People fearful of the effects of the Hamas victory in Palestine might like to go back and do some serious study of the whole transition in South Africa… From a situation of harsh inter-group conflict, extreme fearfulfulness among all groups, and armed violence that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands– perhaps millions– of Black Africans in and especially beyond the borders of South Africa, as well as of some (low) thousands, or possibly even only hundreds of White South Africans… from there, to a situation of inter-group peace and basic civility within just four years.
How did that transformation happen? That is precisely what I am writing about these days…
One first point. It was not— as so many in the west like to believe– just a question of having one single, transcendentally wise and forgiving Black leader, Nelson Mandela.
Yes, sure, Mandela is transcendentally wise, forgiving, etc. But he was politically effective– and could “deliver” on the promises the ANC leadership made through him (and later, the ones that he made on behalf of the whole ANC)– only because he was a committed and disciplined member of what was by then an extremely committed and disciplined political organization, the ANC. (Look at the stark difference between Fateh and Hamas in these respects.)
Also, the Afrikaners’ Prime Minister Frederik W. de Klerk was no small factor. He too had immense political smarts, and was able to bring the vast majority of the Afrikaner community around behind his extremely controversial– even, for a long time, quite unthinkable!– peace policy.
Remember all those long years when the apartheid government in South Africa used the scare-discourse of “terrorism” to try to isolate and marginalize the ANC. Why, they practically invented the whole scare-discourse of terrorism! “Can’t talk with the ‘terrs'” they used to say… and things a whole lot worse than that about them. “Terrs”– yes, that was what they routinely called the ANC.
Guess what? They ended up talking to them. Even at a time when white people in their cities were still being killed by the ANC’s military units.
So, things changed. De Klerk and his National Party discovered they could “do business” with the ANC. And vice versa. Why, the NP even discovered they could “do business” with the Pan Africanist Congress, whose slogan was still “One settler, one bullet!”
Later, after that first, historic democratic election in South Africa in 1994, the nation’s security forces were transformed. Mandela’s first Minister of Defense was Joe Modise, a former general in the ANC’s military wing. The apartheid-era officers had all been kept on in the army. Now, they found themselves reporting to Modise. Imagine that!
Actually, if you read these two really informative studies of the post-1994 transformation of the military in South Africa– here and here— you can read how the new force was made up… At the beginning it had in it 90,000 members of the old SA armed forces, 11,000 members of the old “Bantustan” defense forces, 29,000 members of the ANC’s military wing, and 6,000 members of the PAC’s military wing.
Imagine trying to make a single force out of all those previously antagonistic units.
They did it. Thank G-d they did it!
… Right now, no-one is asking the Jewish Israelis to do the same thing with the Palestinians– no-one is asking them to fold their forces all into a single joint force. But I mention that example from South Africa just to show the incredible degree of social and political change that is quite possible, if people have steady humane principles, a resistance to the idea of demonising whole other groups of people, and some imagination regarding the possibilities of human cooperation.
Regarding security-force integration, the first item on the agenda will probably be to integrate the largely pro-Fateh Palestinian Authority forces, and the guerilla units of Hamas. Let’s hope that can be achieved peaceably.
And then, let’s see. Let’s see what kind of a future the Palestinians and Israelis might build in that little patch of land if both peoples agree they are tired of violence, confrontation, and domination and want to find a final end to the conflict.
You say such a thing isn’t even thinkable? Ask the South Africans.
Excellent comments Helena. I was thinking of that example myself when I responded to your earlier posting. I would put this in terms of “forgiveness” and the ability to do so. What I have found somewhat disturbing in the past is heraing Jewish leaders and religious authorities disparaging the concept of forgiveness. Without this, I do not believe that the Hamas victory bodes well.
Yes, from human rights prospective, S.African and I/P situations are strikingly similiar. But geopolitical aspects are completely different.
The fundamental differences between the 2 situations is that in SA, the rebels wanted social integration and equality. They were secular, for the most part, and believed in having a modern economy.
Hamas does not want social integration with Israel except perhaps if they are dhimmis, and abhors the idea of equality. Hamas is strongly religious in a way that most of us would describe as coercive. The economic views of Hamas are not well-formed.
The ANC, even when it was out of power, always believed in non-violent mass action. Hamas has never accepted the concept of non-violence. And, indeed, has always said that it needs to eradicate the Jewish State.
The Afrikaner government of South Africa built it’s ideology around racial theories and tribal allegences. Israel builds it’s ideology around nationalism and religion.
The ANC had the support of the US in it’s effort to topple the Apartheid regime. Hamas has the hatred of the entire western world and most of the rest, as well.
Helenas comparison of the two situations is the most dishonest, demagogic, misleading and confused analysis I’ve ever seen. Helena knows about all these difference yet tries to draw the two situations as the same, as a way of cheerleading the fortunes of the Terrorists in the Middle East.
Helena is a consistent supporter of terrorists and suicide movements.
That said, the fact remains that Hamas will probably be forced to moderate it’s radical positions simply, because it does not have the means to implement them. The IDF is too strong.
The ANC had a military wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe, that was founded by Mandela in 1960 or so and was never dismantled. The ANC agreed to a ceasefire in 1990 but still did not diaarm. That was how they had 28,888 MK fighters to fold into the new SANDF in 1994. Alongside that military wing they also had broad arrays of very effective civilian mass-action organizations.
Hamas has a very similar balance between its military and civilian mass-action wings. That’s how they won an election.
I can understand that Americans like WW, who appear to know little about the Middle East but are knee-jerk supporters of Israel, are taken aback by these election results and perhaps uncertain and fearful about the future. But that is no reason to go around making ridiculous and unfounded allegations about me or anyone else. Get a grip, Warren.
My grip is good. The ANC may have had an army but that doesn’t mean there’s meaningful comparisons to be made between the two situations.
Helena is writing a book on the ANC (and other transitions) and may perhaps be looking at things through that prism.
The ideology and behavior of the ANC is radically different from that of Hamas. And the ideology and behavior of the Afrikaners is radically different from that of Israel. These facts are fundamental. And well known to Helena, who chose to ignore them.
To state the obvious: The purpose of the comparison between Israel and South Africa is to tar Israel with the brush of racism. There is little or no geopolitical reason for the analysis. It is a deliberate attempt at libel and sowing confusion.
One good definition of racism from answers.com:
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
Note carefully that the white SA regime fits this definition and that the Israeli-Arab conflict does not.
The ANC, even when it was out of power, always believed in non-violent mass action. Hamas has never accepted the concept of non-violence. And, indeed, has always said that it needs to eradicate the Jewish State.
In general, for the revolutionaries, the question of peaceful vs violent revolution is secondary, they just do whatever it takes to achieve their goals. This is also true for those who oppose the revolution. So, in this respect, the difference between ANC and Hamas is immaterial.
The Afrikaner government of South Africa built it’s ideology around racial theories and tribal allegences. Israel builds it’s ideology around nationalism and religion.
Again, in this respect, there is no particular difference. Both Africaners and Isareli hyper-right promote crude ehtnic/religious suprematism.
Helena is a consistent supporter of terrorists and suicide movements.
Yawn. This “argumentation” works fine on TV, but not online. Here it is just trolling.
That said, the fact remains that Hamas will probably be forced to moderate it’s radical positions simply, because it does not have the means to implement them. The IDF is too strong.
All Hamas needs to do is to maintain heavy cold war and certain level of guerilla activity. They did, do and will do this.
The ANC had a military wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe, that was founded by Mandela in 1960 or so and was never dismantled. The ANC agreed to a ceasefire in 1990 but still did not diaarm. That was how they had 28,888 MK fighters to fold into the new SANDF in 1994. Alongside that military wing they also had broad arrays of very effective civilian mass-action organizations. Hamas has a very similar balance between its military and civilian mass-action wings. That’s how they won an election.
Right. Every revolutionary movement has political and military wings, there is nothing specific about this.
So, all similiarities come to the fact that both in S.Africa and in the ME we have clashes between revolutionary movements. However, the nature of these revolutions is completely different.
— ME oil is much more important for the world economy than S.African mineral deposits.
— Global cold war stability is gone.
— ANC revolution was secular while Muslim revolutionaries are religious.
— IMHO, Afrikaner ideology had much less potent religious wing than neocons / Zionists.
— S.African sides were much more isolationist than I/P sides, it was mostly internal S.African problem. In the ME, I/P conflict is mostly symbolic, it works as a detonator for the more broad Israeli-Arab and Israeli-Muslim conflict.
— After 9-11, GOP-Likud alliance became so tight that now, for all practical purposes, they are 2 factions of the same global movement. Afrikaners never had this advantage.
— Most importantly, S.Africa was never like Vietnam, there was no heavy US military presence.
Last 2 factors are new. So, one can say that before 9-11 and the Iraqi war, ME and I/P crises were more like S.Africa than now. The Iraqi war changed everything in the ME, but S.African analogy is old, it dates back to the 1990-ies and before.
IMO, it is simply otdated because it does not care about the neocons and the war.
WW– your The purpose of the comparison between Israel and South Africa is to tar Israel with the brush of racism….
Bless your heart, we are defensive today, aren’t we?
If however you go back and actually read the main post, you might see that the main purpose of it was to invite readers to broaden their imaginations to the point that, like the peoples of South Africa, they could see a way out of the old ghettoes of fear, defensiveness, and cyclical violence.
I invite all my readers, Jewish and goyish, to imaginitively empathize with each or any of the “sides” in South Africa. No-one says that Jewish or pro-Israeli people have to imagine themselves only as Afrikaners (though frankly, any of us who does that can learn a lot from the Afrikaners about how to think and act yourself OUT of a defensive and cyclically violent box.)
But you could also empathetically “join”, for example, the many fine Jewish South Africans who joined and even took a good part in leading the ANC… How do you think the ANC leaders and supporters felt about negotiating with the apartheid state, at a time when the state was still hunting down ANC people and killing and torturing them in the townships, and inciting Inkatha to kill them in KwaZulu-Natal?? All that was ongoing in the period 1990-1994– but the ANC hung in there and negotiated and got, essentially, a huge percentage of what it had asked for. But starting, and then hanging in with those negotiations was not morally “easy” for them.
If the ANC could do that with the Afrikaners, who, I repeat, had killed hundreds of thousands or even milions of Black Africans in the preceding 20 years– why should we say it is “quite unreasonable” to expect Israel to sit down with, for example, Hamas people who have killed, what, a total around 1,000 or even 2,000 Israelis since the movement was started?
Think yourself out of the box, man! Think like an ANC person!
Helena,
There may be ample reason to compare the two instances, but let’s not forget one thing. South Africa’s ANC and other governing bodies were quick to sell their country down the river to the World Bank and IMF.
Given the current state of affairs around the disparity and destruction being caused by the 21st century embodiement of globalization, i.e. the “War on Terror” (which, like it or not, most Western/Industrialized nations are complicit in supporting, whether by their lack of opposition by force to the occupation of Iraq, or by their direct support via resources and troops to the MNF-I or allowing their soil/airspace to be used for extreme renditions), I think its likely Hamas and others won’t be so quick to sell their countrymen down the river, but then again, Iraq’s been playing along with the bankers swiftly enough… http://www.imf.org/external/country/IRQ/
Helena, I appreciate your attempt to be optimistic. But not to the extent where I can ignore the attempts to gloss over the blatant bigotry of Hamas.
It is not an exaggeration to say that Hamas’s “martyr’s oath” is as vile and racist as some Nazi propaganda. This language is available to anyone who wants to read it, and I see no need to parse over the multiple objectionable passages.
Sorry, but this is not like the PAC’s “One settler, one bullet.” The other was a violent, nasty slogan, but it was just that, a slogan. Hamas’s charter demonstrates their mindset and core ideology. It is based on classic antisemitism, as bad as anything that has ever come out of Europe.
I do not rule out Hamas reforming itself, because I’m guessing that they did better than they expected, and will have more responsibility than they bargained for.
Warren (who has a firmer grasp of the issues than you are willing to acknowledge) is correct in one key regard. The IDF is strong enough to contain Hamas, so they cannot easily go on murderous rampages that their charter would suggest they would like to do. And as far as I’m concerned, maintaining that strength is paramount, so long as the vile bigots of Hamas have any level of popular support, much less the overwhelming majority that they have received.
Helena,
Like you, I believe that the Palestinian voters’ choice must be respected, and that there is a possibility for Hamas to adopt a more realistic
national program. I’m apparently not the only one; one thing that struck
me during a trip around the Israeli blogosphere yesterday was how many
people, even those I regard as moderately right-wing, consider the election
no big deal or a new beginning. Polls are showing about 50 percent support
among Israelis for negotiating with Hamas, and among those who raised the
possibility yesterday was President Moshe Katsav, who is a Likudnik albeit
an unorthodox one. I suspect that much of the hard-line rhetoric coming
from the politicians now (on both sides of the Green Line) will abate after
the election.
At the same time, I don’t think your Hamas-PAC analogy holds, because
there’s a complicating factor for Hamas – religion – that was not present
for the PAC. A political imperative that is both ideological and
theological is harder to moderate than one that is held for purely secular
ideological reasons. The PAC’s “one settler, one bullet” slogan was a
militant one, certainly, but it was a product of secular nationalism rather
than religion. The PAC is closer in that respect to the Fatah of the 1970s
than to Hamas.
This is not to say that religious imperatives can’t be reinterpreted. One
example is Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’s ruling, soon after Oslo, that the
imperative to possess the entire Land of Israel was subordinate to that of
pikuach nefesh (preservation of life) and could therefore be
compromised. Unfortunately, Rabbi Yosef has since retreated into nutdom,
but a concept very similar to pikuach nefesh exists under Islamic
law and could be the basis for a more realistic Hamas position. (At the
risk of self-promotion, I’ll refer readers to the essay on href=”http://headheeb.blogmosis.com/archives/027359.html”>religious
peacemaking in the Middle East that I wrote last year and now seems
once again timely.) However, any progress toward such a position would
require more steps, and would thus be more difficult, than the PAC’s
decision to join a peaceful settlement.
That isn’t the only problem I have with your South Africa comparison: I
also don’t think that Fatah is really an equivalent to the ANC. The ANC
was and is something unique and admirable among indigenous national
movements: its program called for a nation in which everyone, even the
“settlers,” would be included and valued. It recognized that the whites,
through their presence in ZA and their part in its construction, were not
merely to be tolerated but had become part of the nation. Part of the
reason the ANC was able to reach a final settlement was that it convinced
much of the white population that they had a common cause.
In contrast, even during Fatah’s pre-Algiers single-state period, its
program extended Palestinian national rights only to those Jews who lived
in the region “before the Zionist invasion,” which was usually interpreted
to mean the beginning of the yishuv in the 1880s. Fatah was never
willing during that period to include immigrant Jews as part of the
Palestinian nation, and given that many of those Jews had come to Israel as
refuge from persecution (which is important to understanding Israeli
political psychology), they weren’t going to find common cause with such a
party. Under different circumstances, Fatah might have evolved into a
common-cause movement, but it became a statehood movement instead, and
that’s also a Palestinian choice that the rest of us should respect. As
I’ve argued before, the South African conflict and the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict can’t really be mapped on a one-to-one basis – the issues were
different, the respective national consciousnesses were different, and
there are no close Israeli-Palestinian equivalents of the ANC, the PAC or
for that matter the apartheid regime.
Instead, I’ll propose an alternative analogy that I also mentioned on my
own – Fatah:Hamas::Likud:Mafdal. Like Fatah, the Likud (or at least
its pre-Kadima incarnation) is an unruly, corrupt, ideologically diverse
ethnonationalist movement, but one that was able to forge a pragmatic
position precisely because of its unruliness and internal diversity.
Mafdal, like Hamas, is more ideologically coherent and much less corrupt
than the Likud, but – also like Hamas – it recognizes a theological
imperative to possess the whole land, and as such has taken an
uncompromising position. If you want Hamas to make peace, you’ll have to
come up with a method of persuasion that would also work on Mafdal.
As I said above, that may not be impossible. I’ll also note for the record
that the Israeli political choices of the past two years have resulted in
Mafdal becoming fragmented and less coherent. We’ll see what happens with
Hamas.
Joshua,
I hear a lot of words of hate in your preceeding comment. This is in line with the constant escalation of violence which Sharon has managed to create after he was elected.
If both parties, Israeli included, don’t begun a desescalation both in their words and on the ground, things will continue to go out of hand.
As of now, the Hamas has been able to maintain a truce for one year, they are offering a proloungation of this truce for another year and I think that it’s about time that the Israeli begin to show some goodwill toward the Palestinians as well. Goodwill means that the Israelians have to acknowledge they will have to cede a viable state to the Palestinians (aka the wall problem, the connexion of Gaza with the rest of the world etc.)
It is possible, a group of moderates men both Palestinians and Israelians have been able to finalize an accord showing the way to go. It’s all in the Geneva accord.
Christiane, the only words of hate that have been bandied about come from Hamas’s martyr’s oath.
Israel has, since 2003, de-escalated violence. Perhaps you forget that at one point, the Israeli army was regularly invading and sacking towns. Assassinations ocurred every week.
The Israeli military has not stopped operations, but it has been significantly scaled back. And of course, it pulled its troops entirely out of Gaza.
Politically, there is NO mainstream politician that espouses the “Greater Israel” theory anymore. When Sharon felt that Likud was holding him back in this regard, he ditched his own party. Now even Bibi Netenyahu, who could have easily tried to make a play to the far right, has expelled Moshe Feiglin from the party, and admits that there will have to be land for peace.
The problem is simply that your analysis of the situation is counterfactual. And then you have the nerve to say that I have “words of hate.”? I never said that anyone’s plan was set forth in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Hamas did.
Israel bashers do a very good job of screaming “RACISM!” at the country at every opportunity. Then when the real racists of Hamas are exposed, they say that it is “escalatory” or “hateful” rhetoric. What hypocrisy.
Yes Joshua, explain why the slogan “one settler, one bullet” can be glossed over as only a slogan, but Hamas’ charter demonstrates their vile and racist mindset, to use your words. If Israel no longer believes in Greater Israel, then why are Palestinian areas still being colonized? Why are Palestinian homes still being demolished? If you say that the IDF has cut its operations back and you seem to take pride in the fact that assassinations are no longer being carried out every day, why are Palestinian children still being shot? Your entire posts reek of the arrogance that seem to identify the self-proclaimed
“chose people”, that only you and your concerns matter. Your version of Israel will never rise to what South Africa has accomplished.
Israel is a state run by and for Jews, period. That alone makes it racist.
Kassandra, I think your problem is that you are ascribing views to myself and several other supporters of Israel that we simply do not share. I do not support every Israeli action, although each of your accusations are in some cases overblown or do not take into account the full circumstances.
As for the difference between the PAC and Hamas, it is pretty straightforward. A slogan shouted in the street to fire up the troops is one thing, the ideological premise behind the movement is another. Hamas is a racist organization, period. It is incumbent on them to demonstrate that they reject their charter in its entirety and say, outright, that they are prepared to accept that Israel will exist as a Jewish and democratic state.
“Your entire posts reek of the arrogance that seem to identify the self-proclaimed
“chose people”, that only you and your concerns matter.”
But you’re not antisemitc, just antizionist.
“Israel is a state run by and for Jews, period. That alone makes it racist.”
Incorrect. Israel is both a Jewish and democratic state.
Another of your problems is that you simply are not well informed as to what Israel is or what it is about. I suggest learning a bit more before making personal attacks.
Israel is a state run by and for Jews, period. That alone makes it racist. Posted by kassandra at January 27, 2006 08:21 PM
Completely wrong language. More exactly, Israeli state is driven by ideology with strong theocratic influence – pretty much like Iran.
Henry, Zionism was a largely secular movement. Although religious Zionists have since grown in prominence, Israel is nothing like Iran. Halacha does not form the basis for its laws, and cannot trump laws passed by the democratically elected Knesset.
There is one area where Israel has undue religious influence. The state of Israel has retained the Ottoman system which allows religious authorities control over matters of “personal status.” This was the one concession the secular founders of Israel made so that the religious community would support the fledgling state. Many people, including myself, view this as an anachronism, but even so there are enough loopholes in it so that Israel remains a free, and largely secular, society.
In terms of both politics and cultural norms, Israel is more secular than most societies, including many democracies.
Zionism was a largely secular movement. Although religious Zionists have since grown in prominence, Israel is nothing like Iran.
Fear and loathing
Salah,
Excellent article. And the passage you cited more or less sums up my beliefs toward Zionism and Israel.