After reading recent articles in Vuvuzela I felt compelled to shed some light on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly from a perspective that the average witsie is unfamiliar with. Given the nature and intensity of the PSC’s ‘apartheid Israel’ agenda on campus, coupled with SAUJS’s ardent defence of Israel, it is of little surprise that the notion of a “divided campus” surrounds this issue. In addition the Bongani Masuku hate speech comments followed by the HRC’s ruling have only served to exacerbate this divide.
In order to understand the intricacies of the conflict in a wider sense that is not informed by the polarised environment on campus, it is necessary to deconstruct the PSC’s position as well as place its agenda among the commonly accepted schools of thought surrounding the conflict. The Israel-Apartheid analogy, which gained momentum around the time of the now infamous Durban UN Anti-racism conference in 2001, has been opportunistically utilised in the South African context to promote international condemnation and boycott of Israel. Despite its ostensible appeal (on the simplest of levels), the analogy remains an indefensible one. Not only does it fail to consider the fundamental differences between the South African and Israeli situations, the analogy’s use is inappropriate and serves to cheapen the meaning of apartheid which resulted in the persecution of millions of South Africans. As Benjamin Pogrund, former anti-apartheid activist and founding director of Yakar's Center for Social Concern in Jerusalem has noted, use of the label is “at best ignorant and naive and at worst cynical and manipulative”.
What then are these fundamental differences that are ignored by proponents of the apartheid analogy? While this involves a lengthy analysis which I am unable to carry out in this forum, the core consideration is this: the Israeli state, despite its many failings, human rights concerns, and questionable acts in terms of international law, remains a vibrant functioning democracy in which the Arab minority are afforded an array of rights including that of franchise.
If one still considers use of the analogy as an accurate and appropriate one, consider this. By taking the apartheid analogy to its logical end we would be required to entertain the following argument: South Africa emerged from apartheid as a unitary state, therefore because blacks were oppressed under apartheid and Palestinians are oppressed by Israel, the same one-state solution should apply.
Why then does this proposed one-state solution enjoy virtually no support among the international community, academics, writers, and concerned civil society at large? Apart from radical groups like the PSC and various minority voices, no significant support exists because the solution is widely regarded as untenable, unrealistic and insensitive to the regional and historical complexities of the conflict. Essentially the idealistic appeal of the one-state proposition is undone by its defective underpinning – the apartheid analogy.
It is regrettable that the Israeli-Palestinian narrative on campus is so heavily driven by a group as radical and out of touch with the realities of the conflict as the PSC, and consequentially by SAUJS’s reactionary defence of Israel, which in light of the apartheid accusations is often is unwilling to accept wrong doing on Israel’s part. Debate around this issue remains intense for the simple fact that there are valid arguments to be made by either side. On the one hand, calls are rightly made for denouncement and ending of terrorist activity and fanatical ideology, and demanding a credible Palestinian leadership that is committed to negotiation and able to effectively nullify the radical elements which oppose negotiation. While on the other, there is cessation of settlement activity, calls for proportionality in military response, and compliance with international law standards.
Our campus should be a forum in which level-headed intelligent debate surrounding the middle-east is conducted, rather than an environment characterised by agenda driven rhetoric and viewpoints which owe more to their malicious motives than to the realities of the conflict.
Originally printed in Vuvuzela
No comments:
Post a Comment