Day of Shame for Constitution Hill

Wits University Press and Constitution Hill will be holding a panel debate next week entitled "Is a South African-type common society feasible, inevitable or preferable to a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine?"

Wits University Press and Constitution Hill invite you to an interactive panel debate around the recently released book, Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking between Israelis and Palestinians by Heribert Adam and Kogila Moodley, co-published by Wits University Press and Temple University Press, USA. The debate focuses on controversial analogies between two disparate situations, asking what can be learned from South Africa's negotiated revolution for peacemaking in divided societies. The debate will be chaired by Denis Beckett, author and journalist.

It's a worthy debate which I would encourage IF there was a fair, balanced and representative panel. But the panel will be neither fair nor balanced. The Constitutional Hill is supposed to capture the essence of all that is good about the new South Africa. But on February 2 it will play host to a biased, prejudiced debate whose conclusion (that a single binational state should replace teh Jewish state) is known before the debating even begins.

One would expect the panel to represent all views around this topic. There should be pro-Israel views defending Israel's right to exists as a Jewish state coupled with anti-Israel views calling for a single state solution. But this is not what we will get.

But let’s take a look at the panel. We have two groups of people participating on the panel – the authors of the book and a group of independants.

In the first group we have the writers of the book "Seeking Mandela" – around which the debate will take place. (Mike has almost finished reading it and can provide more insight for us.) A Cape Times review of the book described it as a balanced and fair-minded account of the Middle East. The Cape Times says that the writers conclude that a two state solution is an appropriate way to move the conflict forward - i.e. it’s an interim solution until both peoples discover their common interests and trust each other sufficiently to coexist to their mutual benefit.

So this group, whilst advocating a two state solution, do not believe that this should entail a final end of conflict agreement – as the roadmap stipulates. Rather, not unlike many Palestinians, they see it as an interim solution that will eventually bring about a single state solution.

Now for the second group of “ndependents. Its not so much the names of the 3 people in this group that sends an icy chill down my spine so much as the absence of any voice that will defend Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.

First up we have Na'eem Jenna –Na'eem is a lecturer at the Wits Political Studies department who specialise in Islam and Islamic studies. The invite neglects to mention his close ties with the notorious Media Review Network and the Palestine Solidarity Committee. At a lecture I attended at Wits University commemorating the Palestinian Nakba Jenna openly supported a one state solution.

Next up we have the not-so-lovely Virginia Tilley – Advocate of a one-state solution and author of a book called - The One-State Solution: A Breakthrough for Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Deadlock.

Finally, we have the token Jew, Stephen Friedman - Friedman is a South African freelance journalist who has repeatedly called for a one state solution and written about Israel being an Apartheid state.

So there you have it. The discussion of "Is a South African-type common society feasible, inevitable or preferable to a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine?" will take place between a group of people who believe it’s a necessary interim solution before the one-state solution can be achieved and a group of three Palestinian advocates who are notorious (or renowned) for their anti-Israel invective.

All three have repeatedly called Israel an apartheid state and all support a single state solution – a solution which is merely a euphemism for the destruction of Israel by demographic subversion.

Is that what Wits Press and Constitution Hill regard as a fair debate?

To debate is to engage in argument by discussing opposing points. Wits Press and the Constitutional Hill are not fulfilling this requirement.

They are not encouraging debate – they are impeding it. They are not encouraging a lateral type of problem solving thinking – they are force feeding intolerance and prejudice.

I call for them to either change the panel to make it more representative or to make it clear that this will not be a debate – rather it will be a Palestinian Propaganda Peddling Promotion.

The rest of the details for the "debate" -

Date: Thursday, 2 February 2006 Venue: Women's Jail Lekgotla Space, Women's Jail, Constitution Hill, Kotze Street, Braamfontein Secure parking in Kotze Street and at the Old Fort Time: 18h00 for 18h30 for snacks and drinks, with the debate commencing at 18h30 promptly

To attend the debate you need to RSVP to this address: Cheryl at constitutionhill dot org dot za. (You need to replace "at" with @ and "dot" with . I did it like that to prevent her from receiving spam.)

I encourage all readers and Jewish student associations such as SAUJS to write to Wits University Press and to Constitution Hill calling for a panel that will fairly represent all sides of the conflict. Without a change to the panel this debate – like the recent Palestinian elections – will become another victory for hatred.

Comments

[mike]

I couldn’t agree more with Steve’s sentiments about this ‘debate’. I have heard Steven Friedman, the token Jew, speak on numerous occasions. He is an unashamed anti-Zionist. Na'eem Jenna, as Steve pointed out, is a prominent supporters of Palestinian terrorism against innocent Israeli civilians and Virginia Tilley is certainly no Zionist. So where is the debate?

I am currently reading the book, Seeking Mandela, which is the catalyst for the ‘debate’. It has taken me over 2 months to get through 3 chapters. It is one of the most anti-Israel books I have ever read and I have read many. But surprisingly enough it seems to conclude that although evil Israel is different to Apartheid South Africa. It provides a very though comparison, looking at the economic, military, social and political situations in both conflicts. The final chapter is on a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. At this stage the authors could go either way (1 or 2 states). I wait in anticipation of how it ends.

I should point out that the authors reject the notion of an ethno-religious state in principal. They hold up post nationalist multicultural Canada as the ideal society. So I don’t expect them to put up much of a fight on behalf of the Jewish State.

Nevertheless I intend to go to the debate and find out!

[Wayne]

Is there really any point of attending or taking any interest in the debate on this basis. It seems more like a political love-fest and reaffirmation of pre-decided views.

Perhaps you both should ask the following question when they turn to the floor: "Where are the opposing viewpoints and facts in the whole debate or is the debate merely a propoganda session?"

[Steve]

Thats exactly what I intend to ask.