Seeking Mandela

I did promise that once I had finished reading Heribert Adams and Kogila Moodley’s new book Seeking Mandela I would blog about it. Many of our readers will remember that this book was the catalyst for last months ‘debate’ on the one state solution at Constitutional Hill.

I actually finished reading this book weeks ago but have at every opportunity put off writing this review. Why you ask? Well quite honestly I don’t know where to begin. This book is such a jumble of confused information and misinformation that I don’t know how to succinctly make sense of it.

I have decided to begin at the beginning with the title – “Seeking Mandela”. This title implies that the authors adopt the school of thought that strong leaders are the major forced behind political progress. Well they make it extremely clear in their introduction chapter and through out the book that they do not. They believe that even in South Africa, Madiba magic was only a small part of the key to a peaceful end to apartheid. But hey, Seeking Mandela is catchy so they stuck with it. This need of the authors to obfuscate their true views in order to appease readers is a constant flaw throughout almost every chapter of the book.

In essence the book attempts to answer the question “is Israel an Apartheid state?” The authors looked at 6 aspects (Economic Interdependence, Religion, Third-party Intervention, Leadership, Political culture and Violence) in order to find an answer. In almost every aspect considered they found immense discrepancies between Apartheid South African and Zionist Israel.

Economic Interdependence
While Apartheid South Africa was extremely dependent on Black labour, Israel does not require many Palestinian workers. In fact it is the Palestinian economy that is dependent on Israel providing Palestinians with jobs. The need for Black labour forced Whites in South Africa to negotiate with Black unions. In Israel/Palestine (hate that construction but they use it) no such situation exists.

Religion
Christianity was a unifying factor in South Africa. In the Middle East Judaism and Islam compete for sovereignty (for example in Jerusalem).

Third Party Intervention
South Africa ended Apartheid without direct third party intervention in the negotiating process. Israeli/Palestinian negotiations have always taken place as a direct result of American pressure. There is no disputing how intricately involved the Clinton administration was for example in the Oslo process.

Leadership
While de Klerk and Mandela both had widespread support for making compromises, Israeli and Palestinian politics are more fragmented. The Israeli premiership changed 4 times during the Oslo process and Hamas always threatened Fatah rule through its military strength.

Political Culture
Whites and Blacks had every day contact during Apartheid. Whites understood that they had little to fear. In fact Whites trusted Black nannies to even look after their children. Israelis and Palestinians in contrast have limited contact and fear pervades much of their attitudes of each other.

In South Africa there was a clear distinction between who were the oppressed and who were the oppressors. In the Middle East both Israelis and Palestinians view themselves as victims. The moral revulsion that most Whites felt for Apartheid does not exist amongst Israeli Jews for Zionism.

Violence
The ANC’s armed struggle was most characterised by sabotage of infrastructure and attacks on military targets. Palestinian armed groups deliberately target civilians while Israel often assassinates Palestinian civilian leaders.

So what would you conclude from that analysis? I say it’s pretty clear that Israel/Palestine is very different to Apartheid South Africa. But no. After going through ten’s of pages painstakingly highlighting the differences, the authors remark that the stark similarities between the two situations particularly the Bantuisation of the Palestinian territories makes the Apartheid analogy seem reasonable.

The final part of the book is dedicated to finding a solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict. And once again inconsistency after inconsistency. The authors claim that neither solution (the one state or the two state) is morally superior. But, they launch into a diatribe condemning the notion of an ethno-religious state particularly a Jewish one. That horrible “A” word, anachronism, is all over the place. But just when you think that they are going to jump into the one state camp—they endorse a two state solution arguing that one state isn’t practical. Then they back track and argue that the 2 state solution will be a stepping stone to eventual post nationalist one state solution bliss from the Jordan river all the way to the Mediterranean sea. Who can keep up with all the zigzagging?

Contradictions aside, this was an extremely difficult book for me to read. While highlighting many differences between Israel/Zionism and South Africa/Apartheid it is extremely critical of the Jewish state (even its right to exist). The Authors seem to live in a parallel universe where the Muslim Judicial Council is moderate and Ronnie Kasrils is a Jewish peace activist. The Holocaust is their only possible justification for ‘Zionist colonialism’. But even then the authors question whether the fact that Jews had nowhere else to go gave them the right ‘to expel the Palestinian people from their ancient homeland’. Seeking sanity rather than Mandela would perhaps have been a more apt title.

This book is certainly not on my recommended reading list. I wouldn’t wish the sleepless nights this book has caused me on anyone. However, the book did challenge me to question my own positions particularly on the morality of ethno-religious states. Does, for example, the concept of a Jewish State mean that non-Jews living in that state are by definition secondly class if not non-citizens? I hope in the coming weeks, time willing, to post my defence of this controversial idea of a Jewish and democratic state.

Comments

[runes of magic gold]

class if not non-citizens? I hope in the coming weeks, time willing, to post my defence of this controversial idea of a Jewish and democratic state.