime was given a window to reach some arrangement, presumably centered on nuclear concessions and reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

But what does “no nukes” actually mean? Will Iranian regime scientists forget what they have already know how to do, enriching uranium and leading toward a bomb? How long before they start up again, assuming that they ever stopped? What happens to the enriched uranium? We are told they already have enough to build ten bombs, and that it takes only weeks to enrich uranium from 60 percent to weapons-grade 90 percent. And what about the ballistic missiles that have struck targets across the Middle East and can now reach Europe. We did not even fully know the range of those missiles until they were already flying. Will the regime stop manufacturing and improving on their missiles just because of a deal on paper?

The West must accept one simple truth: the Iranian regime does not think in terms of coexistence. It is a religious, extremist, fundamentalist cult that is ideologically committed to conquering or destroying all who do not submit to it. Period. They have told us this in writing, in in their preaching, through their media, and via their agents. This is a revolution without borders, not merely one nation seeking its place among others. Americans have been killed for 47 years as a direct result of this regime’s nefarious aspirations.

Assuming a deal could be reached, that the regime could be trusted, and that any deal was not simply a vehicle to prop up the regime, who will enforce it? With any deal, the regime will cheat. It has lied and hidden its activities and violated every agreement it has ever signed. Who will have the political will to respond when they cheat again. Will President Trump as a lame duck? Will any possible successor: 48, 49, 0r 50? Look at how Americans react to a temporary rise in the price of gasoline. Would we have the will to act, even a few years from now?

Playing for Time. Operating under the pressures and constraints of time,  who will give in first?

Will this deal eviscerate the Islamic Republic’s proxies?  Hezbollah is still a potent terrorist force controlling much of Lebanon. Hamas is still standing in Gaza, propped up by Islamists in Turkey and Qatar. The Houthis can do nothing without Iranian support. Even if the Iranian regime promises not to fund them, who is monitoring this? Who will stop it?  The Europeans will appease the regime. China and Russia will continue supporting the regime regardless of any deal. North Korea will do the same. Assuming that the regime could be trusted with any deal, there will be no control over their immediate breach of any agreement. Even without a nuclear weapon, the regime already knows the world’s Achilles heel: block Hormoz. They have done it, and will do it again. God help us if they have a nuclear umbrella to protect them.

The Islamic regime in Tehran is lying to the administration, the negotiators, and the world. Do not believe a word they say. It is still the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis are not going away because of any deal signed in a conference room.

What’s at Stake. While the current supply and price of oil is on everyone’s mind for the writer it’s the future of mankind.

All the talk about making the best deal, about what will be in the deal, about the art of the deal, only emboldens them. They see it as America wanting a deal more than Iran needs one. When they smell weakness, they grow stronger. That is precisely the lesson I carry from my own life. When the regime threatened me and demanded I renounce my Christian faith, I did not simply refuse. I challenged their theology to their face. Refusing to show weakness is the only model that works. I won. America needs to win.

Machine guns to Machetes. How do you ‘deal’ with a leadership that has does not blink as mass murdering its own civilians? Verified images of weapons that massacred thousands of civilian protestors earlier this year in more than 200 cities across Iran.

There is no negotiating with the Islamic Republic. Any deal that leaves the regime intact leaves the threat intact. And a regime that survives today will be back tomorrow, better armed, better funded, and more dangerous than before.



About the writer:

Marziyeh Amirizadeh (Marzi) is an Iranian American who immigrated to the US after being sentenced to death in Iran for the crime of converting to Christianity.   She endured months of mental and physical hardships and intense interrogation. She is author of two books (the latest, A Love Journey with God), public speaker, and columnist. She has shared her inspiring story throughout the United States and around the world, to bring awareness about the ongoing human rights violations and persecution of women and religious minorities in Iran, www.MarzisJourney.com.

Marzi also is the founder and president of NEW PERSIA whose mission is to be the voice of persecuted Christians and oppressed women under Islam, expose the lies of the Iranian Islamic regime, and restore the relationships between Persians, Jews, and Christians. www.NewPersia.org.







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).

BIG MOVE IN SMALL TOWN – RECOGNITION, RECONCILIATION AND RESTITUTION

Jewish family supports historic move for Cape Town to rename Strand town square honouring family founder to recognition of local Muslim community.

By Ben Friedman

Ra’anana in central Israel is my home today. It wasn’t always.

I hail from the Strand, a beautiful False Bay town which is part of the area described as the “Fairest Cape”, bracketed by the majestic Hottentots Holland mountains, Somerset West and the turquoise blue of the Atlantic Ocean. Today, this town is making news in South Africa and it involves my family. Of this I am proud – proud of the past and proud of how we are forging a favourable future.

My family surname – Friedman –  is so embedded in that town’s history. However, it is not only the past but the message we are sending for the future that is making news.

In a historic gesture of recognition and reconciliation, our family have approved the renaming of Ben Friedman Plain honouring my grandfather and family founder in South Africa to Strand Muslim Square. The exciting and enriching drama unfolding could not  – and maybe not unsurprisingly –  escape controversy.

Video clip of the Strand Beach Coastline (Click on the caption or the picture).

It is no secret that today we live in a polarised, post-truth world where narratives are shaped by people’s prejudices and affiliations that  cloud  facts and the truth. Israelis and Jews know this more than most, given the sustained campaign of lies against Israel in the mainstream media, by influencers, social media, and sinister state-backed NGOs.

So, when local Muslim leader, Ebrahim Rhoda approached my brother, Barry Friedman with the request to approach the city council to rename the square to finally redress the wrongs of the past and to honour the Muslim contribution to the town, Barry expressed enthusiasm, but said that he would need to discuss it with the family. He knew that their only concern would be that the family’s history not be erased. With full understanding and sensitivity, Ebrahim, after some thought and investigation, suggested that if the renaming was approved, the traffic circle in front of our family store could be renamed Ben Friedman Circle. This, our family considered fair and agreed to the renaming of the town square subject to council approval.

Prime Movers. Taking a stand in the Strand are (l-r) Ebrahim Rhoda, Barry Friedman and Feisal Daniels at a recent Council meeting. (Photo: Carl Punt.)

The process took a few years and now the renaming will proceed but not without an ugly backlash resulting from the usual ‘culprit’  – misinformation.

There were those trying to frame it as a roughshod attempt to erase the “White” history of the Strand, or to view it in terms of a Muslim/Judeo-Christian conflict issue. It is neither. It is simply  the long overdue acknowledgement of the Muslim’s community’s enduring history and contribution to the town that had for too long been neglected. I am sure that my late friend, Oesman Wentzel, who owned a classic diesel-powered fishing boat that I spent many happy hours on in my youth catching mackerel and snoek, would be very happy with this historic restitution — reflecting the harmony and unique community relations that characterised our lives in the Strand, in spite of the policy of Apartheid that tried to disrupt it.

Roadworthy. Ben Friedman Plein named after Benjamin Friedman who immigrated from Lithuania to South Africa in 1910 is to be renamed Strand Muslim Square honouring the over 200-year history of the Muslim presence in the town . (Photo: Jamey Gordon).

ENTWINED HISTORY

My grandfather, Benjamin Friedman, who arrived in Cape Town around 1903 as a penniless immigrant from Kaunas (Kovno), Lithuania, is the man that the Ben Friedman Plein (square) controversy is all about.

Speaking Yiddish  without any knowledge of English or Afrikaans, he started work as a labourer  at a salary of 2/- (20 cents) per day at the Cape Town docks.

Friedman & Cohen Department Store — “Since 1903”

Once he had acquired some knowledge of English and had enough funds to buy a bicycle, he cycled to Somerset West where a dynamite factory was opening to supply explosives to the mines. He bought a general dealer’s license, and with no funds and amazing divine providence was able to open a line of credit with JW Jagger, a major wholesaler in Cape Town.

Muslim Festivity. Friedman & Cohen “Wishing our Muslim Customers and Staff a blessed Eid Mubarak!”

He married Anna Cohen and they had five sons, including my father, and two daughters. The business thrived and eventually became a large department store in the Strand that still stands today. Benjamin played a big role in the development of the Strand and was a leader of the Jewish community, and was instrumental in the founding of the Strand Synagogue in 1930.

Strand Shul. The Strand Synagogue which Benjamin (Ben) Friedman laid  the foundation stone in 1930
Strand Synagogue Stone. This stone was laid by Benjamin Friedman, April 21st 1930.

PARRALEL PIONEERING

Pioneering and building ingrained in the Friedman family was not only confined to South Africa’s developing coastal town of Strand  but also in the future Jewish state of Israel. While Benjamin and most of his family were centered at the Strand, his one son, Solly Friedman, my uncle, was a visionary and a Zionist and emigrated to the then British Mandate of Palestine in the 1930s. He settled in Haifa, opening a law office in 1939 and went on to develop one of the biggest law practices in Israel specializing in marine law with ZIM shipping company being one of his major clients. Founded in 1945 by the Jewish Agency, the Israel Maritime League and the Histadrut, ZIM’s main task during its first years was transporting hundreds of thousands of immigrants to the emerging state. Some of the other ships that had been used for clandestine immigration before the establishment of Israel as a state were confiscated by the British Mandate authorities, and later joined the company’s fleet. My uncle would travel abroad negotiating the purchase of ships that formed the basis of Israel’s merchant marine fleet. In the days of the Mandate, he was constantly active in the courts, defending Haganah men brought up on charges by the British and trying to negotiate the release of impounded refugee ships. Emerging as Israel’s expert in maritime law, it would stand him in good stead as the lawyer for ZIM Shipping Company in the ensuing decades as it developed into one of the world’s top 20 cargo carriers. He relates that when the British left Palestine, most of the ships they had impounded were in Haifa harbour and the new Israeli government simply reclaimed them. How poignant that the biblical word ZIM means “a fleet of ships”. (Number 24:24).

Friedman & Friends. The writer’s uncle (2nd left), pioneer marine lawyer in Haifa, Solly Friedman with friends in British Army uniform during WWII in Tel Aviv.

In parallel at the Strand, the Cape Malays are an ethnic group descended from enslaved and freed Muslims brought to the Cape from Indonesia and Malaysia in the mid-17th century. They were skilled labourers and political exiles, such as Sheik Yusuf, whose Kramat (a sacred shrine or tomb honoring a holy person in Islam) at nearby Macassar Beach is still a place of pilgrimage. This is undertakable as Sheik Yusuf is credited as the founding father of Islam in South Africa, having established the first enduring Muslim community in the region in 1694, during the governorship of Simon Van der Stel.

Friedman Family. Benjamin, his wife Anna and their five sons and two daughters.

Over time, the Cape Malays formed a unique cultural and religious identity with a distinct cuisine and a dialect of the Afrikaans language. They were among the first settlers in the Strand, which was originally called Mostert’s Bay. They were mainly engaged in fishing in False Bay and settled in the area of the current CBD of the Strand, where they had a thriving community of craftsmen, carpenters, builders, small traders, tailors and fishermen.

However, in the 1950s, when Apartheid was being heavily enforced, they were forcibly relocated to an area called Rusthof, located between Strand and Gordons Bay — a low-lying area subject to severe flooding in winter.

Story of a Store in the Strand. The staff today of Friedman & Cohen on the beach (top) and the early days of the store in the Strand.

However, the original mosques that were located around the CBD were maintained and remained, so that their physical link to the area endured.

Benjamin, whose small trading store on the Lourens River where the dynamite factory had opened manufacturing explosives for the gold mines, grew and flourished. He invested in properties and land, many of which were in the centre of the Strand, and where the original store was moved to. Over time, it developed into the modern Friedman and Cohen Department Store, which is now 110 years old.

Family Founder. What began with a bicycle ride, Benjamin Friedman from Kovno (Kaunas), Lithuania, founder of the family in South Africa.  

The Strand had 25 Jewish families at its peak, but neighbouring Somerset West had 40 Jewish families. Relations between the Jewish and Muslim community was excellent – and many from the Muslim community were, and still are, employees of Friedman and Cohen.  Many ‘old-timer’ customers would  relate stories of how they used to buy on credit at our store, but when the frequent gale-force south easterly winds used to blow, they were unable to pay their accounts because the fishing boats couldn’t put to sea. Benjamin Friedman would tell them to pay when they could, and never placed any pressure on them.

As the town grew, so did the Jewish community, and Benjamin Friedman was instrumental in founding the Strand Shul (synagogue), where he laid the foundation stone in April 1930. It is interesting to note that the furniture for the new Somerset West shul was made by Muslim carpenters again reinforcing the enriching connection of the two communities.

The writer’s father, Abe Friedman who joined 10,000 South African Jews in the fight against Hitler and Nazism is seen here with his army unit (5th from left back row) on Temple Mount Jerusalem.

ROAD TO RENAMING

A prime mover in the renaming process is local Muslim community leader Ebrahim Rhoda — a school teacher and historian — who when he approached my brother Barry, explained that in spite of their community’s history and contribution to the Strand, there “was not one street name reflecting their heritage.” Most cities and towns name their streets after local residents who have left an enriching legacy and so, “it was time to truly acknowledge the Muslim contribution to the story of the Strand,” said Ebrahim.

Cape Muslim families such as the Rhodas, Gabiers, Wentzels, and Salies were prominent community members, and it is time that their stories and legacies of the Muslim community are honoured.

The proposal to rename Ben Friedman Plein to Strand Muslim Square is rooted in reconciliation and restorative justice — acknowledging a community forcibly removed  during the Apartheid era from the Strand CBD under the Group Areas Act in the 1950s, whose 200-year heritage includes three mosques that still anchor the square today: Nurul Anwar, Market Street and Nurul Islam. The first place of worship in Strand, the Market Street Mosque, was built on the square itself.

Historic Gem. Constructed between 1850 and 1870 by freed slaves and free blacks, the Javia Mosque stands as the oldest surviving place of worship in Strand and is today a Provincial Heritage Site. The structure is recognized not only as an architectural gem but a cornerstone of the Muslim community’s heritage in the Western Cape.

Eddie Andrews, the City of Cape Town’s acting mayor and Mayoral Committee Member for Spatial Planning and Environment, expressed during this year’s Freedom Day on the 27 April in his address at City Hall, that the proposed renaming of Ben Friedman Plein to Strand Muslim Square adds weight to both history and reconciliation.  Said Andrews:

“Ben Friedman Square stands in an area shaped by the long-standing presence of the Strand Muslim community, whose heritage stretches back over two centuries. Importantly, this process has been characterised by cooperation — supported by the Muslim community, endorsed by civic and faith-based organisations, and undertaken with the support of the Friedman family themselves.”

The renaming reflects what Andrews called Cape Town’s unique tradition of interfaith coexistence. “Cape Town is a city where Muslim, Christian, Jewish, and other faith and cultural communities do not simply coexist — but have, over generations, built relationships of respect, partnership, and shared belonging. This renaming reflects that reality.”

Sheikh’s Shrine. When Sheikh Yusuf, regarded as the father of Islam in South Africa, passed away in 1699, he was buried not far from the Strand on the hill overlooking Macassar. His Kramat or shrine is a place visited by pilgrims.

The proposal has been endorsed by the Strand Muslim Council, Nurul Islam and Aneeqah Congregation, Rusthof Methodist Church, and the Muslim Judicial Council. Business owners bordering the square raised no objections.

The controversy will pass as it should.

However, what must not pass is the good relations between the communities of the Strand. The Muslim and Jewish contributions to the town go back in time and stand to ensure an enriching future.

I look forward in the future when revisiting from Israel my hometown to see the renamed Strand Muslim Square  and Ben Friedman Circle.

Benjamin who began this journey on a bicycle well over a century ago would be pleased and proud.



About the writer

A resident of Ra’anana, Israel, Ben Friedman was born and grew up in the Strand Western cape, South Africa and matriculated at Hottentots Holland High school Somerset West. He completed a BCom degree at UCT which was interrupted  in 1967 by the Six Day War where he  served as a volunteer on Kibbutz Amir.
Prior to immigrating to Israel with his family in 2010, he served  on the Western Province Zionist Council for two  years and was vice Chairman of The Phylis Jowell Jewish Day school Cape Town .
Retired after a successful career in fashion retailing, Ben is a lifelong passionate angler and a keen reader especially on Israeli /Jewish and Zionist history.







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 SILENCE THAT CONDEMNS US ALL

People would far rather believe that pigs can fly and Israel trains dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners than that Hamas-led terrorists randomly mass raped and slaughtered women, children and some men on October 7. Here’s why:

By Marika Sboros

(Courtesy of Daily Friend in SA where first published)

There are moments when language fails, when violence outstrips the vocabulary available to describe it. 

October 7, 2023, in southern Israel was one of those moments.

The unprecedented violence, mass rape and sexual savagery that the Hamas-led attack unleashed on that day was so deliberately, systematically calculated to destroy bodies and families that no existing legal framework had a word for it.

Until now.

A new, independent report released on May 12, 2026 is the most comprehensive documentation and analysis to date of that violence. It is the work of the Israel-based, internationally focused NGO, CCO7 (Civil Commission on October 7 Crimes by Hamas Against Women and Children).

Buried in it is a word the Commission’s investigators coined soon after October 7, for what they found in their early research: kinocide – from kin (family) and cide (the systematic nature of destruction).

World media have yet to embrace the word.

The Commission’s leader, Dr Cochav Elkayam-Levy, an Israel Prize laureate and international law expert, developed the concept of the word with principal contributor, former Canadian justice minister Prof Irwin Cotler.

Founder and chair of the Civil Commission on October 7th Crimes against Women and Children, Dr. Cochav Elkayam Levy is an expert in international law and human rights, recipient of the 2024 Israel Prize (Israel’s highest civilian honor) and teaches at Reichman University. After October 7, she represented the Israeli women’s rights protest movement at the UN.

They did so after watching video after video of Hamas terrorists forcing parents and grandparents to watch their children and grandchildren be tortured, raped and murdered, and children to watch their parents and grandparents suffer the same fate.

Elkayam-Levy describes kinocide as:

 “The deliberate, systematic torture of families and the weaponisation of familial bonds in order to maximise suffering.”

While looking and analysing the videos, they started seeing the pattern – moments that made them “understand that we were seeing something that needs to be defined,” Elkayam-Levy says in an interview with The Jerusalem Post.

These moments made her move after October 7 to secure evidence before denial could take hold.

“We saw silence and denial  .. very quick denial,” she told the Times of Israel. This made her “understand that we have to collect evidence as quickly as possible and establish an archive under stringent international standards.”

The Commission’s two-year investigation has done so. It has drawn on legal scholars, international jurists, researchers, archivists and trauma experts, conducted in collaboration with the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights.

Prof David Crane, founding chief prosecutor of the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone has endorsed the report. So have Hillary Rodham Clinton, former Israeli Supreme Court president Aharon Barak and Anila Ali, president of the American Muslim and Multi-Faith Women’s Empowerment Council.

Their endorsement alone should silence those who would dismiss this as a partisan document.

Investigators documented 13 recurring forms of sexual violence across the Nova music festival, kibbutzim, roadside shelters, military bases, abduction routes and hostage captivity in Gaza. These were rape, gang rape, sexual torture, forced nudity, genital mutilation, executions linked to assault, post-mortem abuse and assaults in front of family members.

Photos of young men and women butchered to death in cold blood at the Nova Music Festival, Kibbutz Re’im. (Photo: Zeev Stein

Some examples: a male survivor of the Nova musical festival slaughter, identified only as D, reportedly passed a polygraph after describing his gang rape:

“They laughed, they were really pleased, as if I was their sex doll … They did whatever they wanted to me.”

A 17-year-old hostage called her mother from Gaza:

“Mum, they’re going to rape me.”

Two related minor children held hostage in Gaza were coerced into sexual acts against one another. Their captors stripped them, touched their genitalia and whipped them.

These are not isolated accounts. They are part of what the Commission documents over two years and 300 pages, in a report titled “Silenced No More: Sexual Terror Unveiled”: a “systematic, widespread and integral” use of sexual violence, designed, planned and organised to terrorise Israeli society as a whole.

The Commission’s legal conclusion is unequivocal – these are war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocidal acts under international law.

After reading the Commission’s report, Lord Zac Goldsmith, British peer and former Cabinet minister, took to X to ask questions that journalists globally haven’t asked

I include them in full, as a handy reference for journalists who might yet cover it:

  • What kind of a depraved monster slices off a woman’s breast while she is being gang-raped, and throws it into the dust to be used as a plaything?
  • What kind of a twisted pervert turns rape into necrophilia by shooting a woman in the head while he is still defiling her?
  • What kind of ‘freedom fighters’ go into battle with a set of handy Arabic-to-Hebrew phrases, including ‘take off your pants’, ‘lie down’ and ‘spread your legs’?
  • What self-respecting human being presses nails, scalpels, a hammer, an axe, screwdrivers and other household tools into a woman’s genitals?
  • How hard do you have to rape someone, and with what, to shatter their pelvis?
  • Who shoots a young girl in the face and then films her mutilated corpse on her brother’s mobile phone?
“What kind of a depraved monster slices off a woman’s breast while she is being gang-raped, and throws it into the dust to be used as a plaything?” posted British peer and former Cabinet minister Lord Zac Goldsmith (above) after reading the Commission’s report.

The answer is staring us all in the face: Hamas terrorists.

I call them terrorists while many in the media call them “militants”. Unlike “militant”, “terrorist” has a specific meaning – someone who deliberately targets civilians to create fear for political ends. It carries legal weight and moral condemnation.

The October 7 attack meets every legal and common-sense definition of terrorism. Hamas is formally designated a terrorist organisation by the US, the EU, the UK and Australia, among others.

When the Civil Commission’s report landed in newsrooms, many mainstream editors may well have reached for a familiar refrain not to publish: the report is “not new”.  

Technically, they are correct. The Civil Commission’s first detailed report was in November 2023.  And accounts of mass rape and sexual violence began circulating online in the wake of October 7.

Yet there is not wide acknowledgement of why the full extent of that violence has never found its way into public consciousness – and the media’s role in that.

It’s not because the story is not new. It is because a sustained, organised, sophisticated global propaganda campaign has, over more than two years, successfully seeded doubt, denial and deliberate distraction into the information ecosystem.

This may arguably persuade those in positions of power and influence to give credence to claims that accusations of mass rape and massacre of innocents have been “exaggerated” and that Israel “doctored” all the evidence to make October 7 look worse than it was.

UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese lends ongoing institutional cover to this line of thinking. She regularly underplays the extent of the violence of October 7 – when she acknowledges it at all. She has opined that reports of Hamas’s sexual violence “may have been exaggerated.”

UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese (left)  seen here with Greta Thunberg (center) at an anti-Israel march in Italy,  has opined that reports of Hamas’s sexual violence “may have been exaggerated.”

What is new about the “Silenced No More” report is the scope, rigour and forensic depth of its documentation – two years of painstaking evidence-gathering producing the most comprehensive war crimes archive ever assembled on these events.

It is designed to be undeniable.

Yet the denialism goes on, as does the global propaganda campaign.

A column in The New York Times on 11 May by the newspaper’s Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Nicholas Kristof is relevant in that regard. The irony of its headline, “The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians”, is probably lost on Kristof 

It mirrors the moral language condemning the silence around October 7 in the Civil Commission’s own report headline: Silenced No More”. It makes Kristof’s column look like a deliberate attempt to pre-empt precisely the rhetorical space the Civil Commission’s report deserves to occupy.

Kristof’s column is riddled with terminal weaknesses, not the least is its most sensational claim: that Israel trains dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners in its jails.

Kristof is careful not to make the claim himself. He leaves it to his sources.

The claim quickly went viral. It is not only unverified. It is old.

Nicholas Kristhof’s outrageous New York Times article accusing Israel of training dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners relied on sources such as the Euro-Med Monitor, whose Founder and Chairman (seen above) has publicly declared that Israel has “an insatiable appetite for drinking the blood of Palestinian children.”

As Honest Reporting has noted, Euro-Med Monitor, Kristof’s chief source for his column, and a self-described “human rights” NGO, was pushing it in June 2024.

The claim is physiologically and biologically impossible. As veterinary experts could have told Kristof, if he’d bothered to ask

They could have told him that the canine sexual response is governed by species-specific pheromones that humans do not produce; that canine mounting behaviour is non-sexual; and that canine anatomy is incompatible with human anatomy for penetrative acts.

Veterinary scientists call the dog-rapist claim biologically implausible. It is also a fabrication of a fevered mind designed to overwhelm critical faculties before implausibility registers. In the context of the Middle East conflict, it helpfully contributes to demonising Israel and Jews.

It’s tempting to see that Kristof’s column as preparation for undermining the Civil Commission’s report that launched the next day.

The New York Times did run an extensive news report of the Civil Commission’s the next day, by its Jerusalem correspondent, Isabel Kershner.

Some analysts see that as giving due credence to the Commission’s report. Others have a more jaundiced view. Whether it constitutes balance, accountability or damage control remains to be seen.    

Euro-Med’s record alone should have disqualified it entirely as Kristof’s source.

The NGO spread the debunked claim that Israel harvested organs from Palestinian prisoners. Israel has designated its founder, Ramy Abdu, as a Hamas operative in Europe. Abdu publicly declared on X (formerly Twitter) that Israel has “an insatiable appetite for drinking the blood of Palestinian children.”

(The tweet has since been deleted or made inaccessible, but not before Honest Reporting took a screen shot of it.)

Abdu was just spreading a modern “blood libel”, the word given to the first one that was weaponised in 12th-century England to trigger massacres and expulsions of Jewish communities across medieval Europe for centuries. In its original “glory”, the blood libel claimed Jews kill Christian children and drink their blood for religious ritual.

That The New York Times allowed Kristof to present Euro-Med as a credible watchdog over Israeli prisons without flagging any of this context is a notable editorial failure.

Times of Israel senior analyst Haviv Rettig Gur gives his views of Kristof’s column in a YouTube video on May 12. He says that Kristof was not tasked with revealing sexual crimes but “covering for them. And it worked.”

Middle East analyst Eitan Fischberger was more blunt on X:

“Utter depravity from (Kristof) for parroting such cartoonishly evil Hamas propaganda that would make Goebbels blush.”

The paper has stolidly defended the column.

In South Africa, the largest news platform, News24 and EWN were practically alone in covering the Commission’s report.

Contrast that with the considerable space and attention South African media gave to every procedural twist in the ongoing, ill-judged genocide case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Israel that South Africa launched following October 7.

Some even treated it as a matter of national pride. They also later falsely reported (many journalists still do) that the ICJ found “a plausible case of genocide” against Israel in its ruling in January 2024.

The ICJ did nothing of the sort.

Former ICJ president Judge Joan Donoghue explicitly corrected this publicly in a BBC interview in April 2024: the court “did not decide that the claim of genocide was plausible.” The court did decide that the Palestinians had a “plausible right to be protected from genocide.”

Many Jewish legal and historical scholars consider the genocide claim to rival the original blood libel about Jews killing kids to drink their blood as the worst modern-day libel against Israel and Jews.

Many journalists still make the false claim about the ICJ’s ruling. Many South African media have yet to correct their record.

That’s not incidental. It is an editorial choice that amplifies allegations against Israel and suppresses documented evidence of atrocities against Israelis. It has a cost – paid by the women, children and men whose suffering is erased from public consciousness when false claims are not debunked.

Silence and denialism from journalists on the full extent of the Hamas-led mass rape and other sexual violence of October 7 is one thing; the ongoing silence from feminists globally is another.

Women’s rights organisations built on the principle of believing survivors have still not found their voices. The slogan “Believe Women” turned out to have a gross political limit:

“Believe Women, Except Jewish Women.”

UN Women took weeks to issue even a hedged statement. The UN’s own special rapporteur on sexual violence in conflict reportedly labelled survivor accounts “disinformation”.

When former Meta executive Sheryl Sandberg took to the UN podium in December 2023, two months after October 7, to demand that the world acknowledge Hamas’s sexual violence, she was not addressing a hostile audience. She was addressing a silent one.

“The silence on these war crimes is deafening,” Sandberg told the assembly. “Silence is complicity.”

She later added: “I never thought that politics could make any group or feminist leader turn a blind eye to just such clear documentation of sexual violence.”

Her contribution to breaking that silence was to produce a film, titled Screams Before Silence, to give voice to the silenced.

The Civil Commission’s report, which Elkayam-Levy, herself a feminist scholar of international law, built in direct response to that silence, is in part a rebuke to her own field.

The deafening silence still ongoing from feminists over the sexual violence of October 7 is troubling enough. Compounding it with an ironic veneer of respectability is Jewish voices among the loudest dismissing or minimising it.

Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), the American antizionist organisation, blamed Israel for the attack on the day it happened. It has e cast doubt on the sexual violence documentation.

The Antidefamation League (ADL) has noted that JVP “uses its Jewish identity to shield some in the anti-Israel movement from allegations of antisemitism and provide a veneer of legitimacy.” That veneer gives the denialism of October 7 sexual violence a halo it would not otherwise have.

In South Africa, the halo hangs over the quaintly named South African Jews for a Free Palestine (SAJFP) and the non-profit Jewish Democratic Initiative (JDI) when it comes to Israel’s war against Hamas.

The implicit message is insidious: if Jews themselves say something didn’t happen or was exaggerated, how could doubting it be antisemitic or antizionist?

When people with professional credentials in women’s advocacy, or the perceived moral righteousness and authority of being Jewish, line up to cast doubt, the propaganda campaign need not argue its case. It simply points at them.

This is the ecosystem in which the Civil Commission’s report lands in 2026.

Of course, none of the above justifies ignoring credible accounts of abuse in Israeli detention facilities. Confirmed abuse allegations demand accountability, no matter the perpetrators or victims.

Rettig Gur is among Jews prepared to acknowledge the existence of documented cases of Palestinian prisoner abuse. These are “real”, he says, but “far smaller” than alleged and mostly not sexual. He identifies Israeli government ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich as responsible for treating prisoner welfare as a political liability rather than a legal obligation.

He also stresses that “the vast majority of (IDF) soldiers are honourable men (and women) who walked into fire so our families may live.”

Israel’s government has served notice that it will sue The New York Times for Kristof’s article. An announcement that it was addressing and investigating concerns about abuse of Palestinian prisoners would have been more helpful.

Rettig Gur posits the way forward: the failures of a minority must be fixed from within and must never be weaponised to erase what Hamas did.

The denialism goes on. As the Civil Commission’s CEO, Merav Israeli-Amarant, told Kershner in The New York Times, sexual crimes are “the easiest crimes to deny.” This is especially true of the October 7 attack “because most of the victims were murdered and are unable to testify.”

History has its own power.

It will not remember the perpetrators of kinocide kindly. It will be equally unkind to those who had all the evidence and chose to stay silent. 



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.

Follow Marika Sboros on X:  @MarikaSboros
Subscribe on Substack: Marika Sboros 







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).

THEY ARE SILENCED NO MORE

There are words here that will direct you to look away – DON’T! You need to read, process and bear witness.

By Rolene Marks

[Warning: Sensitive Content]

In 2024 I was invited with a small group of journalists and diplomats to view some of the evidence that was found on the terrorists on 7 October and what was subsequently discovered in the Gaza strip. Under close supervision and military intelligence headquarters, we viewed weapons, maps, books and material – and orders in specific detail to commit acts of appalling sexual violence, including instructions for the victims to remove their clothing.

This article will be extremely uncomfortable and difficult for many to read. I appeal to you to please persist – we must bear witness and be the voices of victims and survivors. 

Ushered into another room, phones prohibited, we were shown a 20-minute collation of footage from Hamas body-cam, first responders and desperate family members searching for their loved ones. This we were told, would be evidence submitted to the ICJ where South Africa had filed a case accusing Israel of genocide. The images are seared into my conscience – including that of a partially burnt woman, her legs splayed, dress pushed up and naked, intimate parts for the world to see. There was a slice across her one thigh. I recall another image that I see as clear as day. The body of a woman, on top of a pile of corpses, bleeding from her crotch where she had been shot with the deliberate intent to defile her femininity.

A picture taken during a media tour organized by the Israeli military shows food on a table inside a burned house in the kibbutz Nir Oz on October 19, 2023, following the October 7 attack by Hamas. (Photo: Menahem Kahana / AFP)

The evidence of what I saw is undeniable.

These are two specific examples of the horrific crimes of Sexual and Gender based Violence (SGBV) and crimes against humanity committed against Israeli men, women and children on 7 October 2023 and to hostages in captivity.

Despite irrefutable proof noted in reports by UN Women, the Dinah Project and one from the Association of Rape Crisis Centres, denial, downplaying and even justification of the atrocities still continue – including from feminist organisations. It would appear that the voices of victims matter – unless they are Israeli. What message does this send future victims of SGBV?

This week, the Civil Commission – an independent Israeli non-profit organisation led by human rights expert and 2024 Israel Prize laureate Dr Cochav Elkayam-Levy – released their report. “Silenced no more” was meticulously documented and referenced for over two years and is a devastating collation of the crimes against humanity and SGBV committed on that day and to hostages in captivity.

Children were no less a target for Hamas savagery as seen here at a blood-stained kindergarten in Kibbutz Beeri following their bloody barbarous rampage. (Photo: Reuters/ Amir Cohen)

The report is close to 300 pages long and contains documentation of at least 10,000 items including videos, photographs, forensic findings and the testimonies of 430 victims and survivors. Hamas proudly filmed and distributed evidence of their crimes. The hope is that not only will this be documented to fight back against denial – but could lead to further legal action against the perpetrators. Israel’s Knesset has approved the convening of a special tribunal to try the perpetrators of 7 October.

The individual testimonies are absolutely devastating.

In the weeks and months following the atrocities, eye witnesses and forensic experts testified about what they witnessed. Forensic experts spoke about the condition of the bodies that were brought in for identification, saying how they were shot in their eyes, their faces and their breasts, and even targeted in their most intimate parts. Women were stripped, bound, stabbed, shot and burned. Heads were decapitated and pelvic bones shattered. Even after death, sexual assault continued.  A Nova survivor testified to a victim being shot in the head while her rapist continued his assault. The intention was clear – to destroy their beauty and femininity. Forensic pathologists spoke of an “obsession with sex organs”. First responders echoed the same sentiment and have addressed numerous NGO’s and global institutions sharing their testimonies to the defilement and horror they saw on the kibbutzim, road 232 and at the Nova festival grounds.

Raz Cohen, a survivor of the Nova Music Festival on October 7 and a key witness to the horrific acts committed by Hamas terrorists provided detailed testimony which included witnessing the rape of a young woman. (Photo: Tomer Shunem Halevi, Hagai Dekel)

“I saw them raping her,” says Raz Cohen, who escaped the Nova Music Festival, “Then they murdered her. And then they raped her again.”

New report details ‘systematic’ rape and sexual violence during Hamas’ Oct 7 attack on Israel. Seen here is an Israeli soldier patrolling the Nova Music Festival sites following the massacre. (Photo: Aris Messinis/AFP/Getty Images)

Eden Wessely, who came to Nova to rescue a friend, found and filmed a naked, burned body. “Her dress was pulled up, and she wasn’t wearing underwear, not because it burned, because there was no trace. . . . Her legs were spread. Her genitals were exposed.” Was it the same image I saw?

“There were horrific scenes, difficult to take in,” said Eden Wessely who saw  “hundreds of corpses, and a girl who had been raped and [her body] burned. Things that human eyes have difficulty looking at.”

Former hostages have spoken about the abuse they suffered in captivity. Guy Gilboa-Dalal spoke about how he was touched on his private parts and how his captor “wanted to make a porn movie with him.” Arbel Yehud testified to daily abuse.

Keith Siegel, a 66-year-old grandfather who was taken from Kibbutz Kfar Aza along with his wife Aviva, 65, testified that he was made to undress in front of a terrorist who then shaved his pubic hair and made comments about his penis.

Former hostage Aviva Siegel seen here speaking to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer reveals in the Civil Commission Report how she was nearly executed after she comforted a young girl who was sexually assaulted in captivity.

Aviva Siegel spoke about how she was nearly executed after she comforted a young girl who was sexually assaulted in captivity. Siegel recalled telling young girls to take feminine products with them to the bathroom so that if their captors thought they were on their period, they would not abuse them.

A male says he was gang-raped at the Nova site, providing medical records and a detailed account:

“They laughed, they were really pleased, as if I was their sex doll.”

The Commission also identified thirteen recurring patterns of sexual and gender-based violence repeated across multiple sites. They include a damning list of crimes:

*    Rape, gang rape, and other forms of sexual assault.

*    Sexual torture, including intentional burning and mutilation.

*    Deliberate shooting in the head, face and genital area.

*  Killings and executions following or committed during abuse.

* Postmortem sexual abuse, humiliation, and the desecration   of bodies, including cutting off body parts.

*   Forced nudity and exposure including to family members.

*   Handcuffing, binding, and restraint of victims.

*   Public displaying and parading of women and children. One such example is the parading of the body of Shani Louk, whose partially undressed and twisted limbs were paraded on a truck in Gaza while men spat at her.

*    Abduction of mothers and children.

*     Sexual violence in the presence or near vicinity of family members including Kinocide – the deliberate targeting and destruction of families as a weapon of war or terror, recognized as a distinct form of violence against humanity.

The graphic image by freelance AP photojournalist Ali Mahmoud depicts 22-year-old Shani Louk’s half-naked body being taken by Hamas terrorists on October 7. The Jewish Chronicle has blurred her image. (Photo: Ali Mahmoud)

*   Filming and digital dissemination by the perpetrators including the use of social media to document, glorify, and amplify the atrocities.

*    Threats of forced marriage.

*   Rape and other forms of sexual violence against boys and men.

President Herzog released a statement on social media platform X on behalf of his wife, Michal, who said:

 “We must continue to amplify around the world the voices of the victims of sexual violence committed by Hamas terrorists on October 7th and thereafter.”

 Mrs. Herzog commended the Civil Commission on October 7th Crimes against Women and Children “for their dedicated research and tireless work, resulting in the publication of an important new report that once again gives voice to the victims.”

The victims and survivors of these most evil of crimes will no longer be silenced by those who deny, downplay and justify the atrocities committed by Hamas. Please do not look away. As unbearable as the testimonies are to read and hear, we must bear witness. We have a moral duty to be their voices. Silence is a second violation.





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).

KNOW YOUR FRIENDS – AND YOUR ENEMIES

How oil money has corrupted the world

By Neville Berman

The tiny mountain pine beetle has the ability to dig into a tree and then mate and quickly multiply. Once this takes place, a slow steady process of hollowing out the tree from within begins. This hollowing out prevents the nutrients derived from the roots of the tree from reaching the branches and leaves of the tree. In time the tree withers and finally dies. These tiny beetles, measuring the size of a grain of rice, are able to infect entire forests. Thousands of acres of healthy forests have been destroyed by these tiny beetles. The above is a metaphor for what is currently taking place in the liberal Western world.

The Killer Within. Its small and does not look like a killer but an invasion of pine beetles can over time devastate forests from within. (Photo: IStock/Getty Images)

The world runs on oil and gas. A staggering amount of over 102 million barrels of oil are consumed daily. Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) is natural gas cooled to minus 162 Celsius. This reduces the volume to a fraction of its original volume. Both oil and LNG can be transported in pipelines and specially constructed ships and tanker trucks across the world. LNG can be used to produce electricity with a lower carbon footprint than using coal. Currently LNG consumption exceeds 4.2 billion cubic meters per year. French President Charles de Gaulle stated that countries do not have friends, countries have interests. The world clearly has important interests in maintaining its relationship with the major oil and gas exporting countries in the Middle East. Common values of democracy, and all the rights and freedoms that are the basis of the liberal Western world are mutually exclusive to interests.

Whether these oil or gas exporting countries are democracies, dictatorships, or autocracies is irrelevant. Whether they practice the rule of law, have human rights, freedom of religion, a free press, women’s rights, gay rights or any other rights that seem so important to the liberal Western world, is immaterial if they export oil and gas. Western liberal principles are simply ignored when vital interests are at stake. The bottom line is that money makes the world go round, and oil and gas are mega money earners.

What is happening is that the major oil exporting countries and the oil traders are colluding to limit the supply of oil in order to raise the price and increase their profits. No other commodity has the huge profit margins of oil and gas. The vast bulk of oil consumed in America is produced in America. The cost of producing oil in America has not risen as a result of the war in Iran. What has risen is the selling price of oil at the pump. America and the world have been hoodwinked by the greed of the oil industry. At the same time that the majority of countries in the world are going into massive debt, the oil and gas exporting countries are rolling in money. According to a report by the World Bank, total government debt in 2025, reached a record $324 trillion. The situation is unsustainable. The question that now arises is what are the incredibly wealthy oil exporting countries in the Middle East doing with their wealth? 

Saudi Arabia has been run for over a century by one family. The present King is Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud. He is the last surviving son of Abdulaziz who founded the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. King Salman is over 80 years old and is not well. He has appointed one of his sons, Muhammed bin Salman known as MBS as the de-facto ruler of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has a Public Investment Fund with nearly a trillion dollars under its management and control. For decades Saudi Arabia has been fully funding the construction and running costs of mega Mosques across the western world. The Imans in these Mosques are hand picked to promote the conservative, fundamentalist form of Sunni Islam that is practiced in Saudi Arabia. Subjugation to sharia law and gender separation has been promoted in the West. The Saudi appointed Imans in these mega Mosques have radicalized tens of thousands of their followers living in the West to oppose western values and culture. They should not be viewed as friends of the West.

Deliberately Designed. A mosque in the Diyanet Center of America outside Washington, D.C. For several decades, Saudi Arabia has extensively funded the construction and operational costs of mosques, Islamic centers, and schools throughout the Western world. Totaling billions of dollars in oil revenue, these investments have been part of a deliberate, long-term policy to promote a conservative form of Islam known as Wahhabism or Salafism globally. (Photo: Shutterstock)

Qatar is a peninsula in the Arabian Gulf with a border in the south with Saudi Arabia. Approximately 320,000 of its 3 million population are Qatari citizens. Since its inception in the 19th century, Qatar has been ruled by one family known as the House of Thani. The current Emir is Sheik Tamin bin Hamad Al Thani who has ruled Qatar since June 25, 2013.  Qatar is an absolute monarchy where the Emir is the head of state and commander in chief of the armed forces. Qatar is a major exporter of LNG and is enormously wealthy.  

Qatar is playing a double game in pretending to be a friend of the West, while it is actively promoting chaos and the destruction of the West. Qatar is a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood that aims to subjugate the entire world to Islamic rule and Sharia law. The billionaire leaders of Hamas, who embezzled all their wealth from the people in Gaza, and helped plan the atrocities committed by Hamas, are living a luxury life with their families in Qatar. Hamas is a designated terrorist entity and anyone hosting and protecting their leaders is obviously not promoting peace in the world.

Qatar is fully funding the TV station known as Al-Jazeera. It has over 3,000 employees and reporters. It reports 24/7 to over 430 million viewers around the world in both Arabic and English. Al Jazeera reaches millions of people in the world who are illiterate and soak up the anti-Israel and anti-western rhetorical nature of the reporters. No other TV channel has the resources that Al Jazeera has. It has radicalized millions of its listeners to become active protestors against America and Israel. There is no doubt that Al Jazeera has promoted and spread militant Islam across the world.

Penetration and Propaganda. Al Jazeera, founded in 1996 in Doha, Qatar, has functioned as a powerful but controversial tool designed to project Qatari influence and provide an alternative Arab-centric perspective on global events. Its influence amplifies Muslim political identity and regional resistance movements to a global audience.
 

Qatar has spent billions of dollars financing Departments of Middle Eastern Studies at almost all the major universities in America. Only people with a proven anti-Israel and anti-Western philosophical world outlook are hired to become professors and lecturers in these departments. The intention of Qatar is to promote an anti-Western mindset in the students who will most likely become future leaders of America. Qatar is buying properties, sports clubs, businesses and making investments that aim at gaining influence amongst the decision makers of the West. With its vast wealth, Qatar has corrupted many of the institutions that are vital to running the world. All of Qatar’s actions are intended to promote the rise of Islamic values in the West and are in direct opposition to liberal Western values.

America maintains approximately 10,000 military personnel at the Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar.  The base serves as the forward headquarters of the United States Central Command known as CENTCOM. In effect Qatar operates under American protection while at the same time it is spending billions of dollars trying to undermine America. One family that controls a country with 320,000 citizens has been able to use its money to undermine and corrupt the entire liberal West. Despite its tiny size, Qatar is a major threat to the Western world. 

How Qatar Bought American Higher Education

In the 7th century, the Prophet Mohammad entered into a 10-year ceasefire with the Quraish tribe who controlled Mecca. It was known as a hudna. Two years later. A re-armed Mohammad attacked and took control of Mecca.

The current war with Iran started in 1979 when Iran became an Islamic Republic. “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” became their official policy. The Iranian regime has squandered billions of dollars on trying to eliminate Israel. The Iranian policy is clear. First conquer the Saturday people, then subjugate the Sunday people.    

Iran has used its vast wealth to export terrorism across the world. They have used proxies to bring death and destruction wherever they can. They have armed and financed proxy terrorist entities in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and have tried to incite the Palestinians to attack Israel.  In the last two months, they have attacked the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait. They have attacked ships using the international waterway known as the Straits of Hormuz. They and their proxies have fired thousands of missiles at civilian targets. They have killed tens of thousands of their own citizens protesting against their policies. The regime and its proxies have broken international law left, right and center. Other than America and Israel, the world simply ignores their genocidal behavior.

Poison Ivy. The Qatari government sends billions of dollars to Ivy League American colleges yearly, forcing institutions to adapt and allow violent pro-Palestinian protests to thrive across the country. Seen here are U.S. Police at Cornell University following antisemitic incident. Qatar has become the largest foreign donor to U.S. universities, with over $6 billion in funding recorded since the 1980s and billions more in donations between 2001 and 2021. Photo: Getty Images)

For decades Iran has been saying that their nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes. If you believe that, then you are living in Lala land. If Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful, then they do not need to enrich uranium to levels that have no peaceful purposes. Iran is without doubt a serial liar.   

Tuition of Terror. Qatari money flows into U.S. universities fueling hate and violence against Jews. Straight out of the Nazi text book was this poster seen at Columbia University depicting all Israelis as skunks reminiscent of the reference to Jews as vermin.

Ever since the end of the Second World War, the concept of “unconditional surrender” has been removed from the lexicon of international affairs. What has happened is that rules of warfare now demand proportional responses. This policy does not end wars. What it does is perpetuate endless conflicts. Professor Alan Dershowitz jokes that America is building special F35 aircrafts for Israel with 3 seats for a pilot, a navigator and a lawyer.

In the last two months, America and Israel have massively reduced the capacity of Iran and its proxy terrorist organizations to wage war. Neither Iran, nor any of its proxies have surrendered or been defeated. Their leadership has been decimated, but they have not changed their intentions.  The world is now calling for a ceasefire with Iran. This is the hudna trap.

Exporter of Terror. Iran has long been designated as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, using its vast wealth — primarily from oil and petrochemical exports — to finance, arm, and train a network of proxy militant groups across the Middle East and beyond.

If sanctions on Iran are lifted, and the regime remains in power, then the regime will do exactly what Muhammad did. They will rearm and attack when they are ready.

The attack on America on September 11, 2001, was a pivotal moment in world affairs. The world was instantly divided into those that were horrified by what occurred, and those who celebrated the devastation. In the name of multiculturalism, diversity and equal opportunity the very people that cheered the attackers, have since been invited into the West and have become citizens. They have been financed and radicalized by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran, and other oil rich Arab countries to promote chaos and to destabilize the Western world. They are using free speech and democracy to gain power and to destabilize the countries that they have immigrated to.

Militant Islam is now the greatest threat to the liberal Western way of life. Russia and China do not have tens of millions of supporters living in the West. On the other hand, there are already tens of millions of Islamists living in the west who see themselves as part of the army of Islam. They are well financed and organized and because of their numbers, they are playing a crucial role in democratic elections in the West. Aircraft carriers, nuclear powered submarines, missiles and drones cannot be used against them. In America they are totally protected by the American Constitution. There are elected members of congress who are Muslims who refuse to condemn the policy of “Death to America“. They and their followers are opposed to everything that made America into a superpower. Like the mountain pine beetle, they intend to hollow out America until it withers and dies. It is time for the West to recognize who its enemies are to stop treating them as allies. 



About the writer:

Accountant Neville 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).

SOUTH AFRICA’S ESTEEMED ONLINE ‘DAILY FRIEND’ IS NO FRIEND WHEN IT COMES TO DEFENDING DEMOCRACY

A discourse with the editor reveals failures and fears to take on Islamic fundamentalism.

By Lawrence Nowosenetz

The Daily Friend (DFr) is a publication of the South African Institute of Race Relations, a proud an distinguished organisation established almost 100 years ago which has always stood for promoting democracy, freedom and rule of law. In short, classical liberalism. 

In a recent text conversation with Michael Morris (MM) the editor of DFr I drew his attention to the statement of Dr Imtiaz Sooliman, head of Gift of the Givers who was awarded an honorary doctorate by the University of Cape Town.  This subject was the basis of an article by the writer:  University of Cape Town’s ultimate degradation – honouring Dr Sooliman (Lay of the Land 31 March 2026).

Dr Sooliman who is widely lauded as a great humanitarian expressed some extreme views which are quite irreconcilable with democracy and freedom. In a public interview on 7 October 2024, being the first anniversary of the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, he said:

“I don’t follow international law or human law. I follow Koranic law. I am a Muslim. I don’t need any permission from anybody in the world to tell me what to do. I break the laws all the time. Breaking the law is laws of the West and people and governments. It’s not Islamic law. I follow Islamic law, and Islamic law overrides any other law. … I don’t have to follow any law. My law is very clear to me. Allah himself has instructed me. I don’t need men to tell me what to do. I don’t follow them.”

Islamic law is quite different to Western law in that whereas democracy separates the state and its legal authority from religion, Koranic law is theocratic and makes no such distinction. The supreme authority is a religious leader whose authority cannot be questioned or challenged by legal restraints.  Sharia, the legal framework of Koranic law does not protect individual rights as understood in liberal democracy. It is repressive and authoritarian. Women and homosexuals are oppressed and discriminated against. Apostacy is punishable by death.  Historically non-Muslims were given the status of Dhimmi in Muslim countries where they were treated as inferiors, had to pay a special tax and had to dress in a certain way to identify themselves as non-Muslims. This is where the Star of David attached to the clothing of Jews originated. These practices are no longer followed but indicate the fundamentalism of Sharia law. Today Iran and Afghanistan are examples of Islamist repressive authoritarian theocratic rule. 

Mr Morris was invited by the writer to express whether this statement of Dr Sooliman was in accordance with democracy and the rule of law in South Africa. He was not in agreement. He was not prepared to say that the statement of Dr Sooliman was a clear expression of rejection of South African law. His opposition to censuring Dr Sooliman for his adherence to a theocratic ideology and rejection of man-made law are worth examining in order to expose the serious flaws. At the outset Mr Morris endorses a dispassionate approach and in a spirit of enquiry, whether he lives up to that desirable standard is in doubt:   

MM: “The statement was short and cannot be taken on face value.  The true test of what he meant would be to interview Dr Sooliman to obtain clarity or provide further context.”

Michael Morris, editor at the Daily Friend.

There is a profound moral principal involved being that people are accountable for their deeds. Speech is included. More so when the statement is made publicly by a public figure such as Dr Sooliman. It is perfectly proper and widely practised to comment on face value of what prominent people say.  Importantly, although he made this statement in 2024, despite countless interviews he has given since then, he has never modified or repudiated a single word.   Strangely he has never been asked what he meant. No one seems to have misunderstood his message. His statement was sufficiently comprehensive to confirm that he rejects laws of man. His language is plain and unambiguous.   Shorter statements than his such as political slogans have traction and are usually well understood without any embellishment.      

MM: “It is unfair to single out the “fervent religiosity” used by Dr Sooliman as it is much like the views by Jewish and Christian fundamentalists who declare they owe fealty only to God and no other. There have been comments to this effect made by readers of the DFr.  Are they also subversive of the very values UCT should be safeguarding?”

There is a fundamental difference between the fundamentalist readers of DFr and Dr Sooliman. He is a public figure who received a high honour for his humanitarianism. This is unique and unprecedented. No leader, whether fundamentalist or otherwise has publicly rejected the law of South Africa in the democratic era. The last time that happened was during   Apartheid.

Islamism is radically different to any Jewish or Christian “fervent religiosity”. The ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, political Islam, which Dr Sooliman supports goes much further. It promotes using violence in the form of Jihad to establish domination and power in non-Muslim countries. Dr Sooliman, through Gift of the Givers made donations to Al Aqsa Foundation, an organisation forming part of the Union of Good, a coalition of Islamic charities supporting Hamas’ infrastructure, an organisation on the US State Department list of foreign terrorist organizations.  The chairman of Union of Good was Sheik Yusef Al-Qaradawi a high-ranking member of the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2011, Dr Sooliman received an award from Sheik Yusef Al- Qaradawi for his service to Palestine.   Al-Qaradawi is known as the key figure in shaping the concept of violent jihad and the one who allowed carrying out terror attacks, including suicide bombing attacks, against Israeli citizens, the US forces in Iraq, and some of the Arab regimes. He was banned from entering some Western and Arab countries. A true humanitarian would have distanced himself from Al-Qaradawi as many Muslim leaders have done. 

Proud Lawbreaker Honored. Dr Imtiaz Sooliman who was honored at the University of Cape Town (UCT) by conferring on him an honorary doctorate for his humanitarianism, says , “I don’t follow international law or human law. I follow Koranic law. I am a Muslim. I don’t need any permission from anybody in the world to tell me what to do. I break the laws all the time.”

Certainly, no religious Jewish or Christian leader in South Africa has publicly defied democratic South African law in the name of religion. If indeed people of any faith have made similar public religious claims to Dr Sooliman, they ought to be wholly and immediately censured. Such statements violate the raison d’etre of democracy: The social contract which has underpinned liberal democracy for centuries. This is worthy of guarding by custodians of freedom such as The Daily Friend .    

MM: “Not only the Koran, but the Torah and Bible are not repositories of human rights either” 

At best a half truth. Indeed, there are parts of the Jewish and Christian Bible such as acceptance of slavery that are today abhorrent.  However, modern political notions of justice and individual liberty owe much to Jewish and Christian teachings, rather than the Koran. The US Constitution is a prime example of the influence of Christianity.  Koranic law places submission to Allah as a foundational value whereas the same cannot be said of Judaism and Christianity with regard to the relationship with God.  Judaism teaches a holy covenant and Christianity teaches love of God through Jesus Christ.  Islamic theocracy is inconsistent with the rule of the law of man.

MM: “Preserving liberty cannot be advanced by curbing liberty. Freedom of speech must be tolerated in order to counter intolerant ideas.”  

In principle, yes, subject to Popper below. There is no suggestion of curbing the freedom of speech of Dr Sooliman. His speech is however subject to censure. The  DFr  should be in the forefront of declaring Dr Sooliman’s statement inappropriate and in clear conflict with Western democracy and liberty.  Karl Popper, the renown Austrian-born British philosopher to whom I referred in our conversation, proposed the paradox of tolerance:

“We should therefore claim in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”  (My emphasis)

The Open Society and its Enemies Vol 1: K.R Popper (Routlege 1966) p 211 

Dr Sooliman’s statement has not reached the criminal level but his Islamist theocratic views are clearly on the trajectory of intolerance.  To repeat: He should be censured, not prevented from expressing himself freely.  The South African Constitution itself recognises limitations to basic rights. Section 36 provides that the Bill of Rights “for limitation to the extent that it is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity equality and freedom …”  There is no room for repressive Sharia authority in South African law. 

MM: “Confronting him with semi-facts, innuendo, guilt by association and so on, only risks making him seem strong and you seem weak.” 

A somewhat vague, personal and unsubstantiated remark unworthy of dispassionate discourse. The confrontation is based on the ipse dixit (exact words) of Dr Sooliman. There is nothing semi factual or innuendo (suggestion).  His Islamist Muslim Brotherhood affiliations are on public record and indeed his own biography makes that plain. It is the duty of responsible people to call out dangers to democracy – no contest of strength is involved. Just accurate and reasonable analysis to enlighten and inform. 

MM: “The meaning given to Dr Sooliman’s statement by the writer was convenient to his preconceptions.” 

This is an ad hominem, personal and unsupported attack on the objectivity and the careful, fact-based assessment by the writer.  The ideological background of Dr Sooliman is well documented and this includes beyond any question his adherence to the Muslim Brotherhood teachings as well as his support of Hamas. These are not preconceptions or subjective opinions of the writer but well documented background history on the worldview and political stance of Dr Sooliman. No reasonable person can conclude otherwise. 

IN CONCLUSION

On 27 October 2025 Dr Sooliman declared to certain UCT interested parties:

“… to threaten your students and your university because you’re acting on the base of Israel. I think you should be stripped of your citizenship and thrown out of the country.”

An illiberal proposal which raises serious problems not merely because of its injustice and unconstitutionality, but also because it would require man-made law and enforcement to put into effect. The same legal structure Dr Sooliman says he does not need. It also is problematic because it is intrinsically anti- humanitarian and in violation of basic human rights.  It does not behove a person who is bestowed with a prestigious honour for his services to society to make such dishonourable remarks. 

Fortunately, South Africa has principled leaders prepared to speak out in upholding democracy. Recently convicted and sentenced EFF political leader Julius Malema made threatening and disparaging remarks about the prosecution and judiciary. This too cannot be tolerated.

“At a time when South Africa continues to confront significant challenges within its criminal justice system, it is important that leaders act responsibly and uphold the institutions designed to protect citizens. Accountability must be accepted with dignity, and disagreements must be addressed within the framework of the law. The rule of law is not negotiable. It is the foundation upon which our democracy stands. Undermining it, through reckless and unfounded attacks on the Judiciary, places that foundation at risk, and with it, the rights and freedoms of all South Africans.

Statement issued by Adv. Glynnis Breytenbach MP, DA Spokesperson on Justice and Constitutional Development, 17 April 2026.    

It is troubling that an editor should go such lengths to find contrived and disingenuous arguments to evade the pressing and unavoidable reality that Dr Sooliman holds very hostile views on Western democracy and the rule of law which stand uncontradicted. The Daily Friend should protect freedom of expression by publishing the comments made by the writer about the views of Dr Sooliman as they are central to protection of democracy. At the very least, freedom of speech demands a frank and open publication of the concerns raised, no matter how unreasonable or disagreeable these are to Mr Morris.  The loser in stifling this crucial examination of Dr Sooliman’s language is the hard fought South African liberal democracy itself.



About the writer:

Born in Pretoria Lawrence Nowosenetz obtained his BA at University of the Witwatersrand and LLB at the University of South Africa. He has been admitted as an Attorney in South Africa and as an advocate in South Africa. He practiced at the Pretoria and Johannesburg Bar and worked as a human rights and labour lawyer at the Legal Resources Centre a public interest law firm. Lawrence was Awarded a Fulbright Scholarship and completed professional internship in the USA. He was a a labour arbitrator and mediator, part time Senior Commissioner at the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) as well as a panelist at Tokiso Dispute Settlement. He was a member of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies and Pretoria Chairman. He has also served as an Acting Judge of the Hight Court, South Africa. He now lives in Tel Aviv.





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).

WHAT HAPPENED TO IMRAN KHAN?

Khan’s detention has coincided with broader crackdowns on his party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).

By Michael Jankelowitz 

(Courtesy to The Jerusalem Post where article first appeared)

US President Donald Trump repeatedly calls on Israel’s President Isaac Herzog to pardon Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Why is Trump silent on the fate of imprisoned former Pakistani prime minister Imran Khan? Khan is ill, denied visits by his sons, and is languishing in a Pakistani jail as Pakistan tries to boost its international image by brokering a peace deal between the US and Iran.

The continued imprisonment of Imran Khan is increasingly difficult to view as a straightforward matter of law and order. Rather, it bears the troubling hallmarks of political retribution – an outcome that undermines not only Pakistan’s democratic institutions but also its global credibility.

Khan is no ordinary political figure. Before entering politics, he was a national icon who led Pakistan to victory in the 1992 Cricket World Cup. His transition from sports hero to reformist politician gave him a unique legitimacy, particularly among younger and urban voters. As prime minister, he cultivated an image – fairly or not – of an outsider challenging entrenched elites.

‘King’ Khan. Imran Khan is hoisted up by his team-mates after winning the World Cup in 1992. (Photo: Tony Feder/Getty Image)

KHAN’S REMOVAL FROM OFFICE AND LEGAL CASES

His removal from office in 2022 via a parliamentary no-confidence vote was constitutionally valid. However, what followed raises serious concerns. Khan has since faced a barrage of legal cases, ranging from corruption to charges related to state secrets. While accountability is essential in any democracy, the sheer volume and timing of these cases invite skepticism. It is difficult to ignore the perception that the legal system is being weaponized to sideline a political rival.

The principle at stake is not whether Khan is above the law – he is not. The issue is whether the law is being applied fairly and independently. Reports from international observers and human rights organizations have highlighted irregularities in due process, limitations on Khan’s legal team, and restrictions on media coverage. These factors collectively weaken the credibility of the proceedings against him.

Moreover, Khan’s detention has coincided with broader crackdowns on his party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). Supporters have been arrested, rallies curtailed, and political activity constrained. This wider pattern reinforces the argument that his imprisonment is part of a coordinated effort to suppress opposition rather than a neutral application of justice.

Big Attraction. From cricket fans to political supporters, Imran Khan had the appeal to attract such as these PTI supporters at a rally in Islamabad. (Photo: anveer Shahzad)

POLITICAL INSTABILITY AND INJUSTICE

Pakistan’s history is, unfortunately, replete with instances where political leaders have been jailed under contentious circumstances. From Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to Nawaz Sharif, the line between accountability and political engineering has often been blurred. Khan’s case risks becoming another chapter in this cycle, perpetuating instability rather than resolving it.

The consequences extend beyond domestic politics. Pakistan faces significant economic and security challenges that require unity and public trust. The perception that political competition is being settled through courts rather than ballots erodes confidence in the system. It also complicates relations with international partners who prioritize rule of law and democratic norms.

Behind the Crease to Behind Bars.  It’s been an extraordinary journey for a man destined for greatness.

Releasing Khan – whether through bail, acquittal, or a transparent and expedited legal process – would not mean endorsing his policies or absolving him of potential wrongdoing. It would signal a commitment to fairness and institutional integrity. If the state’s case against him is strong, it should withstand scrutiny in an open and credible judicial process.

An All-rounder. The Cricketer, the Celebrity, the Politician and now the Prisoner.

Ultimately, democracies are judged not by how they treat their allies but by how they treat their opponents. Pakistan now faces a defining test. Continuing to hold Imran Khan under contested circumstances risks deepening political divisions and damaging the country’s democratic fabric. Allowing due process to unfold transparently – and ensuring that it is free from political influence – is not just in Khan’s interest. It is in Pakistan’s.


Country’s Cricket Captain to its Prime Minister. Imran Khan was a mover and shaker.




About the writer:

The writer is a Jerusalem-based commentator on international affairs and the Jewish world. He grew up in South Africa and has been living in Israel since 1971. He studied at Bar Ilan University where he served on its student government. Following his studies, he worked for 35 years in various positions at the World Zionist Organization and Jewish Agency for Israel, where he served as its spokesman to the International Media.



*Feature picture: Cricket player to power broker – Imran Khan. (Photo: Associated Press).





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).