With almost stunning speed, the South Africa analogy has become part of the Israel-Palestine debate. A reference to Israel’s “apartheid” that a few years ago would have sounded shrill now seems almost commonplace. Jimmy Carter deserves much credit, and never backed down from his book’s accusing title. But note carefully: Carter referred to the apartheid in occupied Palestine, not in Israel proper.
Beyond rhetoric, the South African model is gaining traction as a blueprint for liberation. Palestinian intellectuals raise it as an alternative to the two-state “peace process” going nowhere. Left of center Israelis make ominous references to the “Nelson Mandela scenario” Israel will face if it continues to thwart creation of a viable Palestinian state. There seems an assumption – held by both those who fear it and those who would welcome it -- that the agitation for a non-racial democratic state for all its citizens in all of historic Palestine might actually succeed. Didn’t apartheid collapse with stunning rapidity, after years of successfully flouting international sanctions? Might not Israel succumb to similar pressures?
Of course anything could happen. But if one considers the situation logically rather than romantically, and pays attention to the actual strengths of the contending parties, it seems clear that the South African analogy is more a cudgel to hammer at Israel’s standing in world opinion than a viable path towards justice for the Palestinians. It gives no pleasure to say it, but the South African scenario belongs on the same shelf as the Palestinian rejection of partition in 1947, or the Arab states who risked a war they were unprepared to fight in 1967: instances of maximalist bravado, grounded in a severe misjudgment of the balance of forces, leading to a very poor result.
The likenesses between South African apartheid and today’s Israel now seem obvious, and hardly need reiteration: millions of Palestinians are subject to a regime of occupation, without citizenship rights. A hostile, race-obsessed government controls their movement, their legal place of residence, their access to education, what roads they may use, where they may work, etc. What possibly besides the passbook and “homelands” system comes to mind when one reads of Israel’s telling a Palestinian woman that she can’t finish her degree at Bethlehem University because her legal place of residence is Gaza.
But the analogy begins to break down when one looks at the broader networks of support for the two systems. The United States was hostile in principle if not necessarily in practice to South African apartheid. Israel by contrast, is formally beloved in Washington, and Americans have helped subsidize its occupation of the conquered territories for two generations. This inescapable fact ought to loom large for those weighing whether the South African analogy is a viable route to Palestinian self-determination.
For a straightforward comparison, consider these statistics:
Number of ethnically Afrikaaner billionaires in the United States in 1985: Zero
Number of ethnically Afrikaaner US senators: Zero
Number of major American newspapers owned by ethnic Afrikaaners: Zero
Number of American television networks founded by an ethnic Afrikaaner: Zero
Number of ethnic Afrikaaners who are chief executives of major media enterprise: Zero
Number of ethnic Afrikaaners who were editor in chief of major American publishing houses: Zero
Number of ethnic Afrikaaners who held tenured positions in history, sociology, or political science at Ivy league universities: Zero
This list would not be different in Europe. And obviously Israel benefits from an entirely different level of active soft-power support. South Africa was never widely reviled in the United States. The Reagan administration, worried in the 1980’s about Soviet/Cuban advances in southern Africa, adopted a policy of “constructive engagement” towards Pretoria, strategic cooperation and efforts to shield South Africa from sanctions legislation emanating from the Congress. But in 1986 Congress passed stiff sanctions anyway, by a margin sufficient to overcome a veto from the popular Reagan. While some Americans defended South Africa on grounds of realpolitik there was virtually no one outside the political fringes who mounted a forthright defense of apartheid. (Interestingly apartheid’s South African ideologists defended the regime not on the basis of white racial theory, but as the only possible means for the cultural and political survival— "the right to exist" -- of South Africa’s white tribe.)
But Israel benefits from levels of support in the United States that South Africa never did. South Africa could be isolated by sanctions—it was kicked out of the Olympic Games as early as 1964. Far from facing sanctions, Israel recently demonstrated that it can summon 10-1 votes in the US Congress to squelch investigation of its war crimes.
The good news is that Israel has a fallback position which the Afrikaaners lacked: a pullback to its 1967 borders. Large numbers of Israel’s supporters in the US favor such a retreat, and are ashamed or angered by Israel’s present conduct. Many more would tolerate such a pullback even if they wish to avoid it. The same can be said for thousands, perhaps a million, of Israelis—including those who, often at great cost to themselves, protest and document and fight against the occupation. Almost none of them favor the dismantlement of Israel. Treating Israel as South Africa means, essentially, throwing these people under the bus, which would be as politically impractical as it would be morally dubious.
It is now apparent that only outside pressure will persuade Israel to negotiate seriously about a viable Palestinian state: Israel’s population must begin to feel some of the pain it inflicts on Palestine. So here some elements of the South African analogy – the boycott and divestment strategies –actually do make sense. But to become more than an exercise of catharsis for a sliver of the Left, those tactics must be exercised –as they were in the case of South Africa-- in support of goals where there exists an international consensus: the end of the occupation, justice for the Palestinians, and the continued existence of Israel between secure and recognized borders. Otherwise, with no support from Israelis or from liberal American Jews, it would be doomed to fail.
While the balance of international political and economic forces may be the most decisive reason why the South Africa analogy in its pure form is inapt, there are other important distinctions between the two situations, and they too point towards two states rather than a unitary state as the more realistic goal. Among them are:
1) Terrorism. Though it carried out armed struggle, the ANC never struck soft civilian targets, but raided police stations and power generators. It makes a huge difference in the legitimacy of what is, in the end, a political and not a military battle.
2) Shared religion: the Mandela generation of ANC leaders were raised in missionary schools, which both molded their outlook and ultimately made them believable as negotiating partners who promised that whites had an entirely legitimate place in the next South Africa.
3) Luck: the Berlin Wall fell at the same time South Africa was beginning to really suffer from economic sanctions, while the government was in the early stages of negotiating with Nelson Mandela and the ANC leadership. Communism’s collapse had a dual fortuitous effect: it made the white South African leaders more secure about the radical threats they faced while at the same time undermining the principle rationale they used to justify South Africa in western capitals.
4) The Mandela factor: I didn’t notice this at the time (I was one of those who worried more about Soviet advances in southern Africa than apartheid) but the Mandelas –Winnie also—were extraordinarily charismatic people, who had a transformative effect on almost whomever they came into contact with. Winnie, banned after the 1976 Soweto riots to an isolated white suburb, managed to comport herself like a queen and became dear friends with the wife and children of a right wing Afrikaaner with many government contacts. Nelson of course was famous for inspiring something approaching love among his jailers, as well as deep personal admiration from his negotiating partners. Has such a Palestinian emerged? I don't know of one.
All these were instrumental in turning South Africa away from the bloody train wreck that a great many anticipated. Every situation is different of course, but it is not clear to me what the Israelis and Palestinians have that could play a role similar role. It’s fortunate they have a potential alternative to a unitary state.
Thanks for your comments Scott.
I would take some exception to your description of the absence of a Mandela. Mandela certainly deserved the praise that you note. He also had a very balanced and conscientious staff and support system. Ironically, in being incarcerated together, even periodically isolated, the ANC leadership had an opportunity to think, know each other deeply and confidently, and transform even spiritually.
Similar cadres of Palestinians have undergone similar transformations and development in Israeli jails over extended periods.
There is great work that IS being done among Palestinians recently, particularly as a result of the leadership of Fayyad. Most dissenters remember Fatah as corrupt and passive, but that is no longer an accurate description.
It really is true that a viable Palestine is close, not due to Israeli efforts obviously, but definitely due to Palestinians rising to the challenge. Specifically, rather than regard everything that Israel states as 180 degrees untrue, Fayyad and others have selected recommendations and framed them for Palestinian viability and independance.
One of your largest straw men yet. Kudos.
Gee, if memory serves, the Palestinian cops were one of the first targets in the GAZA
turkey shoot at the beginning of the year–no wonder the US-Israeli trained Pals are coming from Jordan (naively) thinking they are helping to create a sovereign Pal state.
I too agree with many of your views a) that as the Palestinians should be given justice, and there is also the collateral warranty that Israel shall exist with secured and recognized borders. I think this is very much attainable to achieve relative peace in Palestine.; b) the fact that the ‘black’ and ‘white’ south Africans shared same religion, such condition enhanced their mutual understanding and has greatly improved their chance for conciliation in their respective rights and interests. This is one major point in the difference between South Africa and Palestine situations. These circumstances gives the issue of apartheid in South Africa only a matter of ‘color’ which obstacle can be easily isolated and hurdled. In Israel conflict, its different case – the two peoples just like the proverbial ‘oil and water’, as their values are completely immiscible in terms of religion, as well as in the context of their religions. c) The Jewish nation according to historical and religious traditions, shall be divided into definite territorial regions according to the households or original tribes, while with the Palestinians (as generally Islamic or ‘Gentiles’) are not. If the Islamic countries will insist the right to return in Israel, they should also implement likewise in all their Islamic states. d) Sanhedrin-like councils will be revived as political and judicial institutions in Jewish Israel, in Shiite Islam like in Iran at present the Ayatollah is the sole ‘actual’ supreme court.
The BDS as interventions is very much welcome, inasmuch as that will give momentum for the two-state resolve, as well as more rooms or opportunities for the pro-partition to elaborately present their position, and that the whole world may fully understand the workings of the Judaic faith.
When Israel becomes partitioned in a two-state systems, there description of ‘apartheid’ will not be relevant or applicable anymore, as peoples will live separately, as distinct nations ands societies.
Due to immiscibility of two peoples- Israelis and Palestinians in terms of religious cultures and values, forcing them into unitary state would even result to class and social distinctions later that would eventually be described as ‘apartheid’ (virtual, if not apparent) similar to South African experience.
I have to respectfully disagree. While the likenesses are obvious to the informed, sadly, not many actually are (out in the American public, I mean). And that is exploited by the mouthpieces of the Israel Lobby — including, ahem, certain commenters here — who keep drumbeating the buzz words “Jewish AND democratic” and “Basic Law” and refuse to confront what is actually the reality. So unless we keep the reality front and center, it will be caged up and contained by phony rhetoric.
Agreed. McConnell gets at this, but apartheid in South Africa was labeled as such around the world, and people understood what it meant. Because of Zionist influence and sympathy, people around the world understand the situation in Palestine/Israel through phrases like “the peace process,” “the Arab-Israeli conflict,” and “the cycle of violence”. “Occupation” is a better word, but “apartheid” really is the best-fitting, and most people do not hear those more descriptive terms.
It certainly creates a bigger challenge for anti-apartheid activists in this case.
I keep saying “segregation” would be better choice because it has more associations to Americans.
How about “Jim Crow” as to Israel per se, and “AXIS style occupation” as to the OT?
We cannot continuously insist to be blind to this existing actual social differences between Palestinians and Israelis though they are actually good neighbors. Even their language itself would be some sort of source of friction; somehow the national or traditional language of the Jews could be Hebrew, and the Palestinians, Arabic.
It’s ironic that one fundamental problem of the SA apartheid system – the Bantustans – is now being proposed as the “solution” that the Palestinians must be forced to accept.
Exactly, why do the Palestinians have to accept the Bantustan solution?
I completely disagree with McConnell here. Just because the situation is more difficult does not mean that we must avoid the solution that would bring about the most justice for all.
Furthermore, using the excuse that the Zionists wield incredible power in the United States does not mean that we should not battle that influence. In this year alone, the tide has shifted dramatically, and I’m positive that within 5 years it will have shifted even further.
We also have to keep in mind that Israel has NEVER shown willingness to accept even the 2 state solution. The Palestinians already gave the 2 state solution a chance for more than 15 years. Its clear that the Israelis want to build more and more settlements in the West Bank, if thats the case, then the Israelis must learn to live in peace with the indigenous people of the land.
Exactly why? Because Israel wants it and the US and EU are in thrall to Zionist influence so they force the Palestinians to do what Israel wants.
It really passes human understanding to see how they take this stand, knowing that the Palestinians have no other choice, knowing that “negotiations” is either a blind road or a road into prison. And the Palestinians should be warned by this, that any attempt at a one-state solution will also fail, because the UN will never do anything to force Israel to grant them equal rights as citizens.
Yes, one-state will fail, because in a Jewish state, the concept of ‘equal’ rights might only refer to the Jewish citizens, and the rests are considered ‘tourists’ . So better partition it, and avoid future conflicts.
The term analogy always contains both similarities and differences, and analogs will always have an inherent weakness that is easily exploited by anyone wanting to shift the discussion: focus on the differences.
It is a powerful emotive tool, and it has a large Achilles heel of inherent difference where the conversation almost always drags down into a discussion of the similarities and differences therein.
Here is a terrific use of describing the roadblocks, where the analog is gradually wiped away.
link to youtube.com
At first, you see British people. This is, sadly, important, as Arabs are often dehumanized in Western media, and it is necessary to first employ the analog to rehumanize them. Then you see a situation through a narrative, the Palestinian, that is often blocked out of our media outlets. Even when they speak, it is often (as in Barghouti’s recent Jon Stewart interview) accompanied by someone from the West. Thus, it isn’t just the narrative of the under siege Israeli accompanying their point of view – we in the West almost need the framework of the West to describe what is going on as the Palestinian narrative, alone, is so uncovered from their point of view.
We should hear from their many and varied voices, and I think that is our problem in relying on analogs to communicate to our compatriots in the West.
Carter had never backed down!
Does McConnell know that Jews owned about 7% of the land at the time and the partition plan allocated more than 60% of entire Palestine to Jews? No one in their right mind would accept such a partition, a partition that was backed by Britain, as well.
Here McConnell reveals his ignorance. Both the US and Britain supplied Israel with emergency shipments of hardware during the so-called six day war.
In addition, Arab states did not start the war, which McConnell seems to be implying here, but merely signed a defense pact amid a climate of Israeli threats to attack.
Oh and McConnell conveniently ignores the fact that the ANC did in fact kill quite a few civilians, Afrikaneers and Blacks alike.
James, I have a tendency to agree with you for a number of reasons, but I would go a bit further with what Mr. McConnell is doing here – he is actually (and it is rather thinly veiled) trying to resurrect the idea of J Street viability. This is a bit of a stretch especially due to the fact that J Street is in some sort of “look-alike” contest with AIPAC. He does throw in a little kudos in the sense for BDS, but slightly.
I would suggest that the analogy of South African Apartheid goes much deeper that merely the current on the ground observations that he makes (A hostile, race-obsessed government controls their movement, their legal place of residence, their access to education, what roads they may use, where they may work, etc.). That Israel fits not only with Apartheid as seen in South Africa, but with all settler states in general – the logic of both Israel and apartheid-era South Africa can be found in their common origins as settler states. In both cases, the settlers CREATED MYTHS, semi-religious or explicitly religious, including that GOD HAD PROVIDED THE LAND for them and that the land was unoccupied upon arrival, a very, very common theme in every settler state, whether it’s the United States, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc. In both cases, the settlers portrayed themselves to be VICTIMS against natives who were described as SEMI-BARBARIC OR INTOLERANT. Given the permanent state of siege, every settler state AGGRESSION came to be DESCRIBED as a DEFENSIVE ACT, an approach also common with the United States. By way of example, for South Africa, incursions into Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe or anywhere else always against alleged TERRORISTS were justified as alleged defensive actions. It foreshadows what might have to happen in other settler states that have decimated and marginalized their indigenous population, causing them to have to address what they constantly disavow with nay UN security votes.
For the settler state, there is a zero sum calculation when it comes to the natives. This does not necessarily mean that the natives must be annihilated, but it does mean that the natives can never be allowed to prevail. In this context, one can look at Jerusalem and apartheid-era Johannesburg as emblematic of settler strategy and the settler state as a whole. Actually Israel in some ways is much worse than Apartheid as attested to by visiting high ranking officials from South Africa who suffered under apartheid.
TWILIGHT ZONE / “WORSE THAN APARTHEID”
In regard to his statements about Jimmy Carter, we indeed are thankful for his bringing to new heights the exposure of this tragedy – I like to look at it from the time he visited Brandeis University. He (McConnell) is correct pointing out that Jimmy Carter spoke of apartheid but only in the sense of the OT and not Israel itself. However, what does this say? Why it brings up the myth of ones “foreign policy” as opposed to “domestic policy,” as if the two never meet or one does not have influence on the other (which most have roundly denied here simply by the activity of the Lobby on behalf of Israel, and what it has done to America).
He (Carter) says that he is talking about the “conditions inside the Occupied Territories” but not inside of Israel. Pardon me, is it not the same people who make decisions Inside of Israel, that make the decisions of what takes place in the Occupied Territories? Or are we talking about two different groups of people? Don’t they reside in Tel Aviv?
If we were going to arrest those who made those horrific decisions inside the Occupied Territories would we arrest the alter ego’s of those rulers in Tel Aviv and let their good sides go free? Simply laughable, we have the two faces of Janus here. This is an unwarranted dichotomy, simply a sleight of hand – it strains the bonds of credulity beyond all reason.
Continuing on, has President Carter ever looked at the status of Palestinian citizens inside of Israel? Has he looked at who resides in the prisons and the detainment facilities? Has he looked at the land and planning policies inside of Israel? Perhaps looked at the frequency of denial for the unity of family members?
If he has looked into this what would he pronounce? Perhaps prejudicial activity, bigotry – maybe, but would he see a connection between what takes place inside of Israel’s borders (you must use the term border carefully, because Israel is always expanding) with what takes place inside the territories?
No, he sees it as totally different according to his definition. I would say one interprets the other, and it is only the mantle of statehood that keeps the Zionist rulers of Israel from doing the same thing to Palestinians inside the state as it does in the Occupied Territories.
There are also inherent contradictions in his Mandela plea, especially in light of the control of the media and targeted assassinations, imprisonments, and exile of Palestinian leadership. In fact, what McConnell does is play into “we have no one to talk to” ploy of the Zionist Israelis. Perhaps Mr. McConnell should look at Moors recent post here about what has been done to quash any “viable partner” on the part of the Palestinians. Along with this, perhaps Mr McConnell should do a little further study of colonialism and how it crushes the voice of the victim, and re-interprets who they are and what their message is, before listening to the Israeli propaganda.
There are good things that Mr. McConnell has done with this article, he certainly has laid bare the formidable foe we have in Zionism and its entrenched position in the power spheres in America. Of course, one of the first things you have to do in order to address this deep problem is find out why it happened, and why it is allowed to continue. In this community on this site, it might be a bit of a challenge because there are many who do not eve want to investigate the systemic weakness in the states that puts us in our current condition (not only with this, but a myriad of other subjects). Nothing is utterly hopeless though, it just requires solid prodigious thinking and planning, and with the people involved in the process (not just another Jewish group like J Street that thinks this is their province, at least in leadership, alone).
I get the impression that’s exactly what McConnell is attempting to advance in this piece. If this is what passes for analysis from a Pat-Buchanan-wannabe, then his contribution is nothing but noise.
My main problems with McConnell’s piece are (1) that he seems to emphasize the role of international activists in choosing a one-state or two-state solution. Our role should be solidarity, supporting Palestinians’ demand for legitimate rights – whether that be one state or two. Given that many Palestinians express support for both, I think the best strategy is to implement BDS pending either — in other words, work for the end (in whatever way) of occupation. But we should certainly be open to supporting one or the other if Palestinian opinion were to shift toward a consensus. (And if it is shifting now, it is likely back toward one-state.)
(2) That he assumes present conditions will be static. This is the fallacy that Abunimah addressed in his last article. Certainly, there’s an incredible amount of work to be done (although that applies to either solution). But, the Palestinian-Israeli population is growing. Attitudes have changed slightly after Gaza. Young people are less orthodox. And I don’t think a one-state solution would necessarily be completely anathema to Israel and Zionism. Rather than the dismantling of Israel, as McConnell describes it (using essentially the common description), a binational one-state solution could also be framed as an expansion of Israel — in territory as well as national scope. It would actually be an addition, and not a “destruction” in any way. What I’m saying is that Israel doesn’t need to be conquered to make this happen. There is inherent appeal in the idea of equality, such that it only requires a nudge to catch on, not full imposition (as Zionism required vis-a-vis the Palestinians).
McConnell is unfair in saying that advocating one-state throws anti-occupation Israelis “under the bus” and is “morally dubious”. In this piece he’s not trying to address the moral implications of an actual one-state arrangement (but rather the viability of the demand), so his editorializing on it here is out of place and completely unsupported. I also personally think the notion of a binational state being unfair to Jews is rubbish.
And (3) McConnell does not acknowledge the various ways that one-state calls are instrumentally valuable for Palestinians — toward that stated goal or two states. To his credit, McConnell acknowledged that the situation on the ground is essentially the same. But he ignores the power of the familiar South Africa analogy, which brings moral clarity to an all-too-obfuscated issue. I mean, McConnell acknowledges the fear that one-state inspires in Israelis, acknowledges that they expect it would be successful, and that it would damage Israel’s international standing. Seriously, how do I sign up? I mean, all of these things clearly serve Palestinians’ interests. And none of this precludes a Palestinian state if it helps Israel to see the light on the two-state solution.
Also, though he’s not principally talking about specific Palestinian rights and the moral desirability of any solution, he assumes that a state would satisfy the necessary condition of “justice for the Palestinians”. A lot of people argue that the two-state solution would not fulfill Palestinian rights to equality in their land, for both inherent reasons, and further because of inevitable limitations on real independence. McConnell ignores Palestinian critiques of “two-states as a solution”.
Basically I disagree. But, all-in-all, I think that McConnell is arguing in good faith (despite coming close to paternalism), with valid priorities, based on accurate information.
Robin,
To a single-state advocate, “occupation” refers to any Jewish self-identified state or any basis of self-governance. Some assert that “Jews must go, they weren’t here in 1917, 1930, 1947″ or whatever reference date. Some assert, “Jews can stay, but with the full right of Palestinian return, inevitably making them a minority, and we can then enact any laws we choose, and present them as “democratic”".
To a two-state advocate, “occupation” refers to state control over the green line.
The clarification of which “occupation” you or others mean, IS a big deal. It is necessary to clarify, if you want to accomplish it.
So, what’s your personal definition of “occupation” Richard Witty?
“Some assert that “Jews must go, they weren’t here in 1917, 1930, 1947″ or whatever reference date.”
Who, Witty? Who says that? Seriously? Because there were Jews in Palestine before Zionism. It’s just they didn’t, generally, ascribe to that warped theology and therefore they were often targets of Zionist violence as well.
I think the core of McConnell’s argument is strongly sound. The difference between SA and Israel lies in the level of support for each regime. The Afrikaaners were isolated internationally. Israel has The Lobby. That has made and is still making all the difference. No plan to advance justice for the Palestinians will make any headway until or unless the hold of the lobby is broken.
Unfortunately, by the time this could be accomplished, if it could be accomplished, it will be too late for the Palestinians. The lobby has not only won every round, it has already won the next rounds that haven’t yet been played.
In another 50 years, there won’t be an Israel, but there won’t be a Palestine, either.
robin, thank you for that excellent analysis. Your continued level-headedness in this ongoing “debate” is something to behold.
I find myself in almost complete disagreement with McConnell. Overall, his defense of a state that confers different rights on its own citizens based on ethnic background must be challenged. True, it is not as bad as apartheid in South Africa, but so what. It still is bad, and bad for the same reason. The person who embezzles a million dollars from a bank is committing a more serious crime than the one who shoplifts a candy bar, but both crimes are wrong because they involve taking someone else’s property. The State’s preference for Jewish citizens over non-Jewish citizens may not be as egregious as SA apartheid; perhaps it resembles only the 1950′s South US. Does that mean it is tolerable?
The specifics of McConnell’s article are just as wrongheaded. On the subject of terrorism, is he suggesting that if the ANC had attacked civilians, somehow the anti-apartheid movement would have lost legitimacy? When people are forced to fight for their freedom, some will resort to tactics that are, in my view, inexcusable. That does not destroy the rightness of their cause, especially when the entrenched power has resorted to worse violence for a worse cause. Had the Palestinians never resorted to terror, their situation would be no better than it is today. Had the ANC attacked civilians, apartheid had to go anyway.
The fact that Israel presently has much more support in the corridors of US power does not mean that the fight for true equality should be compromised. Maybe the task is harder, but it is no less worthy. Palestinians must establish that their fight is for freedom and equal treatment, not genocide or expulsion as many Israeli defenders prefer to misrepresent it. Everyone can relate to freedom and equality. It’s what we insist on here, isn’t it?
No Mandela? Please. There have been plenty of Mandelas, all of whom have been expelled, imprisoned, or subject to smears rather than welcomed as a solution. But more importantly, why should Palestinians have a burden to produce a Mandela? Or India a Gandhi, or US blacks a MLKing? The oppressor needs a charismatic saint to change its ways?
My prediction is that some time in the future, people will realize that there is no reason why an Israeli Jew should have superior rights to an Israeli Arab, and the superiority that may be assumed automatically by a Diaspora Jew over people who have lived there for centuries is even worse. When this day will dawn, I have no idea, but the sooner the better. Unfortunately, we’re a long way from that. The much more dire situation of the four million non-citizen Palestinians who must endure Israeli military rule appears to be very firmly in place. At least McConnell appears to want their liberation.
I agree with you, David Samel. Tony Karon, who grew up in SA and fought against apartheid before going to live on a kibbutz, has written interesting points that back you up. It was Karon who wrote that Mandela was more than prepared to resort to violence, but he didn’t have to because the white SA leaders knew it all too well, and understood the grave consequences to themselves if he did. And Karon calls the apartheid Israel visits upon Palestine worse than SA. One his many articles is here: link to tonykaron.com
Thanks for the link. Great analysis by Karon
and Karon calls the apartheid Israel visits upon Palestine worse than SA
As does Mandela, and Desmond Tutu, and many others.
Achmad Cassiem, Mandela’s cellmate who spent a total of 11 years behind bars, recently said that “Israeli apartheid is worse than South Africa ever was.”
link to bdsmovement.net
Yitzhak Laor, author of “The Myths of Liberal Zionism”:
“The system preserving this apartheid is more ruthless than that seen in South Africa, where the black were a labor force and could therefore also make a living. It is equipped with the lie of being “temporary.” Occasionally, Israel’s indifference comes up with allegations against the Palestinians.”
link to israeli-occupation.org
I definitely want to applaud Scott’s courage in presenting an analysis that is contreversial here.
And, I’d like to applaud Phil or Adam for posting it.
“I was one of those who worried more about Soviet advances in southern Africa than apartheid”
Jesus, Scott, you’re a brave guy! Talk about martyrdom rather than conversion!
You know, it’s long enough ago that if you didn’t mention it, there’s a good chance no-one will remember. Why start out martyring your own credibility like that?
Sure, I remember, it was an imminent danger, after all, Pushkin, you know? They love him in Russia.
Hey, Phil, is “McConnell” a Jewish name?
Wasn’t Pushkin part black?
You bet he was, or nearly so, Citizen, and his poetry is beloved of all Russians.
Who would be a more natural (actually, he might have worn a wig, as people did back then) guy for the Russians to use to entice those benighted Africans into their Communist toils? Another words, with Pushkin, you get Marx!
On the other hand, a white guy who fled South Africa (well, not according to him) once told me this, this is him, not me: “Communism will never make any headway in Africa. Africans don’t need Russians to tell them how to steal”
Anyway, more proof, if it’s needed, that we are all one big hunan family.
So, first of all, kudos to everyone–this is by far the most interesting discussion I’ve seen on Mondoweiss!
I disagree with many of McConnell’s points, but I’m wondering first what his background on South Africa is. Did he play a role in working against apartheid? Is he a scholar of apartheid South Africa? It would seem not, by his own statement: “I was one of those who worried more about Soviet advances in southern Africa than apartheid.”
I’m not asking this maliciously, but rather wondering whether many of the points McConnell makes are really accurate, or whether they emerge from a process of historical forgetting.
Just a few examples: McConnell downplays U.S. support of apartheid South Africa. Although he makes some interesting points about comparative power of U.S. constituencies, it hardly seems justified to say that if there was a larger Afrikaaner constituency in the United States, that working for BDS or a “one-man, one-vote” solution would have suddenly become wrong-headed. In addition, after vetoes used to protect Israel from criticism, the majority of U.S. Security Council vetoes–1/3 of its total veto uses–were to protest apartheid regimes in Southern Africa from criticism. It is telling that the U.S. gov’t continued to support apartheid until well into the Reagan era–several decades after the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act.
There is also, I think, a tendency to downplay the extent to which the ANC and other anti-apartheid activists were portrayed as violent actors by the apartheid government. Terrorists and Communists, all of them! Also, is it actually true that no S. African anti-apartheid activist ever used violence against “soft” targets? I seem to remember that there was at least one night club bombing or something of the sort.
My point here isn’t that the two situations are identical–of course they are not. But it seems like the distinctions that McConnell is making are driven more by the authors view of the one-state solution–which, by the way, I don’t necessarily disagree with–then by the actual importance of the distinctions.
And I do want to echo Mr. Witty, with whom I seldom agree:
“I definitely want to applaud Scott’s courage in presenting an analysis that is contreversial here.
And, I’d like to applaud Phil or Adam for posting it. “
Just to clarify, I was a journalist during the 80′s with generally neocon ties and sympathies. I didn’t pay much attention to South Africa or the Middle East–my general topic was Europe. But my political milieu mostly thought that apartheid was bad, communism was bad, intractable problem, etc. I recall that Commentary published a defense of the South African government sometime in the mid 80′s (by Paul Johnson, I think) and disagreeing but not strongly enough to complain to anyone. Given the new current prominence of the South Africa analogy, I thought it necessary to do some historical reading–so I’m better informed than I was a month ago. Also, South Africa is hosting the World Cup next year –and whatever the problems, and there are many–the situation is much better than anyone in my milieu imagined it would be. A genuinely pan-racial South African patriotism seems to have actually come into being, which would have amazed most observers during the 1980′s.
Mr. McConnell, perhaps there is another way we may not want to follow the South African model, that is what was asked for and received, and the aftermath. I can appreciate the fact of the World Cup being hosted there next year, but what a lot of people do not seem to understand is what is currently taking place in South Africa.
It is primarily due to what was settled for, civil rights instead of total liberation. So the bulk of the money and property still resides in the same hands that had it before the demise of Apartheid. There are some that have it better, but it is a thin veneer of management class, and their small group of underlings. The rest languish in poverty and joblessness, and an abandonment on the streets that is absolutely appalling. I did not expect you to know this, but it may be endemic in what the Palestinians receive if they follow the model exactly of South Africa.
THE FOURTH WORLD WAR
Go about 27 minutes into the video, and you will get a grasp of what I am talking about in South Africa. It has not gotten any better since the making of this documentary, in fact, it has gotten worse.
Perhaps you can read between the lines Mr. McConnell, look at these hospitals, and understand that this is perhaps one area among many, that do not even have this. I think you might get the impact of what I am saying –
THE HOSPITAL
Thanks for responding Scott.
Scott, you and Phil are doing the right thing, neo-conservatism, and even, although I never would have thought the day would come, accusing the Clintons of murders is losing it’s cachet. It’s time to move on.
But don’t expect the same kind of lavish funding and opportunities in this field that agitating for attacks on innocent countries or talking up the Red Menace to make sure labor unions go to an early grave.
But, one of the blessings of being a writer, especially on politics and stuff, is that people forget what you say faster, almost as if it was written down somewhere, and nobody expects you to be burdened with the hobgoblin of small minds.
One more comment:
The Palestinian BDS call explicitly distanced itself from the very distinction you’re proposing between working toward a ’2-state solution’ and working toward ’1-person 1-vote.’ The focus is on an end to the occupation, international law, and equality for all.
I agree with your views…somehow Apartheid in South Africa was successfully addressed maybe due to -two colors, one spirit; as against Palestine conflict – one color two spirits! this makes partition necessary.
You might want to ask the Sephardi and the Mizrahi if the Ashkenazi actually consider them “one color.” Or how about the Ethiopian Jews?
Let’s see, the S African analogy doesn’t work… How about the analogy the Likkud regime always uses, the appeasement of Hitler–only in reverse? Since when did any political
movement ever pause because an historical analogy was not on all four legs?
Shabbat in Jerusalem
israel and south africa from the recent past are the same in this respect :
they are both founded on racism….. of that one can’t deny…
If there was a Palestinian Mandela, he would be quickly “target assassinated”. That much is certain. Only a compliant leadership like Abbas can be tolerated.
clearly he would be a terrorist in the eyes of israel and us…. that is how this game works….
Why not just judge Israel as it is? Does there have to be an analogy? And how is reverting to the pre-67 borders justice for Palestinians? I’m all for Palestinians reveiving justice, but when do Americans get justice? McConnell notes the networks inside America that tie the nation to Israel as if they are natural, excusable and harmless to Americans. I disagree.
I don’t see McConnell claiming the lobby is harmless or excusable, only powerful.
He doesn’t make the claim, but he glossed over the harm that the networks do to the U.S. as if it’s not important. The Palestinians aren’t the only people who can rightfully despise these people.
When we talk about the Palestinian people, we also gloss over those Jewish victims of Israel.
All theocracies oppress the other as well as demand conformity of the chosen. All Jews are required to give up some personal freedom and identification and hence also become victims of Israel.
I think we choose our topics based on importance. There is no way the average citizen in the US is as oppressed by US actions in Palestine as the average Palestinian is.
“There is no way the average citizen in the US is as oppressed by US actions in Palestine as the average Palestinian is”
Oh, Edwin, you must be new around here, but I’ve seen you at JSF, I think? So let me get you up to speed at Mondoweiss. Around here, our anti-Zionism is based on the basis that the Zionists, along with American Jews, are degrading and controlling our American “culture”, and using Zionism to acquire a power base in America. You know, part of the world-wide Jewish plot. I used to call this stuff, anti-Semitism, but now I know better.
Look, Americans aren’t gonna do a goddamn thing for the Palestinians if the aren’t willing to do anything for the Iraqis, and that seems to go on and on. Now, we maybe could make some progress if people can be made more afraid of the Jews and their power and influence.
Cause if you go with the Palestinians, you got two big jobs, first, you got to overcome Islamophobia, and only then can you get to the Hasbara.
Much easier to not bother with the Islamophobia, which people really enjoy and instead, try and graft some of the same attributes of the world-wide Muslim plot (such as it is) on to the Jews! Voila
You want to get anything done, you got to give the people what they want.
There is another factor in israel that certainly distinguishes it from the SA situation and is likely to affect any future scenario – whether for the worse or better remains to be seen. I refer (again) to the rapid rise of the proportion of the religious, be they ultra-orthodox or religious nationalist. There is a huge animosity – I’d say outright hostility – between the religious segment (that essentially wants an Israel ruled by Halachic “law”) and the secular population. The polls I have seen recently predict that nearly 40-45% of jewish elementary school children in 10 years will belong to that segment and there’s nothing on the horizon that’d change the obvious calculus. The children of the super-observant – be they mizrahi or ashkenazi or israeli grown – are raised in complete segregation from their non religious counterparts – they do not mix socially or politically. They rarely intermarry. The educational programs they follow are vastly different. The only attribute they share is perhaps that special brand of israeli arrogance mixed with exceptionalist paranoia. In other words, they share a collective psychosis.
To give you all an example: for all the years I spent growing up in Israel among the secular, I never once met a religious Jew and to this day I have absolutely no clue what their lives are like, what motivates them, or why would I ever want to consider them as having anything at all in common with me, other than the fact we are both sentient bipeds. The same negative feelings were – and are still true of most other europeans and/or sabras raised secular, whose brand of judaism is more like an extreme form of nationalism, bolstered by cherry picked supposedly common bits of history. Unsurprisingly, the haredi and ultra-orthodox (chabad included) brand of judaism to me feels not only alien but also violent – and aggressive – as I know all too well that ultimately they seek to impose their will on those “other” jews who do not share their beliefs (at least they are prepared to leave the goys alone. we won’t go into the reasons why). Like something out of the darkest of the middle ages – or even further back – a throw-back to days when shamans, witch doctors and wanna-be gurus with way too much facial hair and pointlessly elaborate clothing cast their spells and sang their incantations to the davening masses. Frankly, I feel much more empathy with the Amish who at least preach what they practice and seek not to impose their views on anyone. And to the best of my knowledge, contempt coupled with revulsion is how most secular israelis feel about the ultra religious in their midst. Except that living in a situation where they feel hemmed in from all sides, the feelings of enmity are far greater probably than mine ever were or are. And it goes both ways. As demographic trends accelerate, many of the secular start looking outside the country even more than they are already. The emigration (reverse aliyah) is in full force now, arrested somewhat only by the world recession.
The point is that – as people above said – the situation is unstable – but it is a mistake to ignore the different levels which contribute to the instability. It is possible that the exasperation with the encroachment of Taliban-like religious communes into the heart of Israel, there just may be a reverse trend where secular israelis may start viewing the palestinians as the lesser of two evils. In other words, they some may choose an alliance with similarly minded, mostly secularized palestinians, both in and beyond the green line to confront the more threatening demographic dominance of the ultra-religious within their own ranks. Would it be enough to de-segregate? and would such confluence happen in time to prevent the coming blow up? that’s anyone’s guess. But when making comparisons to south africa, it’s good to bear in mind the religious demographics as one more radically different aspect between the two situations, likely to play a major role in any scenario.
PS I guess I let my prejudices show. That’s brain washing for you – can never quite shake it off.
PPS Witty – this little missive was not for your eyes – too raw for your delicate sensibilities. Please skip.
I think it was Bernard Avishai speaking at the J Street conference who discussed the “Judeans” as “the real demographic problem.” I don’t remember his words exactly. Is that an emerging national brand among religious settlers in Jerusalem and the West Bank? I do remember Avishai wondering how many Israelis are going to fight the Judeans for the sake of the Palestinians should there be effort to dismantle the settlements.
The other alternative is to incorporate the/some settlements into political Palestine, with the settlers having the option to move to political Israel, or to remain in political Palestine and abide by Palestinian law.
Ali, I believe what Avishai was refering to are members of the nationalist religious zealots, like the the Hebron settlers and ” hill youth”. He – along with many other israelis – see them kind of israel’s unique version of “brown shirts” At least they act that way. Many in israel would even say that one good reason to keep the west bank is so that the “crazies” can expand there -and stay away from Tel Aviv. Unfortunately, that comes at the palestinians’ expense, but they are considered expandable, as we know.
The segment I referred to is actually larger, encompassing the anti-zionist haredi, the ultra- orthodox mizrahi and the american-spawned nationalist zealots. They don’t all share the same values and practices, other than commitment to religious orthodoxy, bible waving (OK, talmud for some – not ALL!) and very large families. It’s not all one cult, but they are all cult-like – much as radical islamists are. Some are more into physical jihad than others, that’s all. Problem is, their numbers are ngrowing by leaps and bounds, straining social services not to mention anything resembling national consensus.
Oops…I meant “expendable”, of course, not the reverse…bad typo day (not confessing to real spelling errors…no way)
“He – along with many other israelis – see them kind of israel’s unique version of “brown shirts” At least they act that way”
What incredible horseshit! The settlers have the support of the Army, don’t they? And at least tacit support from the Israeli Government. They certainly don’t interfere with them getting funds raised in America!
Look, there are hundreds of millions of Americans, but only a few real heroes who volunteer for the Marines, Special Forces, etc. But could any of those exist without full suppoprt of the US? Same shit, but with only a fraction of the honesty.
“To give you all an example: for all the years I spent growing up in Israel among the secular, I never once met a religious Jew and to this day I have absolutely no clue what their lives are like, what motivates them, or why would I ever want to consider them as having anything at all in common with me, other than the fact we are both sentient bipeds. ”
And, even not knowing them, you are content to condemn them as participating in a collective psychosis.
I know a growing number of Chabad chasids, some more humane than the most progressive, and some more bigoted. Your generalization of them is misrepresentative.
Now, I did warn you to skip my comment, didn’t I?
And I did too assume that the chasids share the same homo sapiens strand as myself…
My point was that when you grow up in a place like israel, you are raised into prejudice That on so many levels that I couldn’t even begin to count them all, and pointed out just one area. Unlike America, israeli society is profoundly segregated internally. It’s like the entire population is broken up into tiny little cliques that hate each other viscerally. And do they ever voice their disdain at the other cliques……constantly. No wonder most say they don’t hate arabs – there’s probably truth to it as they have to contend with so many other little hatreds (OK, except for their original army unit comerades they served with. Them they love….deeply…and sentimentally …. which is where my analogy with sparta comes from in case you wonder).
BTW, I am not surprised you find diversity and redeeming values among the chabad chasids. I probably would have too had I grown up in this country, just as I do in any other group of people. The difference is simple: the american chabad are not seeking to impose their way of life on you, as part of a collective. From what I hear, the chabad of israel are not the worst of the lot, either. Some are among the anti-zionists who do not recognize the israeli enterprise since it was not brought about by god. Others, of course, are rabid zealots, of the kind you wouldn’t want to run into in a dark alley. As I said above, there’s something in the air over there that causes people to break into querelous cliques that despise each other. Hence my suggestion (made with 25% confidence) that it is quite possible to imagine a future in which some seculars will come to prefer palestinians over their “own” more fanatic members.
” know a growing number of Chabad chasids, some more humane than the most progressive, and some more bigoted.”
Sure Richard, and if you can find 100 good men….
Remember what happened in that story, Richard?
Learn to reason like Jew, would you? So now not only is each Jew an individual moral entity with no responsibility to anyone else, the actions of those who appear good or humane to you excuse the actions, the factual facts on the ground, of the rest.
Yup, that’s the kind of close moral reasoning which got us Jews where we are today!
Here – check this out for kicks:
link to haaretz.com
Pingback: Abunimah: All the king’s horses can’t restore legitimacy to partition
Pingback: But Israel doesn’t want a two-state-solution
Jeez, a bunch of washed up righties re-inventing themselves as anti-Zionists, I never thought I would live to see the day! What a country, America.
One day they’re nosing around for the boys the Clinton’s killed and warning Africans about that awful Emma Goldman and the next thing you know they are calling out the Israeli settlements!
It makes me dizzy!
Mooser November 18, 2009 at 12:26 pm
“Oh, Edwin, you must be new around here, but I’ve seen you at JSF, I think? So let me get you up to speed at Mondoweiss. Around here, our anti-Zionism is based on the basis that the Zionists, along with American Jews, are degrading and controlling our American “culture”, and using Zionism to acquire a power base in America. You know, part of the world-wide Jewish plot. I used to call this stuff, anti-Semitism, but now I know better.”
The unnumbered part of your Hasbara list is that Jews are powerless, and do not participate in ethnic politics. What do you make of McConnell’s stats? For some reason, he didn’t give a number for Jews in making a comparison. I guess he figures that the numbers are too obvious to mention.
“For a straightforward comparison, consider these statistics:
Number of ethnically Afrikaaner billionaires in the United States in 1985: Zero
Number of ethnically Afrikaaner US senators: Zero
Number of major American newspapers owned by ethnic Afrikaaners: Zero
Number of American television networks founded by an ethnic Afrikaaner: Zero
Number of ethnic Afrikaaners who are chief executives of major media enterprise: Zero
Number of ethnic Afrikaaners who were editor in chief of major American publishing houses: Zero
Number of ethnic Afrikaaners who held tenured positions in history, sociology, or political science at Ivy league universities: Zero”
Ahem…. See Also: Jack Abramoff, International Freedom Foundation (the United States was not hostile to apartheid South Africa until supporting that regime became unprofitable. Because of, among other things, the boycott)