Day of Shame at Constitution Hill Part 3

For the context to this series about a biased debate organised by Wits University Press and Constitution Hill entitled "Is a South African-type common society feasible, inevitable or preferable to a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine?" , see Part 1 and then Part 2.

The “debate” that I spent much of last week complaining about took place last Thursday evening at Constitution Hill (CH). At 18:30 this transparent charade kicked off.

First up was Kogila Moodley. Kogila described the motivation her book – that there are many analogies between Apartheid SA and Israel and therefore its important to tease out the similarities and differences. She proceeded to highlight many differences and similarities between the Apartheid South Africa conflict and the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Next up was Heribert Adams, the other author of the book. I could barely believe my ears as Adams blamed the Israelis for every aspect of the conflict. For me he symbolized the European intermediaries who refuse to hold Palestinian society responsible for anything. Heribert said that the Israeli side thinks that they can smash the Palestinians into oblivion and bemoaned the “brutal Israelis who refuse to make any concessions.” Adams believes that a 2 state solution is a pragmatic short term goal but that the long term goal must be a single state common society for Jews and Arabs. He says there is a big question mark over the claim that the one state solution will be a nightmare for 95% of Jewish Israelis.

After Adams, the chair, Dennis Beckett got up and with gloating relish started an assault on those “cowardly people” who complained about the panel for this debate, those people who have a “problem with free speech”, saying that he wished they were here.

Having led the chorus of complains I stood up and presented myself to the chair.

Beckett was quite surprised to know that I was there – he obviously pre-judged me believing that I would be unruly and disruptive.

He then gave me a couple of seconds to explain my complaints. Amidst more than a couple of jeers from the audience I proceeded to explain that I was not trying to stifle their freedom of expression – but that it was perfectly legitimate to criticize a panel for a debate where there was no divergence of views between the panelists. The environment was pretty hostile. Every member of the panel believed that Israel is an apartheid state and every panelist was an ardent advocate of the one state solution. Where was the debate? Thankfully there were enough people in the audience who agreed with me (I even got a small round of applause once I was done.)

Now it was the turn of Naeem Jenna, Virginia Tilley and Stephen Friedman to have their say. I’m not going to relay what they said – it was the typical anti-Israel arguments that we so often hear from these 3 individuals. Just know that the Palestinian propaganda machine was in full throttle, peddling lies and distorting reality.

When Stephen Friedman spoke he started by attacking me personally, laying responsibility for all complaints on me. He said that the criticism personally attacked the lovely Virginia Tilley. It sounded like he was actually sobbing. I replied, explaining that my complaints were not hostile at all; they were very polite and to the point. If someone sent an email that attacked Tilley personally how dare he suggest that it was me when he doesn’t even know my name?

After the 3 Palestinian stringers had finished the debate opened up to the floor and my earlier outburst paid off because the chair gave me first response. He invited me to address the audience from the front where the panel was sitting. I declined. I said that I don’t want to give the debate legitimacy by bringing parity. I said that if he wanted a Zionist opinion then they should have thought of that before-hand. I spoke from the floor, just like every other person on the audience could.

I started by again stating my issue with the panel. It was unfair that there was no-one on the panel to challenge all the one-sided opinions that we had just heard.

I challenged Na’eems comparison of Israel with Apartheid. I also challenged Adam’s criticism of Israel policy about an ending to violence being a precondition for negotiations. He said that the ruling whites in South Africa did not demand and end to violence as a precondition for negotiations to begin and so it should be with Israel.

I pointed out that the violence in the two conflicts was different. In South Africa, when the ANC took up their armed struggle in 1961 they based it on the principle of not targeting civilians; rather they would target property and military targets. The Palestinians in contrast, have unashamedly targeted Israeli civilians and have convinced Israelis that they are trying to drive them into the sea. This has made it difficult for Israelis to trust the Palestinians.

Furthermore, Adams was misleading as Israel had already attempted his suggestion. During Oslo Israel did not make an end to violence a precondition for negotiations. A year into Olso and the number of terror attacks has reach unprecedented levels, yet Peres and Rabin pressed on with the negotiations.

Naeem Jenna argued that the ANC did actually target white civilians – it was a myth that they targeted only property and military targets. As an example he mentioned the 1983 bombing in Pretoria.

I challenged Jeena on this point. I said that he has selected the most devastating ANC bombing and used it to generalize all ANC violence. Furthermore the ANC subsequently apologized for the bombing saying that it went off prematurely. Have Palestinian terrorists ever apologized for a suicide bomb claiming that it went off prematurely?

There were some other people in the audience who spoke out in defense of Israel. Mike was there and he challenged Virginia Tilley. Tilley spoke about the problem with ethno-religion states. She said that there is no place in today’s world for such states. As an example she mentioned France and Britain! Mike pointed out that she failed to criticize the 52 Islamic ethno-religious states today. He asked where the one state debate on India and Pakistan is. Does Pakistan have a right to be an independent ethno-religious state?

In an amazing display of unfathomable arrogance Tilley responded “That debate is the one down the road!”  Amazing – she actually claimed that there are forums discussing the question of a one state solution for the Pakistan India conflict!. 

And so it was that another bout of anti-Israel propaganda came to a close. But this time the organizers were at least challenged. Perhaps they will think twice before organizing such a biased event again. (Ya, sure!)

Once again, thank you to everyone who sent polite emails of complaint to Wits University Press and Constitution Hill.

Comments

[Derikboy]

I like this a lot, and I'm glad you're getting your public speaking thing sorted! Stand up and challenge these things!

I guarantee you this, had you not stood up and spoke, there wouldn't have been half the Israeli support in the room. People like to follow other people's lead, I'm sure there were a lot of people who were dying to say something but too scared to talk out of fear. That you stood up and showed them it's alright, was I'm sure the cause of a lot of people coming out of their shells!

Good work!

[Vaz Lube]

Excellent Steve.

I wonder if West Bank would remain with Gaza as one entity? Would they break off and go as own like East Pakistan broke off and became Bangladesh? Thus we could end up with three states instead of two or those idiots' ideal of one state.

How can those one state advocates tell us how everyone can live in peace in this case?

[Steve]

What amazes me Vaz is when they say that the palestinian state cant work they place responsibility of Israel to deal with the problems.

In their eyes it is Israel that must expand its borders to swallow up a hostile population.

The argument of making Jordan take the WB and Egypt take Gaza never even crosses their minds. It makes more sense though as there are cultural, religious and language similarities.

Also when they say it cant work they ussually speak about the fact that the economy is in tatters. But surely the Arab and western world can save this by giving them huge cash to kickstart their economy?

[James Clark]

Great stuff, Steve.

The 'debate' sounds like it was very one-sided, but at least you and Mike were there to help clear some things up. ;)

[Jonathan Edelstein]

Hi Steve,

It seems from your summary that Kogila Moodley was at least willing to acknowledge the differences between the two conflicts. Can you elaborate on the differences and similarities she pointed out?

[Gav]

Absolutely excellent. Good Job mate!

[mike]

Most of their book, which I have now finished reading and will blog about soon, is dedicated to comparing Apartheid South Africa and ‘Israel/Palestine’(I hate that construction why not Israel and Palestine). They look at 6 aspects. The economy is one area. They find that while Apartheid South Africa needed black labour, Israel is not really dependent on the Palestinians. It is more that the Palestinians are dependent on Israel for economic livelihood. Another aspect considered is the violent nature of the conflict. The ANC by and large did not target civilians while the Palestinians do. The also consider the fact that Israel has a supportive Diaspora, Apartheid South Africa was much more internationally isolated. Although the show that there are numerous similarities between the 2 conflicts, the paint Israel in an extremely negative light. At times worse than Apartheid. Different doesn’t equal better. But will blog about it properly some time this week.

[Steve]

Sure thing Jonathan.

She spoke about similarities and differences.
She said
1. Whites depended on blacks for labour. That interdependance limited the brutality. Israelis dont depend on the Palestinians for labour (or at least they are trying not to) and so there hasnt been anything to curb the israeli brutality.
2. Leadershrip - SA had a cohesive legitimate party controlling the resistance - the ANC.
3.Violence: ANC had an official policy against indiscriminate attacks. they grew from an ideology of non violent resistance. for 50 yrs before sharpeville they were committed to non violent ghandi style resistance. the palestinians have not grown from that ideology. (Actually, this is more a point of my own than hers. she just said that they were committed to non violence but didnt mention the 50 yrs before sharpeville.)
4. Political contact: there was much closer contact between blacks and whites in SA than there is between Palestinians and Jews.

there were i think two more points which i cant quite remember. perhaps Mike will remember and add to this.

as i said, she wasnt bad. she was fairly balanced and was the only speaker that didnt exceed her time limit.

The book is called "http://www.kalahari.net/HOME/product.asp?toolbar=none&sku=28160528&format=detail">Seeking Mandela and you can buy a copy from Kalahari.net or amazon.

[Steve]

Seems Mike and I replied at the exact same time...

sorry about that link...its called seeking mandela. a search on kalahari.net or amazon.com will find it.

[Katherine]

well done to the both of you!

[pupkarik]

xdvdsfvd fdgsd
fdsaiuwa dfgdsgfs