Category Archives: Judaism & Jews

UPADTE III: The Jew Who Prosecuted Mandela: Percy Yutar Said He Was A South African Patriot

Democracy, Elections, History, Judaism & Jews, South-Africa

“Persecutor” is how my father—once a leading South African anti-Apartheid activist—used to refer to the man who “prosecuted Nelson Mandela for sabotage and conspiracy against the state in 1963 and sent him to jail for life (in the event, he served 27 years).” (The Guardian)

But Percy Yutar was his real name. And “some Jewish leaders hailed him as a ‘credit to the community’ and a symbol of the Jews’ contribution to South Africa.”

“Yutar went on to become attorney general of the Orange Free State and then of the Transvaal. He was elected president of Johannesburg’s largest orthodox synagogue.”

In the opinion of my father (Rabbi Isaacson), recent attempts to portray South Africa’s Jewish community at large as having a record of resistance to Apartheid are pure fiction. My father himself was censured many times by the Board of Deputies and other Jewish leaders—told to quit his anti-establishment activities or risk the loss of the rabbinate. Decamping to Israel, as our family did, was prompted as much by ideals as by the constant threats over the loss of a living.

While the leadership of the then-banned African National Congress was festooned with radical Jews, the truth is that most South African Jews (who have a proud and celebrated history in South Africa,) were not behind this noisy minority. If anything, I suspect them of supporting the Nasionale Party, which governed from 1948 until 1994, by the overwhelming consent of the white minority. Like it or not, white South Africans had a functioning democracy (with popular referenda conducted on most important national questions).

I came from a liberal family. Yet other than my father and my cousin (a Black-Sash activist), I hardly knew a Jew who did not vote National Party (NAT). American paloeconservatives have kibitzed about the South African Jewry’s liberalism. Where from? What do they know? Did they ever survey the community back in those days?

Online sources such as Wikipedia and The Virtual Jewish Library assert the community’s liberal voting patterns. They do not argue it. As far as I can see, they do not provide statistical support for this alleged liberal voting record. I’d like to see some substantiation of these so-called “enlightened” voting patterns.

I am convinced that these depictions are cunning, after the-fact attempts to portray the Jews as more liberal than they in fact were. Yes, Jews have always been socially altruistic, but not to the point of self-immolation. This was a community with vast wealth. Risking the riches they so richly deserved is what Goyim do; Jews not so much.  UPDATED II: Risking the future of The Children: that’s not what Jews do. I bet you that, if they preached Progressive Party in public, the same Jews probably voted NAT.

Again, father and cousin aside, I did not know a Jew who did not support the Nasionale Party.

Some members of my family were business tycoons. The same family spawned pig farmers, Jews who lived on the land starting in the early 1900s. (Yeah, funny, I know; they farmed pigs, but didn’t eat ’em.) We’d get together for dinners, during which not even young, outspoken family members (invariably attending medical or law school) ever expressed dismay at the undemocratic nature of South African politics.

I recall vividly when my cousin, a land developer and a pig farmer, decided to emigrate to England after the son of his most loyal farmhand burgled the family homestead and attempted an attack on the family. My cousin was outraged. How could this young black man betray him so? (I could see a few reasons, not least of them the squalor in which farmhands and their families were housed. Free “housing,” yes, but not pretty. I would never have argued this in his company. It was just not done.)

The Jews I knew were what we called verkrampte. (Hard core)

Chris McGreal of The Guardian confirms my suspicions:

“The apartheid regime had a demographic problem and it could not afford the luxury of isolating a section of the white population, even if it was Jewish. Within a few years many South African Jews not only came to feel secure under the new order but comfortable with it. Some found echoes of Israel’s struggle in the revival of Afrikaner nationalism. … The Jew in South Africa sided with the Afrikaners, not so much out of sympathy, but out of fear sided against the blacks. I came to this country in 1946 and all you could hear from Jews was ‘the blacks this and the blacks that.'”

UPDATED I (Jan. 31): THOSE OF YOU who’ve read “Into the Cannibal’s Pot” know that the book speak favorably about the strong Afrikaner-Israel connection, and that the book thinks Percy Yutar did just fine by putting the Marxist Mandela away for his crimes against civilians (for the most).

UPDATE (Feb. 1): Percy Yutar died age 90, in 2002. As this New York Times report tells it,

“According to many South African historians and writers, Mr. Yutar’s vigorous persecution of blacks in the 1960’s was linked to his Jewish background. Glenn Frankel, the author of ‘Rivonia’s Children: Three Families and the Cost of Conscience in White South Africa,’ said that Mr. Yutar saw the trial as a patriotic opportunity, especially because some of Mr. Mandela’s co-defendants were Jews. … ‘Who better to prosecute Jewish traitors than a loyal Jew?’ Mr. Frankel wrote, describing Mr. Yutar’s thinking. ‘Who better than he to put things right and prove that not all Jews were radicals hell-bent upon overthrowing the government?'”

Mr. Yutar, one of eight children in a family of Lithuanian immigrants, was born in Cape Town on July 29, 1911. As a young man, his left hand was caught in an electric mincing machine when he was working in his father’s butcher shop, leaving his hand badly mangled.
He attended the University of Cape Town on a scholarship and was awarded a doctorate in law. Jews, however, were not welcome in the higher echelons of South Africa’s civil service, and Mr. Yutar settled for a job tracing defaulting telephone subscribers for the postal service. Still he persisted in his legal career and slowly moved up the ladder to junior law clerk and junior prosecutor. Eventually, he became deputy attorney general for the Transvaal Province and gained a reputation as an especially ambitious and energetic prosecutor.

‘Foreigners’ 101 for the Faithful

Christianity, Hebrew Testament, IMMIGRATION, Judaism & Jews, Nationhood, Uncategorized

“I’m often surprised by how many Christians and Jews are confused about what the Bible tells us about national borders, foreigners, citizenship and the law,” writes Joseph Farah. In “What the Bible says about illegal immigration,” Mr. Farah teases out the differences between the “stranger” of the bible and the “illegal alien” who has usurped him in the mind of many a “bad theologist”:

“Countless Bible studies have been conducted in America in recent years using some familiar citations about ‘strangers’ and ‘aliens’ and applying them to our current controversy. Let’s take a look at those – in context.”

* Leviticus 19:33-34: And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
* Exodus 22:21: Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
* Exodus 23:9: Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
* Deuteronomy 10:19: Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

“You can develop some really bad theology – not to mention politics and morality – by reading the Bible out of context, by not fully understanding what is being said to whom and about whom.”

Strangers that sojourn with you or live with you do not equate with illegal aliens. In fact, the corollary here, in each and every case, is that the children of Israel were “strangers” in Egypt. That’s why they were to treat their own “strangers” well, because they knew what it is like to be “strangers” in a foreign land.

Clearly, then, what it means to be a “stranger” is to be a foreigner. In the case of the children of Israel in Egypt, they were invited and, at first anyway, were honored guests. Later, they would be oppressed by a generation who “knew not Joseph.” But they were certainly not trespassers. They were certainly not in Egypt illegally. They were certainly not breaking the laws of the land by being in Egypt. In fact, they were commanded not to offend their hosts in any way (Genesis 46:28-34).

So, we must conclude that “stranger” does not equal “illegal alien.” Even when the term “alien” is used in the Bible, it seems to have the exact same meaning as “stranger.”

MORE.

UPDATED: ‘To Save One Life Is Like Saving the World’ (Republicans Disagree)

Individual Rights, Islam, Israel, Judaism & Jews, Liberty, Middle East, Palestinian Authority, Religion, Republicans

This may sound chauvinistic, but when nations are consumed with safekeeping their own, by default (and in self interest), they are more careful with the lives of their enemies.

Israel has demonstrated once again its commitment to that Talmudic verse, “To Save One Life Is Like Saving the World.” (The verse was ‘appropriated,” or ripped off, by Islam, and an exclusionary clause written into the equivalent Quranic ayah. Islam’s borrowed version, needless to say, is considerably less humanistic and universal.)

MSNBC’s Martin Bashir expressed bewilderment at the news that,

Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and hundreds of Palestinians crossed Israel’s borders in opposite directions on Tuesday as a thousand-for-one prisoner exchange brought joy to families but did little to ease decades of conflict. …In all, Israel is setting free 1,027 Palestinians in return for the liberty of Shalit. Some have spent 30 years behind bars for violent attacks against Israel and its occupation of land taken in the 1967 Middle East War.
Over 100 of the 477 prisoners released in the first phase of the exchange were taken to the West Bank. The rest were coming into Gaza, apart from 41 who were due to fly out from Cairo to exile in Turkey, Syria or Qatar.

Bashir, a neocon-cum-liberal, is in good company here in the US. The following is from a 2004, Antiwar.com column:

… the neoconservatives at National Review have grumbled about Israel’s “lopsided prisoner exchanges” over the years. One “sofa samurai,” Eric Leskly, [once noted] the startling disparity of exchanging 5,500 Egyptian soldiers, following the Sinai campaign of 1956, “for the lives of the four Israeli soldiers captured in the fighting,” and over 8,000 Egyptians, after the 1973 Yom Kippur War, in exchange for 240 Israeli soldiers.
Its official policy notwithstanding, Israel has also negotiated with terrorists for the lives and bodies of its soldiers. As Dr. Boaz Ganor, executive director of the International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, told the Jerusalem Post: “Israeli governments are more prone to the influence of public opinion.”

I remember thinking just that when, years back, I watched demonstrators heckle Ariel Sharon after yet another suicide bombing. One man yelled, “If you don’t sort this mess out, I’ll personally pay you a visit.”

UPDATE II: Bar Ron Paul, the debaters at the CNN Western Republican Presidential Debate related not at all to the Israeli position—a consistent preference for doing what it takes to save a life, even if not always strategic.

UPDATED: Author Replies to Amazon Reviews of ‘Into The Cannibal’s Pot’

Anti-Semitism, Fascism, Ilana Mercer, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Israel, Judaism & Jews, Literature, Race, Racism, Reason, South-Africa

“Compassionate Fascist” has reviewed Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa on Amazon. Here is my reply:

AUTHOR REPLIES TO A REVIEW BY A SELF-PROFESSED RACIST AND ANTI-SEMITE. “Compassionate Fascist” was indeed expelled from this author’s moderated weblog, after a long “tenure” as the resident racist and anti-Semite. That’s how much I value free speech. This character openly admits to hating Jews qua Jews and blacks qua blacks, in opposition to the philosophy of individualism. On 09.24.11, “Compassionate Fascist” wrote on Barely a Blog: “I intend to live long enough to see the power of organized Jewry broken, and Israel off the map. Have a nice day.” He was forthwith expelled for advocating the eradication of Jewish Israelis.

Up until his expulsion from Barely a Blog’s comments section, I had imagined, naïvely, that by extending my hospitality in cyberspace to “Compassionate Fascist,” and letting him vent his disdain for Jews openly, he would come to see the error of his collectivist, contemptuous ways. After all, did not his “theorizing” about the evil of Jews as a group fly in the face of the generosity and hospitality this frustrated man was receiving from a Jewish individual (me)? Of course it did.

Historian Alan Charles Kors once observed that avoiding self-contradiction is the touchstone of truth; being mired in self-contradiction, the touchstone of error. To the Greek philosophers, to be mired in self-contradiction was to be “less than human, less than coherent, less than sane.” Malevolent, irrational individuals like “Compassionate Fascist” have no qualms about falling into self- contradiction, and being “less than human, less than coherent, less than sane.”

THE FASCIST’S LIES. “Mercer,” writes “Compassionate Fascist,” above, “does make a few admissions about the leading role of Jews-including, not to put too fine a point on it, her father and herself-in bringing down the White regime.” This is a ridiculous claim; it is simply untrue. This so-called admission is nowhere in the book under review. Read “Into the Cannibal’s Pot” to see for yourself.

THE FASCIST’S LITERARY RECOMMENDATIONS. I don’t know much about the unfortunately named Revilo P. Oliver, except that he was, according to Wikipedia, “an editorial advisor for the Institute for Historical Review, an organization devoted primarily to … Holocaust denial.” In promoting myth and conspiracy under the guise of scholarship, “the nutball Institute for Hysterical Review” is hostile to the truth. And I care a great deal about standards of truth and honest inquiry. Of course, it is quite possible to deny the historic truth about the Holocaust and, at the same time, write well on other issues.

KEVIN MACDONALD. Profound? I doubt it. You’ll get more truth about Jews from watching Woody Allen films than from MacDonald’s Fe-Fi-Fo-Fum Science of Jews and their intellectual habits. For example, MacDonald claims somewhere in his elusory analysis that Jewish women are oppressed. He has clearly not met many Jewish women. I refuted some of his silly, discursive stuff in a column called “BLAME THE JEWS.”

*****

Get a glimpse into another not-so-Wonderful Mind by reading my response to Avery Morrow’s review of Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa:

ILANA MERCER (Author) replies: This is a baffling review as it impugns the scientific method. In other words, according to the reviewer (Avery Morrow), the book’s deductions, drawn as they are from a critical mass of data, are unreliable–even iffy–because the author (me) has not divulged more about herself. The claim is that I ought to have introduced more personal bias into the data for these to be believable. This is how bad the miseducation of America has become! OFFERING PROOF IN SUPPORT OF ONE’S CASE IS TAKEN AS EVIDENCE AGAINST THAT CASE! The truth is the exact opposite of this reviewer’s gripe. A one-case study does not a rule make. The point about the scientific method is to prove your case beyond doubt. Of course, as was stated subtly in the Introduction, “In the interstices of this polemic, the reader will find my story and the story of those I love and had to leave behind” (p. 10). And more about crime vis-à-vis my family is on pp. 12-13. Like almost every other member of South Africa’s minority, so have they been brutalized by barbarians. The book is studded with the personal stories of South Africans, some my own. But no, the reviewer wants the author on Oprah’s couch; writhing in a vulgar, uniquely American display. Good schools once taught that good writing was understated, not hysterical or excessively personal, and that using the “me, me,” imperial “I” was plain self-indulgent, piss-poor prose. The bumper crops of ignoramuses our educational institutions now disgorge are ignorant of these eternal verities-and are, in fact, taught the exact opposite.

Next: The evidence the reader doubts comes from the painfully politically correct “Bureau of Justice statistics, Criminal Victimization in the United states, `Victims and Offenders,'” report of 2005. (And, contrary to the reviewer’s assertion, blacks are not 20 percent of the US’s population.) Read about “Sexual Subjugation” on p. 37: “Every year, approximately 37,460 white women are raped by blacks. As the BJS’s 2005 `Criminal Victimization Statistical Tables’ reveal, blacks, at 12.3 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION [emphasis added], were responsible for thirty-six percent of the 111,490 incidents in which whites were raped. And blacks committed 100 percent of the 36,620 incidents in which blacks were raped. …” But, for reporting these facts, the author is maligned!

Finally, the reader fails to offer a citation in support of his claim that I implied, “East Asians don’t volunteer at African hospitals in large numbers.” On page 181 I addressed a South African hospital only. “Baragwanath,” I wrote, is “the only hospital in South Africa’s biggest township. Now as then, the staff members ministering to the multitudes in Soweto are supervised and mentored by selfless Christian and Jewish medical men and women.”

UPDATE (Oct 18): Contemplationist: For someone whose name often appears in BAB’s Comments Section your question shows laziness or a lack of retention. Ad nauseam have I moderated and indulged discussion on what you and your ilk refer to as the “Jewish Question.” Apparently, you are unwilling or unable to search this blog’s archives (sidebar, under “Categories,” dah), especially, and those of the mother site under the relevant search categories. (Gosh, let me see: neoconservatism, Jews & Judaism, ilana mercer, South Africa, etc., get the drift?)

The following mental exercise is probably beyond the ken of our typical “gritty” Jew-focused “thinker.” How about we discuss the role of Jews in the freedom movement, the disease-conquering (or medicine) movement, the invention sphere, or the general-beneficiaries-of-humanity cabal? Hmmm: What might we conclude from that small exercise? (Insert Beavis and Butthead grunts here.) That a lot of Jews rise to to the top in society, and that many do untold good and many a good deal of harm, as individuals. Like a lot of other left-liberals, progressive Jews can do things we hard rightists view as bad. (I know one thing; most Jewish parents would never feed their kids fairy tales so that they come within an inch of losing their lives, as in the example in “Sacrificing Kids To PC Pietism.”

A Jewish parent, liberal or conservative, would have taught the kid as follows: “I don’t care what you learn at school, you klutz; but If I ever catch you jogging through THAT neighborhood again, I’ll … I’ll … Forget about the allowance and inheritance. Get that?” You get the drift.