Within South Africa at the time, there was opposition to the movement to isolate South Africa through this same process of boycotting, divestment, and sanctions, making that nation a pariah of sorts. Whites, particularly Afrikaners, were obviously opposed, although anti-apartheid activists, most notably Bishop Desmond Tutu, strongly advocated the strictest adherence to efforts to isolate South Africa economically and culturally, until real changes were made.
Of course, there was opposition to economic and social punishment of South Africa, most notably with Britain's Margaret Thatcher and America's Ronald Reagan, who wanted to lift the economic sanctions and replace it with what was called "constructive engagement."
Anti-apartheid leaders railed against these leaders and countries, essentially saying that they were empowering the white minority government to continue practicing and strengthening the strict legal and social racial caste system in that country. Eventually, the American Congress did pass sanctions that were soon placed on South Africa, against President Reagan's wishes.
The sanctions worked on some level, and they did not on another. However, South Africa was able to benefit from the economic trade with wealthy countries like the United States, France, Germany, and United Kingdom and, perhaps unofficially it's closest ally towards the end, Israel.
Regionally, South Africa was a super power. It was far and away wealthier, more influential and far more powerful than any other nation in the region and, indeed, on the African continent. It had, far and away, the best infrastructure of any country on the African continent, as well as the largest cities and the best ports. Other neighboring countries needed to access these, which meant that on some level, they were at the mercy of apartheid South Africa, which was certainly a factor in allowing the racial policies of apartheid to last as long as they did on a predominately black continent.
It was not only South Africa's internal system of apartheid that many found offensive, but the illegal holding of South West Africa, the nation now known as Namibia, that offended many and galvanized the movement towards action to force South Africa's hand.
Nelson Mandela, in his inaugural address when he finally replaced the white minority government there, suggested that South Africa had suffered the indignity of being the skunk of the world. Finally, this negative distinction was eliminated with the victory of the ANC into government, with Mandela serving as the leader of that government, and the iconic face of a newly liberated South Africa, which now pursued policies to eradicate all remaining vestiges of apartheid in order to become the celebrated "Rainbow Nation."
All of this relating to South Africa decades ago now brings us to the discussion on the situation in modern day Israel.
Of course, many Israelis, as well as staunch supporters of Israel, will argue that it is a different situation entirely. Indeed, there is an argument to be made that the situation is different, and that perhaps we cannot make fair comparisons to the situation that existed in South Africa not that long ago.
Yet, there are similarities there, too. And these similarities, frankly, are rather striking.
Israel has broken numerous United Nations resolutions - 77 of them, to be exact. Similarly to South Africa, it has asserted itself forcefully and invaded neighboring nations - sovereign nations, including Lebanon and Egypt.
At this point, it should be noted that here is one of the important distinctions between South Africa and Israel. No country ever tried to invade South Africa, and likely, no nation ever would have. Again, it was the regional super power on the African continent - particularly the southern half of Africa. Whatever changes the people of the surrounding nations wished they could see, nobody was advocating the destruction of the South African nation, or even the killing or forced removal of the whites there. All that was desired was change. Specifically, and end to the state approved and state enforced racial caste system.
By contrast, Israel is surrounded by nations and peoples that are vehemently hostile to it, and who have stated, on numerous occasions, the desire to destroy Israel as a nation. According to a great many people in the region, Israel has no right to exist, and Israelis need to leave. While there were certainly blacks who would have liked for the whites of South Africa to simply disappear, most blacks in South Africa wanted a multiracial democracy where they could live in peace with the whites, in what is now called the "Rainbow Nation." In Israel, however, that is not the case, at least not as clear cut as that.
That, to me, is the single greatest difference between the situation in apartheid South Africa back then, and the situation in Israel as it stands today. And since Israel has been the object of attack from militants both in Lebanon and in Israel, that greatly alters the argument. It also complicates matters greatly, because it essentially suggests that there are no truly innocent parties on either side. Unlike in South Africa, where the predominately nonviolent opposition to apartheid was largely blameless (even when they launched bombings, it was designed not to take human lives, but rather to hurt the South African regime in the wallet), the opposition to militant Israeli dominance in the region have been hardly nonviolent, and in fact, have been guilty of war crimes, most likely.
Another huge difference between the situation in Israel today versus that of South Africa years ago was in the response outside of the country. While there Thatcher and Reagan favored a policy known as "constructive engagement" that many felt amounted to support for Pretoria during the days of apartheid, nobody would have proclaimed support for apartheid's survival, either for the short-term or long-term. It would have been largely unthinkable for there to have been a show of support for the white minority government of apartheid South Africa, but such is not the case for Israeli governments that favor settlement and even segregation in the occupied territories. In fact, there is a huge lobbying force within the United States that actively tries to force opponents of Israeli settlements out, and which tries to discredit intellectuals who stand opposed to settler activities and pro-settler policies in Israel today.
Yet, there are similarities between the situation in Israel and South Africa cannot be discounted, either. There is prevalent and enforced segregation in the country, both legal and social, that persist. Nor is it restricted to Arab versus Jew. There is sexual segregation that is sometimes compared to that which exists in Arabic countries. And, of course, there is the strict segregation that exists between Arabs and Jews, and nowhere is this more evident than in the so-called "Occupied Territories." Israel has a very powerful military force, and the controversy of the methods employed to police "the other" group, be it for racial or religious motivations, has nevertheless garnered significant controversy the world over. China is a growing power in the world, and it recently demanded there be no workers in occupied areas for agreed upon work between the two countries to be conducted. Israel denied that this was motivated by the growing BDS movement against Israel, but can we really be certain that it has nothing to do with it?
And still, Israel still has, and likely long will have strong allies. In America, Israel supporters have created a very strong lobbying force, making it very difficult, nary impossible, for a major political candidate in national office to be opposed to Israel's policies. In France, there remains skepticism towards the BDS movement. Other countries still express strong support for Israel, even when much of their population is highly critical of Israeli policies towards Palestinians.
Ultimately, it is a very complicated matter, with literally not just hundreds, but thousands of years of history. There is segregation and oppression, but arguments - legitimate ones - can suggest that this was in response to aggression towards Israel. More recent attacks and serious threats by neighboring nations have served as reminders that those who some dismiss as oppressors actually do face serious threats to their very existence. The means employed to try and produce safety and stability within the country might be ugly, but it does still exist, and that despite numerous threats. From that vantage point, what incentive is there to tear down the wall, literally and figuratively?
Such a complicated situation. In South Africa, the situation seemed much more cut and dry. I remember it well myself, as I paid attention to the situation and, to the extent possible, got involved by staying informed and going to see Mandela when he came to visit America for the first time. There was one side that was right, and one side that was wrong. But in Israel, it is much harder to differentiate between who is right, and who is wrong. Both sides claim that they are in the right, yet both sides are guilty of so much wrong, which muddies the waters considerably.
All of that leads to the impression by many that these issues will just drag on, and that there is not likely to be any resolution anytime soon.
Although, the BDS movement might change that. It is applying pressure upon Israel, really for the first time. It will be interesting to see how this situation might change once it actually begins to hit Israelis in the wallet, as well as their reputation around the world.
Why boycott Israel campaign may be gaining traction by Dan Perry, Associated Press JUNE 6, 2015
France criticizes growing movement to boycott Israel Associated Press June 5, 2015:
Orange's pullout from Israel gives lift to boycott movement by Josef Federman, Associated Press June 4, 2015:
Israel says China demands no workers in settlements AFP June 8, 2015:
No comments:
Post a Comment