OSTRICHES ARE SITTING DUCKS
Mbeki’s denial of crises has defined his Presidency

Thabo Mbeki’s “I am an African” speech at the beginning of his term of office set the bar and aspirations of the nation. 9 years on from that speech, his smooth sophistication and economic idealism has fallen flat on an audience which is calling for his blood rather than an encore. Some have posted him as another leader trying to hang on to power in a Texas shoot-out with his upcoming rival Jacob Zuma. Of course there is a degree of credibility in such an assertion and some similarity with the Democratic presidential caucuses in America can be drawn.

At a time though, Mbeki seemed to be the perfect compromise. He is the visionary behind the African Renaissance, the pioneer of NEPAD and the reviver of the AU. With his clean cut silver beard, he has become the poster-model for African intelligentsia and the rising black-middle class without stepping on the "white man’s feet".

Yet, on the other hand, recent blunders in the entire Zimbabwean crisis – although naming it a crisis would be an understatement- and the failure of South Africa to rise to the challenge again and lead Africa in a united voice against poor governance and corruption, has eroded the very premise of an African Renaissance. But when one looks back even further, his government’s foreign policy, or lack thereof, with regards to Zimbabwe seems to bring about a repetitive and predicable pattern of his entire administration.

Whether it is Zimbabwe’s quiet diplomacy, the denial of HIV as a virus leading to AIDS, the denial of a potential energy crisis, crime and so on, Mbeki seems to have a hear no evil, see no evil policy which has defined his Presidency. He could stick his head in the sand and hope all these problems will go away but by doing so repetitively for so many years, Mbeki’s problems seemed to have hardened into a form called Jacob Zuma. From having his head in the sand for too long, Mbeki now seems to be stuck in the mud, and Zuma has a reaching shot at the Presidency.

LOST IN TRANSLATION
Translating Arab Sentiment about Israel

60 years after the miracle of the restoration of Jewish sovereignty and independence in the formation of the State of Israel, Palestinians still refer to this as “Al-Nakba”, meaning the catastrophe or disaster. Without diving too deeply into the historical dialects on the Arab/Israeli conflict, one thing about Arabic vocabulary seems to be perplexing. In 1948, the Arabs called the declaration of Israel’s Independence as Al-Nakba. Consequently, the Palestinians lost roughly half of the mandated land to Israel and this was a disaster to them.

In 1967, Israel whipped the Arab armies and conquered all of the remaining Palestinian territory. This, in Arabic is known as “an-Naksah” or the setback. But exactly was their setback? They lost everything. Surely the setback, in logical terms, would have been when they lost half of the land and the disaster should have been when they lost all of it? Under the current Arab logic, they say that, in 1948, the glass was completely empty when in fact it was half full. Conversely, they say that, in 1967, the glass was half empty when in fact is completely empty.

Perhaps Jimmy Carter is not the only guy who is lost in translation of Arabic? Or perhaps the only way to explain this illogical translation is that the Arab/Israeli conflict has never been about land but rather about the ‘Chutzpah’ of the Jewish nation standing up against Goliath.

PASS THE HAMAS AND TAHINA
Jimmy Carter fails to understand Middle Eastern Language

Jimmy Carter’s visit to the Middle East region has sparked a controversy over his meeting with Khaled Mashaal, or K Ma as he is known to the local paprazzi on the streets of Damascus. Apart from my own prejudices surrounding Carter’s visit, I was skeptical that anything could actually arise of the visit, except more legitimacy of Hamas as a political organisation. Then in a press conference, Carter announced that Hamas is willing to accept a pre-67’ Palestinian state. Instinctively, a gut reaction would be “that’s progress”. Unfortunately, this air of relief only remained in the gut as immediately after that K Ma added a small technical detail, a “hudna”, which is a ten year truce.

Lets just say that should Hamas get the pre-67 borders, they will not be hosting barbeques and siestas for that 10 year time out. Why would they? After all, the withdrawal from Lebanon and from Gaza didn’t bring peace but rather reinvigorated the militant struggle.

Peace in Hebrew is Shalom and in Arabic it is Salaam. Jimmy, I am afraid your definition of peace doesn’t sound remotely similar to the Hebrew or Arabic translation. Again, the word is lost in translation.