When Ronnie Kasrils met Geert Wilders

And as the twentieth century progressed, so did Zionism and Nazism. However, the creation of Israel in 1948 came too late for the six million European Jews who were murdered by Hitler's Nazis during the Second World War.

More recently, as the conflict in the Middle East has intensified, it has become quite popular to argue that Israel is some sort of Nazi state. The logic goes... Israel is worse than apartheid South Africa and, as a result, it is quite reasonable to compare her treatment of the Palestinians, to the Nazi's extermination of the Jews. In South Africa, moreover, it is quite acceptable to do so. Ronnie Kasrils ( a Jewish ex Minister of Intelligence) even asked The SAHRC to rule on the matter, and Karthy Govender produced a finding stating that Kasrils' use of the Nazi/ Israeli analogy was not hate speech and did not break South African constitutional law in respect of freedom of expression. So in South Africa, as well as in Israel and the rest of the world, you can spout the analogy without fear of prosecution.

The Israeli/Nazi analogy is particularly popular with Israel's enemies in The Middle East and beyond. President Ahmadinejad of Iran has even stated that Israel is so evil that she should be wiped off the face of the map, Obviously the analogy is frequently used to legitimize Israel's destruction.

At the moment Geert Wilders, the leader of the Freedom Party In Holland, is facing a criminal prosecution in Amsterdam for arguing that Islam is comparable to Nazism. He has called the Koran "the Islamic Mein Kampf" and has also called Islam "fascist". Wilders is being prosecuted on the basis that such statements are hate speech and affect the dignity of Muslims.

One should bear in mind, however, that although the South African constitution also protects "the dignity" of its citizens, one is still able to use the Israeli/Nazi analogy. Clearly the "dignity" of some South African Jews, who support Israel and survived the holocaust, is not as important as the right to freedom of expression.

Daniel Pipes, who frequently publishes articles supporting Israel writes: "Although I disagree with Wilders about Islam (I respect the religion but fight Islamists with all I have), we stand shoulder-to-shoulder against this lawsuit. I reject the criminalization of political differences and the attempted thwarting of a political movement through the courts."

Clare Lopez on a website entitled "Defend Geert Wilders" also writes: " When Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders goes on trial this week in the Netherlands, he will stand alone before a Dutch court. But make no mistake: it is the very principle of free speech which hangs in the balance there. Brought up on charges of inciting hatred, Wilders is one of the few leaders anywhere in the Western world who dares to denounce a supremacist Islamic doctrine that commands its faithful to jihad and terror against non-believers. As he showed so honestly in his courageous film, ‘Fitna,’ a system of pluralist, tolerant, liberal democracy is fundamentally incompatible with literal, textual Islam as presented on the pages of the Qur’an."

Wilders' lawyers will inevitably refer to radical Islamic calls for the extermination of Jews and Israelis, and as a result, will argue that his use of the Nazi analogy is quite acceptable.

So.. should Wilders be prosecuted?

And was it right to give Kasrils the green light?