Ronnie Kasrils and Mosiuoa Lekota have opposing views about a free trip to Israel at the invitation of the “Friends of Israel”.
Mosiuoa Lekota says comparing Israel with apartheid South Africa will not advance the cause of any of the antagonists in the Middle East conflict.
Before the international community called the state of Israel into being in 1948 the whole territory was one continuum – Palestine. It was settled by Druze, Jews, Muslims, Palestinians and others. These people lived with each other peacefully and respected each other and each other’s attributes.
Today in Israel, these nationalities and religions continue to coexist.
Clearly the tensions that resulted from the intervention of the international community caused large numbers of Palestinians to abandon some of their lands due to security problems.
Yet others were forcibly driven off their lands during the wars or after such wars took place. Consequently, Palestinians have become one of the minority groups.
All these people may vote for or be voted in as public representatives. Minority parties constitute a significant opposition in the Knesset, the Israeli parliament.
We had occasion to meet leaders of some of these parties.
In their briefs they informed us of the grievances of their communities. These were:
* The national flag is only for the Jewish community.
* The national anthem does not embrace their communities.
* Their languages do not enjoy equal status in state institutions – for example, they may not use them in the Knesset.
* They are often not properly compensated where land is rezoned for communal use, and so on.
Opposition parties are hard at work pressing for the fuller inclusion of their communities in these rights and amenities.
Leaders of Israel must bite the bullet and extend these rights to their fellow citizens – not grudgingly but as an investment in the future in which all can reap the fruit of peace and prosperity.
It can be done!
In the social sphere there are simply none of the apartheid signs that those of us who lived under apartheid South Africa know.
No separate amenities such as toilets, buses, public benches, etc.
It is for this reason that I commented on my return that it was a misnomer to call Israel an “apartheid” society.
I cannot see how such an exaggerated comparison can advance the cause of any one of the contending forces in that conflict.
From Israel we proceeded to territories under the Palestinian Authority. These are the West Bank and Gaza.
Following the adoption of the two-state solution, internationally sponsored elections were held in these areas.
The Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Hamas took part. The PLO won in the West Bank and Hamas prevailed in Gaza. These two entities make up the Palestinian Authority.
Our visit to the West Bank also revealed to us another side of the region of the Middle East.
We saw the much-talked-about wall that is supposed to separate people, there was no visible contingent of soldiers or police blockading people going in or out.
We were, however, met by security people who guided our vehicle first to the embassy of South Africa.
In Ramallah we had the privilege of meeting one of the stalwarts of the PLO, Nabeel Shaath, who shared with us insights into the long journey the organisation travelled with the late PLO leader Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin – the Israeli prime minister assassinated in 1995 – up to the Camp David talks.
Ramallah itself has the appearance of a settlement of sojourners, almost informal.
It is predominantly Palestinian but, as Shaath told us, Arafat and the PLO stood for a secular state, embracing all faiths.
As Shaath spoke we realised that they would be happier in a Middle East that was a common home for all the people of the region.
We were unable to visit Gaza, a region that is under the control of Hamas and rather volatile.
Our ambassador in Ramallah gave us a short brief. The South African embassy maintains a satellite office there, so they briefed us reasonably well.
I felt that the two-state solution was becoming increasingly less attractive than initially believed, largely because of the absence of leaderships who were as firmly committed to it as Arafat and Rabin.
We also visited Jerusalem and spent an informative time with the mayor, Nir Barkat. We found ourselves caught up in the debate about the city’s future.
Part of the two-state solution is that the city be divided into East and West Jerusalem. The east would be the Palestinian capital and the west the Israeli.
However, we found the mayor working hard to keep the city as one, where all citizens were equal and enjoyed all rights, irrespective of whatever differences they might have or wherever they might have come from.
This mayor, by all accounts, is highly popular with residents.
Once more, it seemed to us that the mood among the people of the region pointed to a direction in which increasingly the two-state solution was the orphan.
What then of the future of the region? This conflict has raged on for far too long and nobody is benefiting from the loss of life that is so prevalent.
Leaders of Israel and Palestine must return to the negotiating table, review the present set-up and perhaps determine a new course. Those of us who are outsiders may not prescribe, but we can advise.
* Lekota is the leader of Cope and former defence minister.
Ronnie Kasrils thinks Mosiuoa Lekota is being opportunistic and suffers from gross political naiveté.
I was shocked that a former freedom fighter like Mosiuoa Lekota paid a visit to Israel – as a result not of an invite from Palestinians suffering under Israel’s brutal rule and Israeli peace activists supporting them, but on a free trip at the invitation of such discredited Zionists as the “Friends of Israel”.
As a United Democratic Front leader, he would have vehemently opposed visits to South Africa of the type he and other MPs paid to Israel recently.
This trip was a mockery of the solidarity that Palestinians and Jewish progressives in Israel would expect from South Africans.
Comrade Lekota argues that he and his fellow visitors were subscribing to the government and the ANC’s position on Israel.
I wonder what he would think of the statement from the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement to the ANC’s national general council about what is expected from the ANC and our government.
He says the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be looked at in an even-handed way.
He ignores the fact that the parties are not equal; that Israel is the colonial oppressive power; that there is an enormous disproportionate balance between the two parties to the conflict; and that the Israeli government has dragged out so-called negotiations since the 1994 Oslo Accords, which it has repeatedly undermined, escalating the building of illegal settlements, and resorting to universally condemned blockades and aggression.
This is incomparable with the four years it took for South African negotiations to settle the apartheid issue.
What is more, those negotiations saw the De Klerk government lifting the ban on the ANC and other so-called terrorist movements; releasing the ANC leadership to negotiate on equal terms; and releasing virtually all political prisoners.
What Lekota needs to understand is that Israel has not behaved in that way, but to the contrary.
How, then, can Lekota attempt to equate the two processes? He is opening himself up to charges of gross political naiveté or to charges of opportunism in dealing with Zionist interests and influence in this country.
* Kasrils is a former minister of intelligence.
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.
Sunday Independent