ARAB MEDIA: DESPERATELY SEEKING SADAT!

An article that disappointed less from what it said and more from what it did not say.

By David E. Kaplan

I come across recently an article translated from Arabic penned by Abdel Rahman Shalgha published in the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat titled :

“Searching for Anwar Sadat”

In these troubled turbulent times, I reached out with enthusiasm to read this piece by an Arab journalist that was “searching” – his word – for an inspirational leader in the Middle East. His role-model was the assassinated Egyptian president, Anwar Sadat, a brave warrior who risked in peace as much as he risked in war, who rose above the fears and prejudices of the masses to take risks for the ultimate goal of peace. Ask Israelis of President Sadat and the image that comes to mind is more the man who sought peace than who prosecuted war and who bravely boarded a plane that flew him into the bowels of his enemy to address its parliament – the Knesset.

**Peacemakers**. Prime Minister Menachem Begin welcomes Egyptian president Anwar Sadat at Ben Gurion Airport on November 19, 1997 (Photo: Moshe Milner/GPO archive)

Some will recall his deep voice resonating from the Knesset podium saying:

“Any life lost in war is a human life, irrespective of its being that of an Israeli or an Arab. A wife who becomes a widow is a human being entitled to a happy family life, whether she be an Arab or an Israeli.”

**Contrasting Sentiments**. While Anwar Sadat and Golda Meir got on like a house on fire in Jerusalem, most the Arab world was ablaze with fury.

The warm response of the Israeli public was captured best at the time by Israel’s former PM Golda Meir, when addressing the Knesset on the 21 November, 1977, and directed these words to her former foe:

“Mr. President, I’m sure that from the moment your plane landed at Lydda Airport, and as you drove through the streets of Jerusalem, you must have felt, in all your encounters with the many people who turned out to meet you – the little children; the mothers with babies in their arms; the old people; the people who were born in this country, the second, third, fourth and fifth generations, and those who have come recently – that all, without exception, were overjoyed to see you in our Land.”

Such was the mood of Israelis in late 1977.

**From Foe to Friend**. Unlike the unhappy atmosphere in Egypt and neighboring Arab countries, Jerusalem schoolchildren with balloons and flowers cheer the arrival in Israel of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat on November 21, 1977 (Photo: Ya’akov Sa’ar/GPO archive).

SOMETHING MAJORLY MISSING

So, it was about this caliber of a man in the Arab world I was hoping to read in Abdel Rahman Shalgha’s November 2025 article and his opening paragraph was promising:

“In the collective memory of nations and the chronicles of their history, there are names, years, and even entire centuries that endure, untouched by the passage of time or the tumult of events. Among them are the names of kings, presidents, and statesmen whose legacies remain etched in both the hearts of their people and the pages of history. The late Egyptian president Anwar Sadat was one such man, born into an era of extraordinary transformation for Egypt, the Arab world, and the world at large.”

Then I kept reading. While interesting and informative, in the end, it was disappointingly deficient. Hoping to read about the man who sought and brought peace to Egypt with its greatest enemy, Israel – Not a word!

**Price of Peace**. President Sadat was the first Arab leader to recognize the state of Israel since its creation in 1948 and in September 1978, met with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in the US, where they negotiated a peace accord and, in 1979, a peace treaty. For this he paid with his life.

It was all about the man of war and nothing about the man of peace. It was about the man who spied and collaborated with the Nazis during WWII and who with “cunning” deceived the Israelis “that Egypt would not attack, only to shatter that illusion when Egyptian forces crossed the Suez Canal, breached the Bar-Lev Line, and rewrote the script of Middle Eastern history.”

But that “Middle East history” included finally the famous peace between Egypt and Israel, ensuring that countless Egyptian and Israeli lives were not to be needlessly lost.

Not a word about this!

The achievement of peace that should have been written as the highlight of the Egyptian president’s life deserves no mention? The word peace appears not to be in this journalist’s vocabulary – at least not in so far as to praise the attributes of his hero – Anwar Sadat!

Read below the rest of Abdel Rahman Shalgha article:

“In his memoir, In Search of Identity, he [Sadat] recounts the defining stages of his life, from his birth in the village of Mit Abu El Kom on the banks of the Nile to his rise as president of the Arab Republic of Egypt.

At the time, Egypt languished under British domination, its sovereignty curtailed, its military occupied, and its monarch reduced to a mere figurehead. Against this backdrop, a dark-skinned boy from the Nile’s banks absorbed the essence of Egypt – its history, struggles, and aspirations – and carried them within him.

Sadat wrote his life story in a simple, unpretentious style, describing the national and international figures who shaped his worldview. Among them, [Mohamed Darweesh] Zahran, a young Egyptian executed by the British after the Denshawai incident, stood out as a moral beacon whose courage and sacrifice burned indelibly in Sadat’s heart.

From his humble beginnings in Mit Abu El Kom to the charged atmosphere of Cairo – a city alive with political ferment and social tension – Sadat matured amid the turbulence of an occupied nation. He completed his secondary education and began a long, arduous journey through a labyrinth of nepotism and colonial control before finally entering the Military Academy.

After graduation, he served in various posts across the country, carrying with him an unyielding hatred for British rule. His first confrontation with colonial authority came with his involvement in the assassination of Amin Osman, a minister known for his staunch loyalty to Britain – a plot that landed Sadat in prison.

During World War II, as German and Italian forces advanced from eastern Libya into Egyptian territory, many Egyptians, Sadat among them, saw in the British defeats a glimmer of hope for liberation, even if it came through the hands of others.

In that spirit, Sadat helped plan an attempt to smuggle the nationalist officer Aziz Ali al-Misri into the Western Desert to contact the German command. The operation failed when al-Misri’s plane crashed, yet Sadat’s determination did not waver. Later, when two German spies in Cairo sought his help to repair a malfunctioning radio transmitter used to send intelligence to Berlin, Sadat, then in military intelligence, agreed to assist.

Discovered by British and Egyptian intelligence, he was imprisoned again and expelled from the army. Escaping confinement, he wandered the countryside in disguise as “Haj Muhammad,” working as a porter and laborer until a royal insider helped him return to the army and join the Royal Guard.

Sadat later recounted his efforts to organize a secret military network aimed at toppling the monarchy and ending British rule – efforts he claimed predated Gamal Abdel Nasser’s founding of the Free Officers Movement, though his colleagues in that movement would later dispute the account in their own memoirs.

I accompanied Sadat on his long journey through the pages of his autobiography, where he traced his life with all its trials, risks, and triumphs. Throughout, one sees a man in perpetual pursuit of an Egypt free from colonial chains. Perhaps it was Zahran, the martyred peasant of Denshawai, who served as the spiritual force sustaining him through years of struggle.

That thread of conviction runs through every stage of his life, from his seat on the Revolutionary Command Council to the emergence of the shrewd and daring strategist he became.

Sadat never held major ministerial posts and was never seen as a likely successor to Nasser. Yet upon Nasser’s death, he assumed the presidency and began, with quiet calculation, to consolidate his power, dismantling rival factions in a single stroke.

He reorganized Egypt’s military in preparation for war with Israel and redefined the nation’s alliance with Moscow. In an elaborate campaign of deception, he convinced Israel that Egypt would not attack, only to shatter that illusion when Egyptian forces crossed the Suez Canal, breached the Bar-Lev Line, and rewrote the script of Middle Eastern history.

In doing so, Sadat realized his lifelong dream: the recovery of Egyptian land, achieved with the boldness and cunning of a leader confident in his destiny.

I journeyed with Anwar Sadat through his remarkable life to say this: Amid the chaos, fragmentation, and imbalance that now define our region, perhaps it is worth revisiting the life of this man – not with nostalgia, but with a political mind attuned to lessons of endurance and foresight. For within Sadat’s journey, there may yet be a light to guide us over the dark hill of an uncertain future.”

And there you have it.

**Siding against Sadat**. Protests in Oslo on the 11 December 1978 against the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin. Sadat’s quest for peace with Israel was not welcomed in the Arab world with fellow states boycotting Egypt for breaking ranks and negotiating a separate treaty with the Jewish state. (Photo: Manuel Litran/Paris Match via Getty Images)

A well written in somewhat poetic praise of a man this journalist “accompanied …. on his long journey through the pages of his autobiography,” admiring his life “with all its trials, risks, and triumphs.” Sadly, among Sadat’s “triumphs”, this journalist does not recognise, acknowledge or mention – even in passing – the monumental 1979 peace treaty with Israel. Think of it, together with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Sadat received the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize for their roles in the Camp David Accords, which paved the way for the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty and no mention of it!

How do you arrive at a point when writing about someone’s lifetime achievements and you deliberately omit being the recipient of a Nobel Prize?

Targeting Peace. A scene from the assassination of Egyptian president, Anwar Sadat in 1981.

Clearly for this journalist, Israel is unwelcome, a colonialist entity, a blot on the map, a stain on a region exclusively reserved for Muslims or Arab-speaking folk. Sadly, it’s a perspective shared by the citizens of most, if not all, the countries bordering Israel and explains why Sadat was shot in 1981, and why the trigger-fingers of the assassins represented a multiple metaphor for millions of fingers around the Middle East.

**Cause of Death**. Sadat’s death was attributed to “violent nervous shock and internal bleeding in the chest cavity, where the left lung and major blood vessels below it were torn.” In truth, the actual cause of death was that he outreached to the Jewish state to make peace with Israel.

Is it any wonder today that so many kids in the Arab world today are named Nasser after the uncompromising militant president that preceded Sadat, and very few, if any are named after the assassinated Anwar Sadat!

Whatever Abdel Rahman Shalgha is really “searching” for, it is not peace with Israel.

While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves. LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).

BETWEEN AUSCHWITZ AND BE’ERI: COMMUNITIES CAUGHT BETWEEN MEMORY AND RENEWAL

How do traumatized kibbutzniks build a new life amongst the rubble and remnants of personal horror?

By Gadi Ezra

(Courtesy of YNET news where this article first appeared)

Communities find themselves unwillingly at the center of a struggle between remembrance and renewal, underscoring the need for the state to better preserve national heritage.

Would you demolish Auschwitz? Of course not. The memory of the victims, the documentation of the crimes, the proof of the horrors — all must be preserved despite the pain, for the sake of future generations. But what if you had to keep living there? To face the destruction every morning? To rush to class or grab a coffee by passing through a murder scene frozen in time? In that case, the answer might be different. The need to move forward, rebuild and reestablish routine would all enter the equation.

This is precisely the heartbreaking dilemma the members of Kibbutz Be’eri recently confronted. Still trying to rise from the disaster, they voted by a narrow margin that life inside a memorial site is not life. The decision means clearing and demolishing the homes destroyed in the October 7 massacre. One house will remain, a testimony to what happened and to what must never happen again.

**Killing Kids**. A ‘Welcome to Our Home’ sign to a kindergarten on kibbutz Be’eri has not welcomed any kids since Hamas terrorists tore through it on October 7, 2023. (Photo: Baz Ratner/AP)

This is not a decision anyone can fairly criticize. No one can claim to know better than those who endured devastation and must now live again at the center of trauma. Whatever they say deserves a quiet amen. Yet what matters is understanding that Be’eri’s decision will not be the last on this issue. It opens a window into the present and future dilemmas of Nir Oz, Kfar Aza, Nirim, Nahal Oz, Re’im and other communities along Israel’s border. These are places that, against their will, have become focal points in a struggle between remembrance and renewal. That reality highlights not only the depth of the tragedy. It underscores the need for more effective state action in preserving the national heritage.

**Silent Swing**. Once an area of family fun, a Be’eri home’s patio and play area in the aftermath of the massacre.

The Tekuma Authority has allocated tens of millions to establish a national memorial for October 7, but its creation depends on legislation that remains unfinished. More than two years have passed since the massacre, yet the necessary administrative work is still incomplete. A state commission of inquiry is also deliberately avoided. As a result, the content that would fill any memorial institution is, by definition, partial and lacking. Such commissions are not only meant to assign responsibility. They are designed to form a narrative explaining how the country reached this point. Just as the Holocaust did not begin with the establishment of the death camps, October 7 did not begin on October 7.

**Death and Destruction**. One of the many houses which was burned and destroyed during the October 7, 2023 Hamas massacre.

The problem with this dynamic, in which the state moves at its own pace, is that life is not a made-to-order program. It does not wait for government directives, bureaucracy or paperwork. It pushes past every document on its way to the next stage and forces survivors to confront decisions they must make. A community’s ability to tell its own story must always be preserved. But had the authorities and political leadership operated with greater transparency and efficiency, the members of Be’eri could have considered how future national commemoration would be shaped. That would have allowed them to highlight aspects the state does not emphasize or raise issues that matter to them in a different way. Their decision would have been made in context, not in a fog.

**Gazan ‘Stormtroopers’**. Hamas terrorists taking civilians hostages from kibbutz Be’eri.

Disclosure: At the end of October 2023, I was there as a reservist. The walls of the dental clinic that still stood practically screamed. The path leading to it ran through the same buildings now slated for demolition. ZAKA teams were still searching them for remains. Crushed cars lined the road. Other homes appeared intact but were anything but. Bloodstains on balconies revealed what had happened inside. Still others remained as they were the day they were abandoned — to Gaza, to the next world or to evacuation hotels. In truth that scene has not ended. War does not finish when the last soldier crosses back over the border. Even after Ran Gvili returns, it will end only when the residents return home. It is the state’s duty to ease that journey. Shaping memory in a way that helps them make decisions is an inseparable part of that responsibility.

**Tough Decisions**. Once a family home, now a horrifying ‘memorial’ to lives snuffed out. Can people return to this site to once again live?

About the writer:

Gadi Ezra is the Former director of Israel’s national public diplomacy unit.

WHAT LIES BEHIND UCT’S BATTLEFIELD AGAINST ‘PESKY’ JEWS?

No surprise university’s recent Convocation election has been described as“Kristallnacht 2025”!

By Marika Sboros

(Courtesy of Biznews where first published)

The University of Cape Town (UCT) was once a glittering jewel in South Africa’s – and the African continent’s – academic crown.

No longer.

That’s thanks to UCT’s unedifying recent history of being held to ransom by students and staff pushing political and ideological agendas.

It has become as one writer put it, “a public university applauding the removal of Jews from a space they helped build, under the polite cover of modern political language.”

UCT’s Council is its “supreme governing body responsible for policy, strategic direction and ensuring sound governance and financial sustainability,” As such, it should be a bulwark against institutional capture.

**Cry the Beloved Campus**. The 2024 Israel Apartheid Week at UCT saw present senior representatives from the ANC, Al Jama-ah, the EFF, and Palestinian Solidarity Campaign where taunts and insults were directed at Jews such as: “Child killers”; “We are Hamas”; “October 7 will happen again”; “You f**king b*tch”; and “I will place your photo all over this campus you P*es”.

However, one of its Council members, Dianna Yach, has become embroiled in yet more public controversy that is chipping away at that bulwark. Yach faces scrutiny after UCT’s abrupt announcement on October 30, 2025, that it was switching off life support after 56 years for its “most cherished cultural landmark,” the Irma Stern Museum. The spotlight is on Yach’s role as Chair of UCT’s Irma Stern Museum Committee at the time of UCT’s decision to sever its ties with the museum.

As a Council member, Yach is already mired in damaging allegations, including lying under oath and serious breach of fiduciary duties, in a landmark lawsuit launched by Prof Adam Mendelsohn, head of UCT’s Department of Historical Studies.

Mendelsohn launched the lawsuit after UCT adopted the so-called “Gaza conflict resolutions” in June 2024. A ruling is expected early next year.

POLITICAL, IDEOLOGICAL EXPEDIENCY

UCT’s decision to sever support for the Irma Stern Museum came as a shock to supporters. Stern is widely acknowledged as one of South Africa’s most prolific and powerful artists, one who played a leading role in introducing avant-garde art to the country.

Some saw UCT’s decision as political and ideological expediency. UCT compounded that by shrouding the decision in secrecy, ratifying it on October 18 and only announcing it after being called out publicly.

Preservation concerns have centred over structural deterioration and maintenance challenges of housing Stern’s collection in The Firs, her Cape Town home since 1927. Reports of the collection now in “secure storage” pending uncertain refurbishment plans have fuelled fears of irreparable damage to the irreplaceable integrity of South Africa’s only artist’s house museum.

Heritage researcher Phillippa Duncan has described UCT’s decision as yet more “cultural bloodletting” and “a systematic lack of respect for history, older buildings and objects that require care.”

Stern’s whiteness and Jewishness made things “a little more difficult” by “not fitting in with UCT’s political conversations,” Duncan says. She does not believe that race and religion were “primary triggers” for UCT’s decision.

**Jews Unwelcome**. What kind of ‘safe’ environment is it for Jewish students at UCT when (as captured on video) a demonstrator, smacked the kippah (a traditional Jewish head covering) off a student’s head, while he was praying, and when confronted refused to apologise?

HIVE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

I think that’s charitable. The primary triggers may lie, more likely, in the hive of conflicts of interest buzzing under the many different hats Yach wears.

Among others, Yach chairs UCT’s Human Resources (HR) Committee; is a member of the UCT Remuneration and Governance Committees; serves “by invitation” on UCT Law Faculty’s Law Clinic Advisory Board; and is one of Council’s two Senate-elected donor representatives.

She is also the Chairperson and the executive director of the Mauerberger Foundation Fund (MFF) Board, one of South Africa’s oldest Jewish, philanthropic organisations and a donor to UCT and the Irma Stern Museum for decades.

That places Yach squarely in the crosshairs of overlapping donor and governance roles, with duties and loyalties to UCT and the MFF potentially pulling in different directions.

Her maternal grandfather, Morris Mauerberger, an industrialist and a committed Zionist, founded the MFF in the late 1930s. His philanthropy included regular support for Zionist organisations and projects that strengthened Israel’s infrastructure and education.

**Felling a Family Legacy**. A proud Zionist was the late Morris Mauerberger, one of South Africa’s leading industrialists and Jewish philanthropists whose Mauerberger Foundation supported a multitude of causes in Israel but is today managed by his granddaughter Diana Yach who some critics believe is not following the path he forged for MFF support for the Jewish state.

Mauerberger’s will expressly allocated half of the MFF funds in perpetuity to Israel, the other half split equally between South African Jewish and non-Jewish communities.

The MFF’s decades-long support for Israeli projects includes:

– the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

– theTechnion – Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa (where there is a Mauerberger building) and

– direct involvement in establishing Ben Gurion University of the Negev in 1969.

**Lasting Legacy**. The Mauerberger name is proudly embedded in the hills of Haifa in shaping education and research in the **Mauerberger Building** at Israel’s prestigious Technion – Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, Israel oldest university and with four Nobel laureates having been associated with the university.

RED FLAGS WAVING

Yach took over as MFF executive director in 2013. Since then, she has appeared intent on taking the MFF down a different path from the straight and narrow one her grandfather forged – if wildly waving red flags are any indication.

One red flag is her support, well-documented in court papers on public record in Mendelsohn’s lawsuit, for the Gaza resolutions.

One resolution rejects the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. The other effectively calls for an academic boycott of Israel’s entire academic establishment.

The boycott includes, by implication, all tertiary institutions in Israel that the MFF supports, as these can be interpreted, particularly by the BDS movement, to form part of the greater Israeli military establishment.

Suffice to say, blanket academic boycotts on shaky foundations are fundamentally incompatible with the core values of any university worth its academic-freedom salts.

Yach appears oblivious to conflict emanating from her support for resolutions that diametrically oppose her grandfather’s legacy – and, perhaps more importantly from the perspective of potential conflicts of interest, the MFF’s stated mission of support for Israel.

ISRAEL AND PALESTINE

Another red flag is few public reports since the horrific terror attack by Hamas on Israel on October 7, 2023, of MFF donations to the Jewish state – apart from vague references to support for “mental health programmes”.

Yet another flag is reference in an affidavit Yach submitted in Mendelsohn’s lawsuit to MFF donations to “Israel and Palestine”. That will resonate well with anti-Israel groups active on UCT campus, among them South African Jews for a Free Palestine (SAJFP) and UCT Alumni for Palestine, with which Yach is closely allied.

This raises questions about Yach’s involvement with these entities and under which of her multiple hats it lies?

Yach is also actively involved in alumni affairs and wears a further hat as a member of UCT’s Alumni and Development Advisory Board.

Before UCT Convocation’s AGM and Elections on December 4, 2025, Yach nominated UCT law lecturer Caitlin le Roith, the public face of SAJFP and publicly backed by UCT Alumni for Palestine, to run for the Executive Council (Exco) election. Her nomination was seconded by an SAJFP member and was successful.

Convocation ended up top-heavy with a president and four of five Exco members firmly in anti-Israel camps. The elections became a battleground with the hallmarks of a hijacking, purge, even a “pogrom” against Jews.

The aims, as supporters of newly elected officials swiftly and gleefully declared on social media, were twofold:

– to defeat the Zionist bloc (a mythical creation of their own making)” and

– ensure that UCT is “never a home for Zionists”.

If any rhetoric proves that Zionist really is the anti-Israel lobby’s code word for Jews, that was it.

INVERTED RED TRIANGLES

SAJFP leaders have distinguished themselves, if that’s quite the right word, as enthusiastic spreaders of that code word and by using inverted red triangles on social-media posts to celebrate deaths of Jewish soldiers in Gaza.

The Nazis used inverted red triangles to distinguish political groups in concentration camps. After October 7, Hamas began using the symbol as a propaganda prop to identify Israeli military targets. The symbol has spread to anti-Israel protests, especially on university campuses and social media.

The Anti-Defamation League cautions that the symbol’s ties with Hamas help to normalise terrorism and extremism under cover of “resistance”.

Yach raised eyebrows – and hackles – in September 2025 when she donated R1-million of MFF funds to Dr Imtiaz Sooliman, founder-CEO of Gift of the Givers, for medicines for children in Gaza.

Many consider Sooliman to be an incorrigibly vocal, virulent opponent of Israel and all Jews who support it. He speaks publicly under banners claiming, “We are all Hamas”. He routinely punctuates his rhetoric with antisemitic tropes about “Zionists” who rule the world with money.

Sooliman still faces claims (hotly denied) that Gift of the Givers has funnelled funds to Hamas and other terror groups active in the Middle East for decades.

Yach is impervious to criticism of the MFF donating to a man implacably opposed to her grandfather’s stated mission and vision for the family foundation.

Sooliman has been nominated for a UCT honorary doctorate. UCT’s Council was expected to vote to accept his nomination at its regular meeting on December 6.

**Suspicious Support**. Unable to voice disapproval, the bust of Morris Mauerberger looks on at his granddaughter Dianna Yach presenting a cheque of one million rand to Give of the Givers’ controversial founder and CEO, Imtiaz Sooliman, who proudly appears at South African anti-Israel demonstrations under banners claiming, “*We are all Hamas*”.

REVIEW OF PUBLIC POWER

In the meantime, as Mendelsohn’s legal team notes in heads of argument, the lawsuit has generated “noise” around “geopolitics, antisemitism, genocide and accusations of bad faith” that drowns out what it is really all about.

The application’s merits turn simply on a “review of public power,” his lawyers say.

That review covers allegations against Yach of lying under oath and serious breach of fiduciary duties involving her allegedly deliberately withholding crucial information on predicted loss of donor funding if UCT adopted the resolutions.

It also covers UCT’s adoption of the resolutions despite robust communication beforehand from a major funder, the Donald Gordon Foundation, clearly identifying a significant breach of a clause in their donor-funding agreement.

Breach has legal consequences. It culminated in termination of DGF’s funding relationship with UCT.

In her affidavit, Yach appears to believe that the DGF had no evidentiary “dogs” barking loudly enough to alert Council members to the serious possibility of funding withdrawal.

DGF trustees have confirmed that its dogs were present throughout, barking loudly and clearly.

FUNDING HAEMORRHAGE

And when the predicted donor withdrawal materialised, the bite was devastating.

UCT instantly haemorrhaged R220-million DGF funding for its Neuroscience Institute and lost the opportunity of a more than R500-million DGF donation for a new private hospital.

The Dell Foundation withdrew R7-million in student support, agreeing only to continue support for current students but not to admit any new ones to its programme.

Another question the review raises is why Yach and other Council members decided that “expressing indignation at Israel’s conduct (in Gaza) outweighs the futures of hundreds of prospective students at UCT who have lost funding”?

Yet another question is:

Why they decided that rejecting the IHRA definition of antisemitism was more important than R750-million for both the Neuroscience Institute and a brand-new, state-of-the-art hospital, “without even knowing that such donations were at stake”?

They appear not to have thought through all the implications of the resolutions for UCT of donations from any donors with strong Israeli ties in future.

Yach strenuously denies any wrongdoing. I wouldn’t have expected her to do otherwise.

As Mendelsohn’s lawyers contend, she and certain other fellow Council members may be exposed to damages claims from UCT for non-disclosure of pertinent financial information.

UCT as “an organ of state controlling public funds earmarked for educational purposes” is, therefore, under “obligation to investigate whether it has such a claim, and if advised that it does, to pursue it.”

Yach and fellow Council members can take comfort knowing they have UCT’s full backing – for now. Despite the serious allegations against her, Yach remains in her multiple positions of power and influence.

That raises the question of whether her position as UCT’s HR Committee Chair has insulated her from the consequences of alleged non-disclosure of pertinent information, or at the very least, an inquiry into her behaviour?

INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION

Another question is why UCT chose to act only against Mendelsohn.

UCT suspended him for lodging the lawsuit, citing colleagues’ complaints that he was unfit to head UCT’s Department of Historical Studies. An independent investigation exonerated him and found that the complaints stemmed from colleagues’ dislike of his views on the resolutions.

Despite the exoneration, UCT has yet to reinstate Mendelsohn. One could reasonably expect Yach, as HR Committee Chair, to have nudged UCT to remedy that. One would be routinely disappointed.

UCT’s Council has fresh faces and voices after last year’s elections that offer hope of new vision, perspective and direction.

The same cannot be said for UCT’s Convocation. It may be ready, willing and well-placed to accede to growing demands effectively to “cleanse” UCT of troublesome, pesky Jews.

A UCT academic notes in response that “Jews have lived this pattern (of blatant Jew hatred) many times before in many countries…, the world recognises it only in hindsight” but “South Africa is watching it unfold in real time” on UCT campus.

It is telling that the academic has authored the response anonymously to protect her own safety. That speaks volumes about UCT as a campus that has become an increasingly dangerous place for Jews, despite official statements to the contrary.

The academic describes the Convocation elections as UCT’s “Kristallnacht 2025”.

Here is an excerpt: “No windows were smashed. No buildings burned. No mobs gathered. Instead, the purge arrives through motions and voting tallies. Through polite language and procedural respectability. Through the illusion of moral clarity.

“The result is the same. Jewish identity is framed as racism. Jewish belonging becomes conditional. Jewish safety is treated as optional.

“Yet here we are. A public university applauding the removal of Jews from a space they helped build, under the polite cover of modern political language.

“If this is what human rights discourse has become, then the words have lost their meaning.”

Unfolding alongside that collapse of moral meaning is a dystopian irony of ironies: Jews are among those contributing to UCT’s attempts to rid its campus of Jews who happen to be Zionists.

That leaves UCT urgently in need of Council members who prioritise education, ethics and human rights over politics and ideology. It requires leaders prepared to put their political ideologies aside and work together to stem the rising tsunami of antisemitism (under the guise of anti-Zionism) currently engulfing the campus.

If not, UCT will never reclaim its once glittering, global reputation as a bastion of higher learning and academic freedom.

*News Flash:

Dianna Yach is facing a call from a prominent South African-born Harvard Medical School neurology professor to stand down or be fired as Chairperson and executive director of the Mauerberger Foundation Fund (MFF) Board.
Prof Jeremy Schmahmann, a University of Cape Town (UCT) medical school graduate, makes the call in a letter emailed to the MFF Board before its special meeting on Friday, December 12, 2025.
He describes Yach’s support for the “Gaza conflict resolutions” as “unfathomable”.
Her statements and actions effectively “violate the MFF commitment to academic freedom and MFF’s long history of deep support for Israel,” Schahmann writes. “They aim to torpedo academic engagement between Israeli and UCT academics. They erode donor support for UCT.”
He pays tribute to Yach’s grandfather, MFF founder Morris Mauerberger, as a man who “understood the need for philanthropy” to support the foundation’s commitment to “academic freedom and long history of deep support for Israel.”
Yach should resign or be fired to “allow the MFF to return to its proud past focus”, Schahmann writes.

About the writer:

Marika Sboros is a South African freelance investigative journalist with decades of experience writing fulltime for the country’s top media titles on a wide range of topics. She started her career as a hard-news reporter in the newsroom of the now defunct Rand Daily Mail, a campaigning anti-government newspaper during the worst excesses of the apartheid era. She commutes between South Africa and the UK.

POPE LEO STRIKING OUT IN LEBANON

An opportunity wasted as the Pontif threw his faithful under the wheels of his own proverbial Popemobile.

By Jonathan Feldstein

Growing up in Chicago as a White Sox fan, it’s safe to assume that Robert Francis Prevost was very much part of the baseball culture. It’s also safe to assume that he knows the term “swing and miss.” As Pope Leo, it’s astounding to see him swing and miss, not once but three times in the context of his brief visit to Lebanon.

**Baseball Fan**. Before emerging Pope Leo, Robert Francis Prevost was a die-hard Sox fans and is seen here (left corner) with close friends at a 2005 White Sox World Series game at U.S. Cellular Field.

Arriving in the war-torn and Hezbollah dominated country, Pope Leo delivered public remarks ranging on a variety of topics – peace, religious coexistence, the country’s economic crisis, political divisions, and lingering effects of the Israel-Hezbollah war. He even delved into international diplomatic issues that would otherwise be far afield from his theological role as head of the Catholic church, seen by many as a foul ball.

His first strike was not saying anything to ensure the protection and well-being of Christians in Lebanon, long threatened and attacked by Islamists. His best attempt, but definitely a swing and miss, was to make a passive statement urging native Christians to remain in Lebanon and be part of the country’s pluralistic past.

Leo did not, however, explicitly address the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, Lebanon’s requirement to disarm Hezbollah by the end of 2025, or the sectarian threats and violence of Islamists that created the Christian exodus from the country where Christians once represented more than half the population. Rather than doing so, he tepidly waited until his airport departure press conference boldly stating:

“The Church has put forward a proposal urging Hezbollah to lay down arms and prioritize dialogue,” adding:

“Armed struggle brings no benefit: renounce violence and engage in constructive talks.”

**Pope’s Peace Prospects?** Stepping onto the ground in war-torn Lebanon with such promise, what impact did Pope Leo have and what opportunities were lost?

Leo placed himself in the center of a months-old ceasefire that is weeks away from failure. It was a pageant play of the absurd. Urging Christians to remain without addressing the threats to them and the obligation to protect the Christian population is analogous to telling an abused wife to remain in her abusive home without ensuring her protection! Essentially, he threw his faithful under the wheels of his own Popemobile.

If the Pope of all people is not going to speak out to truly protect Christians in Lebanon, who will be more righteous than the Pope? The irony is that in the past, Israel has shown more interest in Lebanon’s Christians than many millions of Christians. One vivid example is that my son’s commanding officer in the IDF is a Lebanese-born Christian whose family was among thousands rescued from certain persecution if not slaughter by Hezbollah’s Islamists in 2000.

I am reminded of my friend, Sami, who once cried to me how Hezbollah ruined his life, and begged Israel to eliminate the Islamists.

Pope Leo’s second strike were his comments en route to Lebanon, calling for a “two-state solution” regarding Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. He was mute on protecting Lebanese Christians but put Israel in the crosshairs, suggesting that creating another Islamist Arab state narrowing Israel’s borders and threatening the Jewish state is the “only path” to peace and justice for Israel and Palestinian Arabs.

Speaking to reporters, Leo opined:

“We all know that at present Israel still does not accept this solution, but we see it is the only solution that could offer, let us say, an answer to the conflict they continue to live. We are also friends of Israel, and we are trying to act as a mediating voice for both sides, helping to bring about a solution that is fair for everyone.”

Adding to the swing and miss, Leo shared these comments in the wake of his meeting with Turkey’s Islamist President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Pandering to the Islamist who harbors Hamas terrorists and slaughters Kurds, Leo shared that Turkey has an important role in the Middle East, rather than accurately calling out Erdogan’s dangerous threats, in the interest of “coexistence”. One has to wonder why Leo made Turkey the site of his first international trip since being elected, and remained mute on the Islamist’s open threats, converting a former landmark cathedral -the Hagia Sophia – to a mosque, and striving to revive the Ottoman caliphate.

**Mosque with a Message**. As the religious and spiritual center of the Eastern Orthodox Church for nearly one thousand years, the landmark cathedral, Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, was again converted into a mosque, this time by Erdogan’s Turkish government in 2020.

Strike three was the swing and miss of pandering to Islam rather than standing up boldly in the face of threats Islamists have wreaked, and suggesting a political or diplomatic solution to a problem that rewards and emboldens Islamic terror and a theology that considers Jews and Christians including the Pope as dhimmi – tolerated second class citizens. Rather than pandering to Islamists in Turkey and Lebanon, and truly offering thoughts and a solution in the theme of his visit, “blessed are the peacemakers,” Leo should have done a deep dive into his own faith offering an actual Christian solution for peace, rather than balking and threatening Christians and Israelis in the same stroke.

MISSED OPPORTUNITY

Pope Leo was at least right when he said that “There is no peace without conversion of hearts,” so how much better to have used his platform to build on his own words to his Muslim audience. In the face of Islamic threats, talk about reconciliation sounds nice, but it does not make persecuted Christians or anyone else safer.

**Pontiff’s Platforms**. Young Robert Prevost (today Pope Leo) is seen here (left) with Pope John Paul II (right) in the 1980s. While John Paul II boldly used his pontiff’s platform to fight against dictatorships and is credited with helping to end communist rule in his native Poland and the rest of Europe, it appears Pope Leo prefers not to ruffle feathers in his pursuance of peace.

He could have offered a Christian solution that involves a “conversion of hearts,” rather than simply mumbling pleasant rhetoric that instead of bringing peace in the Middle East will push everyone further from it.

Beating around the bush in the shadow of Hezbollah’s ‘empire’ made the Islamists laugh their way back to their bunkers as they plot future chaos and misery.

About the writer:

Jonathan Feldstein - President of the US based non-profit Genesis123 Foundation whose mission is to build bridges between Jews and Christians – is a freelance writer whose articles appear in The Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, Townhall, NorthJersey.com, Algemeiner Jornal, The Jewish Press, major Christian websites and more.

WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARDS?

As the US was justified in killing Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, Israel is justified in liquidating Hamas leaders wherever they reside.

By Neville Berman

September 11, 2001 was a day that shocked the world. On that day 19 Islamic terrorists hijacked 4 commercial airlines and used them to attack America. 2,977 people were killed and thousands more were injured.

That evening, President George W Bush was informed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that they had identified an Islamic organization known as al-Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, operating out of Afghanistan, as being responsible for the attacks. After the Taliban, who governed Afghanistan, rejected American demands to expel al-Qaeda and extradite its leaders, America ordered an attack on Afghanistan.

**Justice for All**. If it was acceptable that “**Justice has been done**,” as President Barack Obama said in announcing the death of Osama bin Laden in a U.S. military operation in Pakistan, May 1, 2011, why not for the Hamas leaders who perpetrated the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust?

Osama bin Laden went into hiding and evaded capture. America offered a $25 million reward to anyone supplying information that would lead to the capture of bin Laden. False information poured in.

For years bin Laden managed to send tapes with recordings of his speeches from his hiding place, to the Al Jazeera TV station in Qatar. The tapes were then broadcast to the 430 million households that watch Al Jazeera broadcasts around the world. Most of the speeches promoted the Islamic concept of Jihad against the West. Bin Laden was determined to bring down the West. The Palestinians were of no interest to him and he never mentioned them.

For years the relentless search to locate bin Laden continued. Tens of thousands of cell phone calls were recorded and analysed. Electronic messages and aerial photography from satellite imagery were studied. After over 9 years of searching, the CIA finally believed that they had traced the courier that was delivering the tapes to Al Jazeera from a house in Pakistan. The evidence was not 100% conclusive that Osama bin Laden was actually living in the house, but was persuasive enough for President Obama to authorize an attack on the site. On May 11, 2011, Operation Neptune Spear was put into action. A team of navy seals were flown by Black Hawk helicopters into Pakistan. They managed to enter the compound, locate and kill Osama bin Laden and several of his aides and family. They also retrieved a trove of electronic discs and files that shed light on al Qaeda. Bin Laden’s body was brought back for positive identification and burial at sea. The killing of bin Laden was seen as a turning point in the fight against terror.

In 2005, Israel unilaterally demolished all Israeli settlements in Gaza, and withdrew entirely from the area. They then handed control of the territory to the Palestinian Authority (PA) led by Yasser Arafat. Two years later, Hamas violently took control of Gaza by killing the leadership of the PA in Gaza. Hamas is a militant Islamic organization that is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood that aims at a world living under Sharia law. Hamas does not hide their intentions. The Hamas Charter calls for the killing of all Jews and the elimination of Israel and the establishment of a Palestinian State from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

From the moment Hamas took control of Gaza they promoted hatred as a way to radicalize the population. Under the guise of a liberation movement, Hamas infiltrated every aspect of the lives of two million people living in Gaza. They infiltrated the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) for Palestinian refugees. They radicalized the curriculum of all UNRWA schools in Gaza and promoted suicide bombing, jihad and martyrdom. They robbed banks in Gaza. They stole thousands of tons of humanitarian food aid and sold it to the people in Gaza at inflated prices. They collected taxes on all goods imported into Gaza. They set up monopolies that controlled cell phone services, petrol and gas supplies, and all other essential services. They built an army of radicalized terrorists, whose intention was nothing less than retaining absolute control of Gaza through force, and aimed at eliminating the State of Israel. They built hundreds of kilometres of tunnels under hospitals, mosques, schools and houses in order to hide missiles and military equipment and to be used to attack Israel. They built their headquarters in tunnels directly below hospitals. They used civilians as human shields to protect themselves from Israeli retaliation. They killed or maimed anyone who opposed them. They fired over 27,000 rockets into Israel. All of them were aimed at civilian targets. They broke every accepted norm of civilized behaviour, and ruled themselves out as ever being a peace partner. They brought death and destruction to the people of Gaza.

To the outside world they presented themselves as victims of Israeli occupation. Fake news about an Israel siege on Gaza, and Israel committing crimes against humanity, became their passport to an outpouring of humanitarian aid, especially from the gullible liberal west. Official figures published by the UN show the countries that financed UNRWA in 2023. The European Union and Britain were the largest contributors with 53%, followed by America and Canada with 38%. Japan and Australia contributed 5% and Muslim countries contributed 4%. Saudi Arabia donated $17 million out of the $1.2 billion UNRWA budget. It is clear that the West has an agenda to ensure that the Palestinians remain a threat to Israel, while the wealthy oil exporting Arab countries pay lip service to supporting Hamas. They see Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood as a direct threat to their way of life and rule.

Eight of the top leaders of Hamas, left the squalor that they had created in Gaza, and went to live with their families in Doha, Qatar. They arrived with billions of dollars that they had embezzled and stolen from the people of Gaza. They do not care at all about the poverty and destitute lives of the people in Gaza. On the contrary, the catastrophic pictures of poverty in Gaza are their passport for more humanitarian assistance to flow in. The more aid that flows in, the richer they become.

On the morning of October 7, 2023, Hamas attacked Israel. They attacked a music festival and nearby kibbutzim. They proudly filmed themselves committing barbaric crimes and openly boasting about killing, raping women of all ages, mutilating bodies, burning babies, and destroying whatever they could. They killed over 1,200 people and took over 250 hostages to Gaza. In deference to the families of those killed and taken hostage, the films taken by the terrorists have not been widely distributed by Israel. They are simply too shocking to be shown.

**Israel’s ‘Ground Zero’**. Like the site in New York where once stood the Twin Towers, the site in Israel where a massacre took the lives of your revelers at a music festival and shattered the Jewish nation.

Immediately after the attack on October 7, Israel set itself the goal of returning every hostage and eliminating Hamas. Now you cannot eliminate an ideology, but you can reduce the capacity of your enemies to be able to carry out their destructive aims. One of the ways of doing this is to eliminate their leaders. In July 2024, Ismail Haniyeh the overall political leader of Hamas who had been living in Qatar was assassinated while visiting Iran. The level of Israeli intelligence required to succeed in assassinating Haniyah in a pin point manner while in an apartment in Tehran, shocked Iran. On October 16, 2024, more than a year after Hamas attacked Israel, Yahya Sinwar the leader of Hamas in Gaza was killed. He was succeeded by his brother Mohammed Sinwar who was in turn eliminated on May 13, 2025. Both were killed in Gaza.

**Killing Killers**. Like the vow of US presidents from Bush to Obama to eliminate bin Laden, so Israel vowed to kill Haniyeh and other leaders of Hamas after the Gaza-based terror group’s devastating October 7 attack that killed 1,200 people and saw 251 taken hostage.

On September 9, 2025 Israel decided to attack the 7 remaining leaders of Hamas who were living in Qatar. These leaders are terrorists in every sense of the word. They helped plan the attacks on Israel and they radicalized the people in Gaza. The attack did not go according to plan. Instead of killing the leaders of Hamas, 5 lower-level members of Hamas and one member of the Qatari security force were killed by mistake. None of the billionaire leaders of Hamas living in Doha were killed.

Now comes the double standards of the world towards Israel. When America killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, no one accused America of attacking Pakistan. When Israel attacked the leadership of Hamas in Qatar, the whole world accused Israel of attacking Qatar. Israel did not attack Qatar. It attacked Hamas leaders living in Qatar. There is a huge difference. The double standard is obvious.

To add insult to injury, on September 25, 2025, the Prime Minister of Israel. Bibi Netanyahu, while attending a meeting with President Trump in the oval office, was ordered to personally apologise to the Prime Minister of Qatar in an arranged phone call. He was also ordered to promise that Israel would never attack Qatar in the future. It was a deliberate humiliation of Israel’s elected prime minister. In trying to mollify Qatar, Trump sent the wrong message to the world. America should not be approving sanctuary for terrorist leaders in any country, especially not Qatar. Qatar is using its bountiful financial resources to advance a very serious double game of promoting chaos across America, while pretending to be an ally of America.

**Coerced Call**. Following Israel’s attack on the leaders of Hamas in Doha, President Trump orchestrates a call in the White House on September 25, 2025 where Israeli PM Netanyahu was ordered to personally apologise to the Prime Minister of Qatar and to promise that Israel would never attack Qatar in the future. The US had no qualms about taking out the leader of Al–*Qaeda* in Pakistan.

No matter how great a friend President Trump has been to Israel, it seems reasonable to assume that in the same way that America attacked the leaders of al-Qaeda in Pakistan, Israel has the right to attack the leaders of Hamas in Qatar. What happened in the oval office does not augur well for the future of the American Israeli relationship.

About the writer:

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.

HISTORY DOESN’T CHANGE – PERCEPTIONS OF FACTS DO

While global pressure for the two-state solution accelerates, maybe time to apply the brakes and study the facts.

By Peter Bailey

World leaders are living in the past when they talk about two states being the only solution to the “Palestine Problem”, when in reality their real concern is the “Jewish Problem”, without being honest enough to say so. The two-state solution was applied in 1921 when the League of Nations accepted the British proposal that Palestine east of the Jordan River become an Arab State, hence the birth of Transjordan, today the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Mandate Palestine west of the river was set to become the Jewish Homeland, in terms of the Balfour Declaration and the subsequent San Remo Resolution. The two-state solution which has been touted since 1967 is thus in reality, a three-state solution. First, a short history lesson, which will establish the background and basis of the original two-state solution, while confirming my reasoning that the current demand is in fact for a three-state solution to the Arab Israel conundrum.

The leaders of Britain, France, Italy, Japan and many others appeared most anxious to punish Israel by recognising a mythical State of Palestine in light of Israel’s defensive war against Gaza, following the vicious and criminal terrorist attack on Israel by Hamas on 7 October 2023. Leading the pack in this ill-timed, uninformed and imprudent quasi- recognition was French president Emmanuel Macron, who together with his partners in this folly were clearly not in lockstep with their predecessors who attended the San Remo Conference 105 years earlier. Britain, France, Italy and Japan saw no problem then in accepting the bona fides of the Balfour Declaration by including it in the San Remo Resolution dealing with the future of the Levant, an area comprising modern day Israel, Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. With the exception of Israel, which had to proclaim its own independence in 1948, the other states were soon established by the Mandatory Powers in terms of San Remo in territories that had formerly been part of the Ottoman Empire before its defeat in the First World War. The establishment of the Jewish Homeland was thwarted by successive British governments.

**Conference’s Consequences**. Delegates to the monumental 1920 San Remo conference in Italy which has had far-reaching consequences for all the peoples of the Middle East not least, for the Jewish people who had been scattered across the world for two millennia. Despite the biblical enshrining into international law “the title deed to the land of Israel to the descendants Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”, over a century later, the very legitimacy of the Jewish state in their ancient homeland is still being challenged.

The First World War brought four unique individuals together in London between 1916 and 1918. The fabled four were British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, British Foreign Secretary Sir Arthur Balfour, South African Defence Minister General Jan Smuts and scientist Chaim Weizmann, President of the British Zionist Federation. Lloyd George and Balfour were both Christian Zionists, while Smuts, informed by his knowledge of Jewish history together with his rural religious South African background had an ingrained belief in the biblical Promised Land as the historical Jewish homeland. The association of these global statesmen led to the Balfour Declaration, which was no accident of fate, but rather a merging of ideas based on political realities, historical knowledge and religious idealism.

The essence of the Balfour Declaration, issued by Sir Arthur Balfour in 1917, was a British undertaking to promote the reestablishment of the Jewish Homeland in Palestine, considering the historical right of the Jewish People to the territory. The San Remo Declaration confirmed the establishment of the division of the Levant into several territories under French and British Mandates, which would lead to the eventual self-determination of the local residents. The inclusion of the Balfour Declaration was to ensure that one element of that self-determination would be the establishment of the Jewish Homeland in historical Israel.

The San Remo Conference was convened 105 years ago with the express purpose of deciding the future of the Middle East region that had been part of the recently defeated Ottoman Empire. Present at the conference were the leaders of Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Belgium and Greece, as well as the leaders of the Zionist Movement.

Following the conference, the San Remo Declaration, incorporating the 1917 Balfour Declaration, was issued, providing the legal basis for the establishment of the League of Nations British Mandate over Palestine, amongst several other Mandates. Sir Arthur Balfour remarked at the time that this confirmed the “historical right of the Jewish people to their ancestral homeland.” While Lloyd George and Balfour were committed to the establishment of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine, their tenure in government was unfortunately destined to be short-lived, and their promise of a Jewish Homeland left unfulfilled.

Lloyd George was replaced by Conservative party leader William Bonar Law on 23 October 1922. Bonar Law, whose primary concern was an amicable arrangement to settle Britain’s War Debt with the United States, paid scant attention to Palestine. He was seriously ill with throat cancer and resigned in May 1923, to be replaced by Stanley Baldwin on 23 May 1923. The San Remo Declaration granted had Great Britain Mandatory responsibility for Mesopotamia and for Palestine in terms of the Balfour Declaration. Our concern is with Mandate Palestine, which has two distinct regions, one east of the Jordan River, and the other west of the river, extending to the Mediterranean coast. The failure of Great Britain to honour and carry out its obligation of establishing a Jewish Homeland in terms of the Balfour Declaration lies at the heart of many of the current problems facing Israel in particular, and the Middle East in general.

Unlike their predecessors who approved of the San Remo and Balfour Declarations, contemporary politicians analysing the history of Israel and of the Jewish People without considering the facts, has resulted in a bizarre revision of that history, led by the Palestinian mythmakers and their fellow travelers.

The original sin which lies at the root of the Israel Arab conflict can be defined as the general acceptance of the Arab myth of indigeneity to the land they call Palestine, sans any verifiable historical evidence. The same land is referred to as Israel by the Jewish people, with reams of verifiable historical evidence as to their indigeneity. The time is long overdue that the 193 member states of the United Nations recognise this truth, after which they would have a solemn duty to educate the Palestinian masses that they have no prior right to the land of Israel. Acceptance by all of the rights of the Jewish people to Israel, could result in a reset of the relationship between Israel and the Palestinian leadership, which in turn, has the potential to result in a mutually acceptable conclusion to the never ending conflict.

HISTORY OF ISRAEL AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE

The beating heart of Israel is the city of Jerusalem, the holiest city in Judaism, while the Arab Muslim world claims Jerusalem as a holy city in Islam, refusing to acknowledge the prior rights of Jewry to the same city. There are two indisputable facts regarding Jewish and Muslim claims to Jerusalem. The first being that the Muslim religion came into being between the years 600 and 620 of the common era, while Jerusalem is historically confirmed as the centre of Jewish religious life and home to the Jewish Temple at least 1,100 years earlier.

Roman historian, Gaius Plinius Secundus (23/24 – 79 CE), known as Pliny the Elder described Jerusalem as by far the most famous city of the East, while fellow Roman historian, Publius Cornelius Tacitus, (c. 56 – c. 120 CE), described it as “the capital of the Jews, with a temple of enormous reaches.” The following excerpt (translated) from Historiae V, the fifth volume of Tacitus’ Histories, leaves the reader in no doubt as to the Jewish character of Jerusalem:

“But the city stands on an eminence, and the Jews had defended it with works and fortifications sufficient to protect even level ground; for the two hills that rise to a great height had been included within walls that had been skillfully built, projecting out or bending in so as to put the flanks of an assailing body under fire. The rocks terminated in sheer cliffs, and towers rose to a height of sixty feet where the hill assisted the fortifications, and in the valleys, they reached one hundred and twenty; they presented a wonderful sight, and appeared of equal height when viewed from a distance. An inner line of walls had been built around the palace, and on a conspicuous height stands Antony’s Tower, so named by Herod in honor of Mark Antony.”

While Pliny the Elder talks about the Essenes, a Jewish sect, in his history, Tacitus confirms that Jerusalem was the Jewish capital as well as corroborating the existence of the Temple, known in Judaism as the Second Temple. Neither Pliny nor Tacitus mention an Arab presence nor the existence of a mosque on the Temple Mount, simply because Islam did not exist in their era, only appearing on the world stage some 5 to 6 hundred years later. While there has been much conjecture about the existence of the First Jewish Temple, built by King Solomon according to Biblical records, there is sufficient proof placing the Jews in control of Jerusalem at least 1,000 years before the arrival of Mohammed and Islam on the world stage.

One of the results of the Roman conquest over Israel was the renaming of the region, particularly Judea and Samaria, as Palestina, in an effort to destroy the Jewish identity of the region, hence the name Palestine. One of the results of the birth of Islam was the military conquest of the entire Levant by Muslim Arab forces between 634 and 638 CE, the establishment of the Rashidun Caliphate and the subsequent Arab colonisation of the entire region. The Arab/Palestinian claim to Palestine originates from this colonisation, giving them some entitlement, while the claim of the rights that go with indigeneity can be debunked without further ado. The idea that Arabs are indigenous to Israel is of relatively modern origin, emerging around the same time as the modern Zionist movement and the subsequent birth of Palestinian nationalism, concomitant with the British Mandate over Palestine.

Apparently misinformed by the mythical contrived history of Israel, the 2025 United Nations General Assembly seemed to have a one-track agenda – the establishment of a Palestinian State in addition to the State of Israel, west of the Jordan River, popularly known as the Two State Solution. This was without any consideration for, or perhaps a lack of accurate knowledge, of the historical background. The map of Mandate Palestine below clearly indicates that in 1921, Britain divided Palestine into two separate units, the Arab entity of Transjordan, later the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, east of the Jordan River, with the clear intention that territory west of the Jordan would become the Jewish Homeland. That this was in fact the original Two State Solution has been long forgotten. The Arab Emirate of Transjordan was recognised by the League of Nations in September 1922, the first step to the implementation of the San Remo Declaration. The second step, the establishment of the Jewish Homeland fell by the wayside together with the Lloyd George government.

The small area in black with the legend – area ceded to Syria 1923 – this is the Golan Heights that were intended to be part of the Jewish Homeland, but removed.

The resignation of David Lloyd George on 19 October 1922 as the result of a financial scandal was followed by the election of a new government signaling the end of Britain honouring the terms of the Mandate. The establishment of a Jewish homeland became a very low priority, while Britain meticulously limited Jewish immigration to Palestine in order to maintain an Arab majority. Simultaneously with its Jewish immigration policy, Britain introduced a second Two State plan, while ignoring its own decision creating Transjordan in 1921 as the first step towards an Arab and a Jewish state in Mandate Palestine. The new two state plan, creating a second Arab state west of the Jordan River became the rallying cry of the Arab community. This was resolutely, and in many cases aggressively opposed by the Zionist movement, which demanded the application of the San Remo and Balfour Declarations. Trapped between Jewish determination and Arab demands brought about by its own perfidious plans, the British Government decided in 1947 to return the Mandate over Palestine to the United Nations.

The General Assembly subsequently approved a partition plan in 1947, totally ignoring the Mandate division of Palestine, rather voting for a grossly unfair partition of the Eastern half of Palestine as shown on the above map. Needless to say, the Arab world refused to abide by the U.N. vote, now calling for a single Arab State, which would include a “Jewish component”. The Zionist movement in turn reluctantly accepted the vote on the basis of:

Half a loaf being better than none.

Britain vacated Palestine on 15 May 1948, the day after David Ben Gurion had proclaimed the Independent State of Israel in the region west of the Jordan River. The nascent State of Israel was immediately attacked by the surrounding Arab States in an attempt to strangle the Jewish State at birth. The rest of the story is the modern history of Israel, together with a never-ending call for the establishment of two states following Israel’s stunning victory in the 1967 Six Day War. History also records that every offer by Israel of an independent Palestinian State has been spurned, regardless of the terms. The Two State solution with no Jewish State has become the new global cry on behalf of the Palestinian people, while the Palestinians themselves chant:

“From the River to the Sea”

This amounts to a call for a single state west of the Jordan River. Back to the future, I conclude with the all too familiar quote by legendary Israeli diplomat Abba Eban, who said in 1973:

“The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

About the writer:
The writer, Peter Bailey, a military history buff, was a Major in the South African Army Reserve before making aliyah in 2013. He is the author of two books: Street Names in Israel; and Men of Valor: Israel’s Latter Day Heroes.

A STORY UNTOLD

The planeload of Gazans arriving in South Africa has so far been a saga of silence and falsity.

By Lawrence Nowosenetz

There is something deeply wrong with the way this story has been framed in South Africa. For a week, the country has been fed a fake narrative that suits the political and activist sector that favours casting Israel as a malignant player. The South African media swallowed it whole, without questioning the source, the motives, or the glaring contradictions.

On 13 November a commercial jet belonging to Global Airways landed at OR Tambo Airport, Johannesburg carrying 153 people from Gaza. They had lawfully departed from Gaza through the Israeli Keren Shalom crossing to Ramon Airport, a civil (not military) airport near Eilat in Israel and had flown to Nairobi, Kenya.

For 9 hours Border Management officials barred them from disembarking from the aircraft due to lack of documentation. They did not have exit customs stamps of Israel and entry visas to South Africa. They had not sought refugee status with the United Nations prior to their departure. Nor had they applied for asylum under South African immigration or refugee law. The Department of Home Affairs was apparently unaware of their arrival and regarded their entry as illegal. Eventually, 130 were granted 90-day tourist visas and entered South Africa under the care of a local Muslim charity, Gift of the Givers. The remainder transferred to their ultimate destination.

The narrative of the South African Government was that it did not want to collaborate with Israeli “ethnic cleansing” and the travellers had no legal documentation to enter South Africa. Imtiaz Sooliman of Gift of the Givers presented himself as the heroic interlocutor of the crisis. Politicians claimed confusion and ignorance. Commentators repeated the same talking points and as usual blamed Israel for everything while blindly accepted the Palestinian Authority’s version without hesitation or scrutiny.

**Who’s The Boss?** Interestingly in this image appearing in the SA media covering the unfolding and confusing saga of the arrival in Johannesburg of Gazan passengers, the large face of the Dr Imtiaz Sooliman of the Islamist charity, Gift of the Givers (left), dwarfs from (left to right) South Africa’s president, Cyril Ramaphosa, Dirco Minister Ronald Lamola and Home Affairs Minister Leon Schreiber. (Photo: Lulama Zenzile / Gallo Images / Die Burger)

Yet the one group that the media should have been listening to has been completely sidelined. The people who actually made the journey from Gaza to South Africa.

TESTIFYING TO THE TRUTH
While newsrooms were still recycling press statements, Tim Flack, a PR professional specialising in crisis management and media relations, did the basic work that journalism used to value:

He spoke to the individuals involved.

Two Gazan women spoke to him independently. One who is in South Africa and another who travelled on to Indonesia.

-Both used the Al Majd humanitarian pathway that has been operating quietly and legally.

– Both voluntarily applied to leave Gaza.

– Both willingly boarded the flights.

– Both thanked Al Majd and Israel for coordinating their safe exit.

According to Tim Flack, their testimonies destroy the pre-packaged narrative about abandonment, scams, trafficking, forced removal and Imtiaz Sooliman’s new buzzword:

“Ethnic Cleansing“.

These testimonies completely contradict the claims made by Sooliman who in pushing for an investigation by the South Africa President, took to the media in an Al Jazeera style operation of blame Israel at all costs. The testimony of these women clearly undermines the political theatre that played out in South Africa.

FLIGHT CONTROLL TO OUT OF CONTROL
One of the women shared a WhatsApp directive that she allegedly received from the Palestinian Embassy in South Africa. It was not a request – it was an instruction.

Hereunder is the translation:

“We are about to issue an official press statement regarding the situation of the Palestinian group that arrived from Palestine. It is very important that you all commit to not issuing any statements on social media and not communicating with any press outlet. If any journalists contact you, please direct them to speak with Sara. [ Presumably Sarah from Gift of the Givers] The purpose of these instructions is not to restrict your freedom, but to protect your privacy and to ensure a better legal situation for you. We do not want any statements being made outside the approved framework, because that would create obstacles for the group.”

The Embassy’s message was clear:

* No talking to media.

* No social media posts.

* Only speak to a designated individual who is not even a government official named Sara Oosthuizen who works for Gift of the Givers.

* No public statements outside the approved framework.

This reads like a gag order disguised as concerned counsel.

Even more sinister, is the claim by the Gazan woman passenger that the Palestinian Authority forced the embassy in Indonesia to cancel visas earlier in the year just as another group of Gazans was preparing to leave. Those visas were unduly revoked under political pressure.

The flights being legal raises the important question of why the Palestinian Authority attempted to block people from leaving Gaza legally and peacefully:

Could it be that an orderly and legal departure of Gazans does not fit with the Palestinian narrative of Gaza being “an open-air prison”?

Clearly, it refutes that there is no truth in the South African statement that the Gazans are being “expelled” or that they are barred from returning.

**Happy Landing**. While a smiling Palestinian ambassador to South Africa, Hanan Jarrar, is seen here (centre) meeting on the plane with Gazan passengers, it is noted that her boss, the Palestinian Authority attempted to block people from leaving Gaza legally and peacefully. (Photo:/Embassy of the State of Palestine via Reuters)

The core issue I am addressing is:

What is the explanation for such media submissiveness to deliberately ignore reporting the full story?

Is governmental pressure being applied and perhaps ‘duly assisted’ by the conniving Israel-hater Imtiaz Sooliman? And why are journalists not investigating the actions of the Palestinian Authority (PA) with the same intensity and zeal they apply to Israel? Many questions; too few answers!

‘ON BOARD’ WAS ALL ABOVE BOARD
The story about South Africa being blindsided does not stand up to scrutiny. Palestinians do not require visas for visits up to 90 days. It’s on the South African Department of Home Affairs website.

The South African government officially announced in September 2023 that Palestinians with valid Palestinian passports are visa exempt travellers. The only requirements for entry are valid travel documents and perhaps proof of resources for accommodation and intent to return.

As to the false and malicious allegation against Israel regarding the failure to stamp the Gazans passports on exit, Israel did away with this practice in 2013. This is common knowledge and to have over-dramatically pedalled to the media this false accusation as did Gift of the Givers’ founder and CEO Imtiaz Sooliman was nothing less than slander to besmirch the Jewish state.

The plane carrying the Gazan passengers could not have landed without South African approval as the third country and Israel publicly confirmed that the exit was coordinated. France24 too confirmed that the unnamed third country was South Africa.

Air traffic control at OR Tambo was always aware of the incoming flight and its landing schedule.

Despite all of this, South African media outlets continued to present the false narrative that the Gazans arrived in some irregular fashion.

The facts say otherwise.

The law says otherwise.

The testimony of the Gazan women passengers says otherwise.

MEDIA’S SCANDELIOUS ‘SOUNDS OF SILENCE’
Several questions remain unanswered.

Why are the testimonies of the most affected people – the Gazan passengers – not being reported?
Why are the media outlets in South Africa failing to investigate a significant lead in the story that respected media relations expert Tim Flack exposed?
Why are the investigative journalists not doing their job by tenaciously pursuing the allegations of the Gazan passengers against the Embassy of the Palestinian Authority in Pretoria for trying to subdue them into silence?
Why have Sooliman’s outrageous claims not been challenged against available evidence?
Why is the public subjected to one exclusive politically motivated narrative that is only against Israel?

**In Search of Safety**. Many stories to be told, what is preventing journalists from interviewing these passengers as to why and how they left Gaza and if they are happy with their decision? (Photo: Embassy of the State of Palestine / South Africa / via Facebook)

Failure to all of the above sadly affirms a quiescent mainstream media that is subservient to the South African government, the Embassy of the Palestinian Authority in South Africa and the Gift of the Givers being their enablers and abetters.

The shabby truth is that once the Rainbow Nation, South Africa is now a country where crime and corruption are part of the unwritten constitution, and in step with this decline, turned its foreign policy against true democratic Western interests and values to which it pays lip service. Instead, it embraces BRICS and the so-called global South which includes rogue nations such as Iran. It pursues a perverted and hypocritical stance on human rights which is passive about the ongoing atrocities in Sudan, Yemen and massacres of Christians in Nigeria and other African countries.

TIME FOR TRUTH
This saga is not only about a flight from Gaza. It is about how narratives are manufactured, manipulated and spun and how easily journalists abandon independence and human empathy. The human aspirations of the Gazan travellers and their quest for a better life does not seem to be a topic worthy of pursuit.

Journalism is debased when a particular narrative – in this instance demonisation of Israel – becomes paramount, either because it aligns with the prevailing popular worldview or so that a journalist can hold onto his or her job without offending.

A CALL FOR MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITY
Migration from conflict zones in the Middle East has become commonplace hence not complicated to report on. When people who survived the Gaza war speak, the responsible act is to listen to their personal account. There was no shortage of tearful accounts of Gazan suffering during the war but suddenly this fails to be of interest when Gazans leaving for a better life wish to tell their story! Why?

Two Gazan women, thousands of kilometres apart – one still in South Africa the other now in Indonesia – each told the same story. They explained how they left Gaza legally, willingly, and were grateful for all the assistance they received.

They also revealed how they were subjected to pressure and intimidation after landing in South Africa and explained how the Palestinian Authority played a disruptive role in the pursuance of their plans for a new life outside of Gaza. Is this the narrative the anti-Israel lobby do not want to hear? That there is life outside of Gaza free of Hamas?

Ignoring these corroborative testimonies amounts to a moral and media failure.

**Life after Gaza**. Is it pictures like these from a news network video clip of Gazans arriving at OR Tambo airport in Johannesburg that the PA and Hamas don’t want the world to see?

By failing to follow the facts and track the truth – the guiding principles for any journalist – these professionals would be doing a disservice to their audience. There is a story is out there to be told, a true story from passengers who will testify to their personal experiences and the paths they have opted to pursue. It is time for the media to step up and ask the questions they should have been asking from the very beginning.

About the writer:

Now retired, Pretoria-born human rights and labour lawyer, Lawrence Nowosenetz practiced at the Pretoria and Johannesburg Bar. Recipient of a Fulbright Scholarship, Nowosenetz completed an internship in the USA and served as a part-time Senior Commissioner at the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) as well as a panellist at Tokiso Dispute Settlement – the largest private dispute resolution provider in South Africa. He has also served as an Acting Judge of the Hight Court, South Africa.

BBC NEWS FAILS TO ACCURATELY AND IMPARTIALLY REPORT SOUTH AFRICA PLANE STORY

Another in endless stories on Gaza that BBC presents narrative to besmirch the reputation of Israel.

by Hadar Sela

Courtesy of CAMERA UK (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting & Analysis)

On the afternoon of November 14^th, the BBC News website published a report by Khanyisile Ngcobo in Johannesburg and Wycliffe Muia in Nairobi headlined “South Africa to investigate ‘mystery’ of planeload of Palestinians”.

The report begins by telling readers that: [emphasis added]

“South African President Cyril Ramaphosa says there will be an investigation into the “mysterious” arrival of a chartered plane carrying 153 Palestinians from Gaza into the country.

The group arrived at OR Tambo International Airport but were initially refused entry and were stuck in the plane for more than 10 hours as they “did not have the customary departure stamps in their passports,” local authorities said.”

Readers are later told that:

“Home Affairs Minister Leon Schreiber said that while Palestinian passport-holders qualified for 90-day visa-exempt access to South Africa, the lack of departure stamps, return tickets or accommodation addresses in some of the travellers’ documentation resulted in the initial refusal to let them into the country.”

Despite their uncritical amplification of those statements, the writers of this report did not bother to inform BBC audiences that – as noted by the Israeli embassy in South Africa and others – Israel does not stamp passports on exit from the country.

The BBC’s report also tells readers that:

“The circumstances of their departure from Gaza and travel to South Africa remain unclear.”

It goes on to quote a South African media outlet:

“Ramaphosa said the group “somehow mysteriously were put on a plane that passed by Nairobi” and flew to South Africa, reports the News24 site.”

As the BBC knows, since June 2024 Israel has been facilitating the evacuation of Palestinians in need of medical care abroad and their caregivers via the Ramon Airport near Eilat. Indeed, the BBC’s report continues:

“Israeli military body Cogat, which controls Gaza’s crossings, said in a statement: “The residents left the Gaza Strip after Cogat received approval from a third country to receive them.” It did not specify the country.”

France 24 later reported that the “third country” was South Africa. The BBC’s report continues:

“According to the Palestinian embassy in South Africa, the group left Israel’s Ramon Airport and flew to the country via the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, “without any prior note or coordination”.

A statement from the embassy said “an unregistered and misleading organization [had] exploited the tragic humanitarian conditions of our people in Gaza, deceived families, collected money from them, and facilitated their travel in an irregular and irresponsible manner”.”

The BBC’s report has nothing more to tell readers about that “misleading organization” – which is called Al Majd Europe – or about the South African company to which the chartered plane belongs.

Quoting an article that appeared in Ha’aretz, the Times of Israel reports:

“According to Haaretz, the group left Gaza early Wednesday morning, via the Strip’s southern Kerem Shalom crossing with Israel, following Israeli vetting.

Members of the group were then taken by bus to Israel’s Ramon Airport, near Eilat, where they boarded a chartered plane to Kenya’s capital, Nairobi, and from there boarded the chartered flight to Johannesburg.

An earlier group departing Gaza made an identical trip some two weeks ago and disembarked in Johannesburg without incident, Haaretz said. Both journeys were organized by an hitherto unknown organization called Al-Majd, which has received many requests from Gazans who want to leave the Strip, the report said. […]

Israel’s Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), which oversees the flow of people and goods to and from Gaza, also told Haaretz that the Palestinians had received visas from South Africa ahead of time. COGAT was also cited by the newspaper as saying that, as a rule, Israel always makes sure that there is a country that will accept Gazans departing the Strip.”

The BBC’s report goes on to quote a South African charity which was not involved in the evacuation of that group of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip but which has also been promoting the ‘no exit stamps’ narrative.

“South African charity Gift of the Givers has said it will provide the group with accommodation in the country.

Civil societies in South Africa have called for investigations into the conditions the Palestinians had fled in Gaza and the exact route of the aircraft.”

As explained by a South African commentator, the route taken by the chartered aircraft is already known.

“From Ramon Airport, the group was routed through Nairobi as a routine logistical connection. Global Aviation Flight 901 left Johannesburg on 12 November, landed in Nairobi, and returned early on the 13th carrying the Gazan travellers. Kenya did not stamp their passports because they were in transit. Israel did not stamp passports because Israel discontinued passport stamping years ago to protect travellers from discrimination in countries that penalise entry from Israel. Instead, Israel issues electronic entry cards.

These are standard international practices. Flight records confirm the exact timings.”

The BBC’s report continues:

“Gift of the Givers has since called for Ramaphosa to investigate the home affairs ministry and border authority for the “humiliation they’ve caused” the Palestinians.

The organisation’s founder Dr Imtiaz Sooliman said this treatment included being forced to wait for hours on the tarmac at the airport, being denied food provided by the group and “using every excuse in the book to prevent these passengers from disembarking”.”

Remarkably, the BBC had nothing to tell its audiences either about the organisation it chose to quote or its founder – including his participation in a Cape Town rally marking the anniversary of the October 7th attacks.

“On 5 October 2024, Sooliman shared a platform under a banner proclaiming, “We are all Hamas” with known Islamist extremists. He said, “Every time we protested, the Zionists were too clever. They were arrogant, acting with impunity, put fear into you. They put fear into corporate corporations, into universities, into communities, into governments, into political parties, into associations. They run the world with fear. They control the world with money. And every time you say something, they terrify you and they say it’s antisemitic. But I’ve got a message for them. Find a new narrative, this one is dull, boring, and stupid.””

More recently, on Holocaust Memorial Day 2025, ‘Gift of the Givers’ co-hosted the screening of a problematic Al Jazeera ‘documentary’. In February 2025 the same charity promoted a video falsely claiming that Shiri Bibas was an Israeli soldier and that she and her two small children had been killed in an Israeli airstrike.

In recent days,Imtiaz Sooliman (with the help of Al Jazeera) has been promoting the notion that the flight that arrived in Johannesburg was part of a scheme of “forced migration” and “ethnic cleansing” of Gazans by Israel. A similar narrative is being promoted by the Palestinian Authority, the representative of which in South Africa was quoted in this BBC report.

Notably, it was the ‘mystery’ narrative promoted by a highly questionable charity – the Gift of the Givers, the PA and others that the BBC chose to highlight in this report on the story.

About the writer:

UK-born Hadar Sela has a special interest in the influence of the media on the British public’s perceptions of the Middle East and the Islamist networks operating in the UK and has been published in The Jerusalem Post, The Algemeiner, The Commentator, MERIA Journal and at Harry’s Place, among others.

A PLANE LANDING LANDS SOUTH AFRICA IN EMBARRASSING CONTROVERSY

‘Surprise’ arrival of planeload of Palestinians from Gaza exposes how ‘Gift of the Givers’ is de facto running South Africa’s foreign ministry.

By Kenneth Kgwadi

It has become increasingly clear, particularly in the handling of the recent flight carrying the so-called “153 Palestinian refugees”, that Gift of the Givers has effectively assumed control over the functions of the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO).

It was deeply embarrassing for the government to remain completely uninformed about the details of the flight, while Gift of the Givers appeared to possess full knowledge of every aspect of the journey – information with significant foreign-policy implications for South Africa. This is especially troubling at a time when the country is already at odds with the United States and its allies.

**Plane Surprise**. Palestinian ambassador to South Africa Hanan Jarrar, (centre), meets with 153 Palestinian passengers from Gaza on a plane in Johannesburg, South Africa, in this handout image released on November 13, 2025 by the Embassy of the State of Palestine via Reuters. The ‘surprise’ landing allegedly left South African officials “blindsided” and after nearly 12 hours of scrambling, the group was allowed to disembark into the care of the Gift for Givers organization, which “coordinated their arrival and housing.”(Photo: Embassy of State of Palestine via Reuters)

It is increasingly reasonable to conclude that Gift of the Givers has effectively infiltrated and taken control of South Africa’s foreign policy, which has drifted far from its traditional focus on economic prosperity, peace, African unity, regional stability, and multilateral cooperation. Under the tenure of Dr. Naledi Pandor, foreign policy has increasingly centred on confronting the United States and its allies – particularly Israel – apparently as a strategy to curry favour with China, Iran, and Russia.

Gift of the Givers’ founder Dr. Imtiaz Sooliman, has positioned himself close to influential power centres within DIRCO, to the point where he appears to exert substantial influence over key decisions. He played a notable role in South Africa’s move to take Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) – a decision that not only cost the state millions of rands but also provoked serious backlash from the US and its partners.

**Reception Committee**. Ready to provide services to the arriving Gazans is the Muslim charity ‘Gift of the Givers’ and its founder Dr. Imtiaz Sooliman (centre) who falsely claimed to the media in order to demonize the Jewish state that “Israel deliberately did not stamp the passports of these poor people to exacerbate their suffering in a foreign country,” a policy that has not existed at Israeli airports for well over a decade.

As South Africa hosts the 2025 G20 summit (22-23 November) without the presence of the world’s largest economy, the United States – and with Mexico and Argentina also absent – the message should be unmistakable. While the summit will proceed, South Africa must urgently reflect on how its international posture is eroding its global standing and take steps to repair its international image.

Many South Africans – including politicians, analysts, and ordinary citizens – have long expressed concern that the government has failed to manage the country’s borders effectively. It has now become even more evident that the state is struggling, and failing dismally, to address the complex and sensitive issue of immigration. Worse still, the authorities appear to be enabling and abetting unlawful immigration, a practice that poses serious security risks to everyone living in South Africa. By allowing people to enter the country without proper screening or due diligence, we are exposing ourselves to avoidable threats.

**Gazans on the Go**. The biggest mystery was that it was a mystery to South African authorities.

According to the South African Police Service (SAPS) crime statistics, 26,232 people were murdered between January and December 2024. What is most troubling is that the majority of perpetrators are never apprehended. This alone demonstrates that South Africa faces a profound internal security crisis – one that demands urgent attention to ensure the safety and security of all residents. Instead of tightening internal security, the government is permitting the entry of additional groups of people without adequate vetting.

Government officials who are making the dangerous decision to admit the so-called ‘Palestinian refugees’ should revisit the historical record of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO). After being expelled from Jordan in the early 1970s, the PLO relocated to Lebanon, entering the country as refugees. Over time, the refugee camps were transformed into heavily armed military bases that overshadowed the Lebanese national army and effectively created a state within a state. Their growing power contributed to the instability that culminated in the Lebanese Civil War of 1975, in which the PLO became a major participant. They were hardly conducting themselves as refugees!

The removal of the PLO in 1982 to Tunisia left the establishment of the Iranian-backed Hezbollah, which continued to cause chaos in that country by attacking Israel from the North. The country that used to pride itself as one of the few hubs of Christians now has below 50% of Christians, with weaker security and instability due to the infiltration of Hezbollah, which has created a state within the state in Lebanon.

There are numerous economically capable Arab states in both the Middle East and North Africa that should be at the forefront of championing the Palestinian cause. South Africa, by contrast, is grappling with a quadruple burden – poverty, inequality, unemployment, and weak economic growth – which continues to devastate the lives of its citizens. Emerging from the brutality of apartheid, South Africans still carry the deep scars of that system, and their government’s primary obligation should be to prioritise their well-being and socio-economic upliftment.

What, then, elevates the Palestinian struggle above the genocide unfolding in Sudan, where Africans are being killed in large numbers with minimal global outrage?

Why does the ANC government remain conspicuously silent on the humanitarian crises in Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Mozambique, the Central African Republic (CAR), Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso, Gabon, Cameroon, Burundi, and many other African nations? These countries are battling terrorism, widespread hunger, entrenched unemployment, collapsed governance systems, and various socio-political crises, yet they do not receive the same level of vocal solidarity and diplomatic energy.

**What Gives?** A child is screened for malnutrition at a camp for displaced people in Zalingi, central Darfur in the Sudan. While over 21.2 million people in Sudan – 45 per cent of the population – are facing high levels of acute food insecurity, it is the Gazans a continent away that concerns South Africa’s ANC leadership and Islamic NGOs like Give of the Givers! (Photo: © UNICEF/Tariq Khalil)

South Africa cannot afford to ignore the lessons of history. The security of the nation and its people must come first. During these tumultuous times, South Africa cannot afford to allow its foreign ministry to be hijacked and its national interests diverted by political motivated and agenda-driven non-government organizations like the highly questionable ‘Gift of the Givers’.

The TRUTH Behind The MYSTERIOUS “Palestinian Refugees”

About the writer:

Kenneth Kgwadi is a research fellow at the Middle East Africa Research Institute (MEARI).

IS THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION REALLY A SOLUTION?

Israel cannot be expected to support a Palestinian State that has the destruction of Israel as one of its aims.

By Neville Berman

The Two-State solution has been repeated over and over as the only way to solve the problem of Jews and Palestinians both claiming the same land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Viewed from afar, the answer to the problem seems obvious. Split the land into two states living side by side in peace and security. Problem solved. What can go wrong?

The history of the Jews, their belief in one God, the Torah and their attachment to the land of Israel, is a saga that can fill libraries. Despite invasions, conquests, expulsions and the destruction of both the First and Second Jewish Temples in Jerusalem, Jews have never lost or renounced their belief in God and His promise of the land of Israel to the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It is also apparent that despite over 3,000 years of suffering, persecution, slavery, antisemitism, blood libels, crusades, forced conversions, dhimmitude, inquisitions, ghettoes, mass murders, confiscations of property, pogroms, immigration quotas, and finally the systematic mass murder of six million Jews in the Shoah, that the Jews have not only miraculously survived, but have returned to their biblical homeland and have resuscitated Hebrew as a spoken language. If this was not clear in 1948, it should have become crystal clear in 1967, when Israel routed all the invading Arab armies in 6 days, united Jerusalem once again as the eternal capital of Israel, and reclaimed the biblical homeland of Judea and Shomron. Cleary God has not forgotten his promise to the Jews.

**Historically Rooted**. An artist’s depiction of the deportation and exile of the Jews of the ancient Kingdom of Judah to Babylon and the destruction of Jerusalem and Solomon’s temple.

Under Jewish rule, barren desert has been transformed into fertile land capable of feeding millions of people. Israel has become a modern powerhouse of technological innovation, progress and higher learning, both secular and spiritually. The State of Israel has steadfastly upheld the principles outlined in its Declaration of Independence signed in 1948: a country based on democracy, freedom of religion, justice and equality for all its citizens. All Israeli citizens irrespective of race, religion, gender or beliefs, have the right to vote once they reach the age of 18. This applies to the 21% of Israeli citizens who are Muslims or Christians. Israel is a thriving democracy, with human rights and the rule of law.

The right of return of Jews to the State of Israel is one of the founding principles of the State of Israel. After the war of Independence in 1948, 750,00 Sephardic and Mizrachi Jews were expelled from Arab lands that they had lived in for thousands of years. All their possessions and money were confiscated before they were forced to leave. Over 600,00 arrived penniless in Israel as refugees and immediately became citizens. Their home language was Arabic and they used Hebrew for prayers and for reading the Torah.

**Back Home**. After 2000 years of exile from their ancestral homeland, Jews of Europe return home in the aftermath of the Holocaust to the newly established state of Israel in 1948.

Unfortunately, the 650,000 Palestinians who left Israel in 1948 were never granted citizenship in the Arab countries that advised them to leave in order that the Arab armies could wipe the State of Israel off the map. With the help of Western countries, they have remained as refugees in order to pressurize Israel to allow them and their offspring to return to Israel and turn Israel into an Arab majority country. Israel will never commit suicide by allowing this to happen. The history of Israel after 1948 has been well documented. What is not that well known is the important role that Saudi Arabia played in shaping the Palestinian problem.

In 1902 at the age of 22, Abdul Aziz bin Saud accompanied by 40 followers, staged a daring night march into Riyadh. They attacked the Masmak Fortress and overthrew the Al Rashid family that controlled Riyadh. The Al Rashid family were beheaded and Abdul Aziz became the ruler of the eastern area of Arabia known as the Najd. This event marked the beginning of what was to become Saudi Arabia. Since the 11th century the western part of Arabia known as the Hejaz, consisting of Mecca, Medina and Jeddah was controlled by the Hashemites.

At the start of World War I, the British were worried that Arab rulers would side with the Ottomans. The British promised both Abdul Aziz and the Hashemites that they would be granted a State at the end of the war if they did not support the Ottomans. Both agreed. In 1921, Abdul Aziz overthrew the Hashemites. Britain was now in a dilemma. How could they give the Hashemites a State, if they no longer controlled any land in Arabia? Fortunately for Britain, in 1920 the League of Nations had granted Britain a mandate to administer both Palestine and Iraq. The British found the answer to their dilemma. They renamed the area to the east of the Jordan river as Transjordan and then offered both Iraq and Transjordan to the Hashemites. The Hashemites gladly accepted. Abdullah took over Transjordan and Faisal took over Iraq. His son Faisal II was overthrown in July 1958 and this ended the short Hashemite rule over Iraq. In the case of Transjordan, the Hashemites renamed the area as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and continue to rule what is 74% of the British Mandated area of Palestine to this day.

**What Could Have Been**. On what was 74% of the British Mandated area of Palestine emerged in 1946 into the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan instead of a possible Palestinian state alongside a Jewish state to its west.

One can speculate that had the British not offered Transjordan to the Hashemites, history might have been completely different. The mandated area of Palestine could have ended up becoming a two-state solution with Transjordan becoming a Palestinian State, and the area to the west of the Jordan river becoming Israel. With apologies to Robert Frost, this was clearly a road not taken by the British.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the epicenter of a religious, cultural, ideological and nationalistic conflict that goes back thousands of years. It is one of mankind’s most complex and irreconcilable problems. The existence of the State of Israel has been rejected over and over again by Arab States and the Palestinians. To gauge the depth of Palestinian opposition to Israel, it is worth recalling the words of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini who stated that a Jewish State will not be accepted even it is the size of a postage stamp. In 1937, the British Peel Commission offered the Arabs a state in part of Palestine. In 1947, the United Nations passed Resolution 181 known as the Partition Plan, proposing to divide Palestine into a Jewish State and an Arab State with Jerusalem and Bethlehem under international control. The term Arab was used as Palestinian referred to both Jews and Arabs living in the area. Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, three Israeli Prime Ministers, each offered Yasser Arafat a Palestinian State living in peace next to Israel. Since 1937, every attempt to establish a Palestinian State living next to Israel has been rejected by the Palestinians. Despite this, the world still believes in the two-state solution as the answer. It should be clear that the Palestinians have never accepted the State of Israel on any part of the biblical land of Israel and instead want a Palestinian State from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

**Offer Declined**. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert presented a two-state solution in 2008 imploring the Palestinian leader to accept a deal he believed could have brought peace to the Middle East saying “In the next 50 years, you will not find one Israeli leader that will propose to you what I propose to you now. Sign it! Sign it and let’s change history!”

Let us now assume a hypothetical situation in which the Palestinians and Israelis have agreed to a two-state solution and their leaders have been nominated for Nobel Peace prizes. What happens after the celebrations are over?

The first thing that will probably happen is that Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and any other country that has Palestinian refugees will demand that they should return to their newly declared State of Palestine. President Abbas has stated on numerous occasions that Palestinian refugees and their descendants have an inalienable right of return to the places in Israel from which they left, and that they will not be welcomed into the State of Palestine. The fact that Palestinian refugee camps still exist in Gaza is a clear indication that the Palestinians will not accept Palestinian refugees as fellow citizens. It is absurd to think that Israel should accept Palestinian refugees when they have their own Palestinian State. This is a ‘Catch 22’ situation with strategic consequences.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that a State of Palestine will be anything other than a failed state similar to Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Libya and Iraq. The Americans and Europeans have poured billions into the Palestinians with absolutely nothing beneficial in return. Almost every country in the West is operating with huge financial deficits. The attack by Russia on Ukraine has changed priorities. No matter the cost, America and Europe have pledged to help Ukraine in its war with Russia. They are financing the war by deficit spending and cannot afford what they are offering. The need to cut aid to the Palestinians will inevitably arise. After the attack on October 7, 2023, it is absolutely certain that Israel will not allow Gazans to work in Israel. The Palestinians will find themselves in an extremely perilous financial situation and will look for help from wherever they can find it.

One can assume that every State has a right to enter into agreements and to seek help from other states. President Bashar al–Assad invited Russia and Iran to come to Syria and help him retain power. They both gladly accepted the offer. Military personnel and equipment poured into Syria from Russia and Iran. All UN Security Council resolutions critical of Syria were vetoed by Russia. Assad had his “get out of jail free card.” His army killed hundreds of thousands of Syrians, and approximately 5 million became refugees who fled mainly to Turkey. No one referred to those massacred as “innocent civilians” and no special UN agency such as UNWRA was established for Syrian refugees. Obviously, Palestinians and Syrians are not the same.

Let us assume that included in the hypothetical two-state agreement are clauses that state that the Palestinians are prohibited from inviting foreign military personnel into the State of Palestine. Unfortunately, there are numerous signed international agreements that were not worth the paper that they were written on. For example, Hitler signed a nonaggression pact with Stalin. We all know how that turned out. The British Government issued the Balfour Declaration that stated that Britain would use its best endevours to support a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. Today we know what their best endevours consisted of. America signed and then withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement. The nuclear inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency ( IAEA) contained in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action ( JCPOA) with Iran, became totally farcical when Iran refused to allow inspectors into certain sites. The list goes on and on.

**For these two is was the “Final Solution” not “2-State Solution”**. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini meeting with Hitler in Berlin, explained that, “Islam and National Socialism are close to each other in the struggle against Judaism. Nearly a third of the Qur’an deals with the Jews. It has demanded that all Muslims watch the Jews and fight them wherever they find them.”

The point is that no matter what is signed, the Palestinians will not abide by what they agreed to. The State of Palestine will in all likelihood invite Iran, Turkey, Qatar and Russia to come to their assistance. Within a short period of time, foreign military personnel and equipment will arrive in the demilitarized State of Palestine. The UN will be totally paralyzed as both Russia and China have veto powers at the Security Council. A Palestinian State that ends up with foreign troops looking down at Ben Gurion airport and stationed a few kilometers away from cities in Israel will not bring peace to the region. Warfare today, and even more so in the future, will involve thousands of drones. Imagina a situation in which thousands of drones are fired from a few kilometers away at cities in Israel. This is a recipe that could lead to a much wider conflict between the superpowers.

The Palestinian conflict will not end without a change in the Mullahs control of Iran and their fanatical obsession with the elimination of the State of Israel. As long as they are in power, they will finance, arm and inflame Islamic terrorist groups to attack Israel. Creating a Palestinian State will give Iran another area from which its proxies will be able to attack Israel. It will not bring peace to the Middle East.

There are 22 Arab States and only one Jewish state in the Middle East that is less than 1% of the landmass of the Arab countries in the Middle East. A permanent solution to the Palestinian problem is not a two-state solution that splits Israel, but rather a solution that involves ending the Mullahs rule in Iran and involving each Arab State in contributing to permanently ending the Palestinian refugee problem. Once this occurs, the Abrahamic Accords will blossom into the engine that has the potential to improve the lives of millions of Arabs throughout the Middle East. Israel has the expertise and know-how to make desserts bloom and to end starvation in the Middle East. Israel has basically solved many of the problems that are found in the Middle East. Joining the Abraham accords is a win-win situation for all. What Israel cannot be expected to do is to support a Palestinian State that has the destruction of Israel as its main aim. It is time for the world to reconsider their idea of a two-state solution and to recognize that at this point in time, the two-state solution is not only an oxymoron, but is also institutional insanity. There are better alternatives to the two-state solution. It is time to think out of the box .

About the writer:

Category: Israel-Arab Relations

ARAB MEDIA: DESPERATELY SEEKING SADAT!

Like this:

BETWEEN AUSCHWITZ AND BE’ERI: COMMUNITIES CAUGHT BETWEEN MEMORY AND RENEWAL

Like this:

WHAT LIES BEHIND UCT’S BATTLEFIELD AGAINST ‘PESKY’ JEWS?

Like this:

POPE LEO STRIKING OUT IN LEBANON

Like this:

WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARDS?

Like this:

HISTORY DOESN’T CHANGE – PERCEPTIONS OF FACTS DO

Like this:

A STORY UNTOLD

Like this:

BBC NEWS FAILS TO ACCURATELY AND IMPARTIALLY REPORT SOUTH AFRICA PLANE STORY

Like this:

A PLANE LANDING LANDS SOUTH AFRICA IN EMBARRASSING CONTROVERSY

Like this:

IS THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION REALLY A SOLUTION?

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: