Israel is not a perfect society, but what is worrying is the particular venom to which it is subjected, says Benjamin Pogrund.
Cape Town -
There’s little surprise in the disclosure by International Relations Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane last week of a cooling in relations with Israel. For years, South Africa’s formal policy has been even-handed – backing the Palestinian right to self-determination while equally supporting Israel’s right to existence.
But in practice, as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has dragged on, Pretoria has increasingly been more critical of Israel and more outspoken for the Palestinian cause. This is understandable in light of the past: many black people equate their suffering under racist apartheid at the hands of whites with the plight of Palestinians under Jewish rule.
But for some, their emotional feelings go much further: they show acute hostility, towards Israel and they are joined in this by sections of the Muslim community plus influential whites, including left-wingers and communists. Anti-Semitism is no doubt a factor.
The antagonism is anything but pervasive and vast numbers of South Africans, both blacks and whites, and especially devout Christians, are strongly supportive of Israel. But the opponents are active and noisy and they do enough to ensure that South Africans have become a mainspring in the international attacks on Israel through incessant condemnation and calls for boycotts.
The government has resisted pressures to sever diplomatic relations with Israel and Nkoana-Mashabane made clear this is not being planned. Instead, as she said, South Africa will “slow down and curtail senior leadership contact with (Israel) until things begin to look better”.
The direct effect on Israel will be minimal and foreign ministry officials in Jerusalem are reported to have shrugged it off, noting that no ministerial visits have taken place for some time.
However, former foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, known for bruiser-like statements, lashed out: “The South African government is creating an anti-Israel and anti-Semitic atmosphere, and a pogrom against Jews is only a matter of time.” He urged South Africa’s Jews to leave.
The SA Zionist Federation swiftly distanced itself from him, saying there was little connection between the government’s anti-Israel stance and the lives of local Jews.
The Zionist Federation and the SA Jewish Board of Deputies on Tuesday jointly said that Nkoana-Mashabane’s statements completely contradict her previous assurances to the Jewish leadership that “her government wished to play a role in helping Israelis and Palestinians to resolve their differences and would engage with both parties to further that end.
“They are further inconsistent with South African foreign policy in general, which is not to boycott other governments, but rather to continually engage with them. For Israel alone to be excluded from such a policy amounts to clear discrimination against the Jewish state.”
Beyond the exchange of words, the reality is that South Africa is inflicting severe wounds on itself. Israel could be of inestimable help as South Africa struggles with its deep-seated problems. It is depriving itself of opportunities to gain access to invaluable, often unique, Israeli expertise in areas such as agriculture, use of water, health, education and hi-tech.
For a country so small, with only 8 million people, Israel punches far above its weight. In agriculture, for example, it’s a world leader in bringing land back to life and in innovation in seeds.
Also in conserving precious water, from drip irrigation to desalination and reusing waste water. Its threatened status in a hostile world has driven it to be pre-eminent in security systems – a prized quality which is widely sought because no country is immune to cyber and terrorist attack.
While South Africa spurns these opportunities, other countries are eager to co-operate, and none more so than India and China. Last week, the sixth India-Israel forum met in Tel Aviv to broaden and deepen relations between them. Bilateral trade is already $14 billion (R142bn).
“We work with small and marginal farmers and we have a lot of problems in terms of water and productivity,” said one Indian businessman. “We find Israel has managed these things very well so we are looking to have the transfer of technology from Israel to India.”
Last month, a delegation of a few hundred Chinese officials came for meetings and focused on water technology.
Of course, Israel’s opponents have greeted Nkoana-Mashabane’s statement as a victory and it will give impetus to their campaigning. There is perhaps significance in the platform which she chose: Cosatu is virulently opposed to Israel, so she knew she was playing to the gallery.
Earlier this year, in one of its repeated boycott calls, Cosatu said: “We must isolate anything to do with the apartheid state of Israel and its murderous security regime. We call for an end to the occupation of Palestine and return of their land now, with the unconditional abolishment of the colonial settler regime.”
The harsh and extreme language reflects the combination of malevolence and ignorance which characterises much of the hostile South African attitudes. The critics accuse Israel of apartheid, when it is nothing of the sort.
They even impudently claim that it is “worse than apartheid” (which, apart from the inaccuracy, betrays the memory of what apartheid inflicted on blacks).
They are often confused about the difference between Israeli Arabs and Palestinian Arabs – the first are citizens of Israel and have voting and normal rights although they are also victims of some discrimination, whereas the latter are foreigners.
Hostile critics have no understanding of the fundamental difference in theory and practice between the tribal Bantustans which were a mainstay of apartheid and the Israeli-occupied West Bank and hence make uninformed comparisons.
They take the words of the revered Nelson Mandela and manipulate and misuse them against Israel. They draw non-existent parallels between apartheid’s Mixed Marriages Act and religious marriages in Israel. They make entirely wrong statements about the extent of discrimination suffered by Israel’s Arabs.
They point fingers at Israel’s treatment of African migrants and are right to do so because the country does not deal well with this problem – but one would hope for some understanding of the complexities and of the frailty of human behaviour given South Africa’s own experience in the way ordinary people have resorted to xenophobic murders.
Bad as is Israel’s tyrannical occupation of the West Bank, they enlarge and distort it; equally so the siege of the Gaza Strip.
Israel is not a perfect society and, as with any country, is open to criticism on many fronts. But what is worrying, and strange, is the particular venom and singling out to which it is subjected.
That is especially so when the critics keep silent about neighbouring Syria, which is engulfed by violence with murders and refugees on a scale which Israel has never known. Also Egypt, and Tunisia, Yemen, the list goes on. Why always pick on Israel?
While there is no immediate fall-out, Israelis – and Palestinians too – do lose from the reduction in contact. South Africa could have offered its own experience to help them resolve their conflict, such as the importance of dialogue. In turning away, South Africa has taken itself out of playing any role in the Middle East.
* Benjamin Pogrund is the former deputy editor of the Rand Daily Mail. He now lives in Jerusalem. His latest book, Is Israel Apartheid? Reporting the Facts on Israel and South Africa, is to be published by Rowman & Littlefield in New York next year. He is also the author of Robert Sobukwe: How Can Man Die Better.
** The views expressed eher not necessarily those of Independent Newspapers.
Cape TImes