| http://reportersnotebook.com/newforum/indexforum.html
Israel Now, South Africa 1988....T. Friedman's Naievte March 31 2002 at 4:43 PM James S. Henry � I visited South Africa several times in the 1980s. As we think about the way forward from the current Israeli-Palestinian deadlock, it may be helpful to note the increasingly striking similarities AND contrasts between RSA then and the current situation in Israel and the occupied territories. Among the similarities: (1)in the late l980s, White South Africa also routinely called itself a "democracy," while so arranging matters that the majority of its population -- which it refused to give the vote for reasons not entirely dissimilar to those used to disenfranchise the majority of Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens -- lacked many meaningful civil and economic liberties; (2)RSA also sought refuge in the "Spartacization" of society, including the construction of a huge domestic arms industry, its own nuclear weapons, and a vast national security apparatus, with rigid controls over the press, public demonsrations, internal movements, and so forth; (3) RSA also intervened repeatedly in the affairs of its (increasingly hostile) neighbors; (4)elite opinion within white South Africa also became divided between desperate, aggressive hawks, and the (smaller) liberal/left, which favored negotiation and majority rule; (4) right up until the end in 1992-94, RSA also pursued policies that were incredibly repressive, though not quite as repressive as its Far Right demanded; ( 5)RSA also tried to implement a bizarre hodgepodge of territorial divisions -- known as as homelands -- which deprived most blacks their rights in RSA itself, and tried to force them to emigrate elsewhere. (White South Africa also argued that "It is our country...we have been here for centuries," and "there are many other black countries in Africa that you could go to...why stay here?") (6) RSA also routinely described its opponents as "terrorists," characterizing its own state-sponsored violence as purely defensive; (7) Over time, RSA's split-level "democracy" was also increasingly condemned and ostracized by almost entire global community, including the UN -- except for Israel(!); (8) Nevertheless, RSA also had its stalwart group of defenders abroad, especially in the US and the UK (including, at the time, Rep. Cheney).These advocates argued for continued US trade and even military cooperation with the apartheid regime, and viewed the alternatives to the existing RSA regime as unimaginable chaos, violence, the end of civilization as we've known it, and so forth... On the other hand, and more pessimistically, there are also at least three striking contrasts with the RSA situation: (1) Israel obviously has much more of a solid lock on US support than RSA did, partly because of the relative weakness of the Arab lobby, relative to the pro-Israel lobby; (2) the visionary leadership needed for compromise is absent on all sides -- Arafat is hardly a Mandela, Sharon is hardly a de Klerk, and Bush Jr. prefers to relax with his family in Texas and talk platitudes rather than force the warring parties to butt heads at Camp David. (3)In Israel's case, unlike RSA, there are other foreign powers, like Iraq, that may indeed pose more of an "existential" threat than the Palestinians do. The hard-line Israelis probably believe they can handle the Palestinians ad nauseum on their own without conceding any territory or the exclusivist nature of their "relig-ocracy;" meanwhile, the "Israel firsters" in the US policy establishment are preparing to give Israel a hand with this other, perhaps truly more dire, security threat...) Of course even in RSA's situation, while in retrospect a peaceful situation may have always been a possibility, those of us who remember the 1980s know that it was actually a very close thing. In Israel's case, the Saudi initiative to the contrary, there is really no reason for optimism whatsoever. For really profound change to occur, we will have to first deal with these three crucial contrasts. This is perhaps the real reason why Sr. Tom Friedman is so out of sorts -- despite these harsh realities, the fact is that for more than a decade, he has consistently overestimated the prospects for a peaceful ending to this tragic tale, most recently in his effort to pump up the Saudi peace initiative. Unfortunately much more blood will have to flow on all sides... |
