The
only alternative
By Edward Said
I first visited South Africa in May 1991: a dark, wet, wintry period, when Apartheid still
ruled, although the ANC and Nelson Mandela had been freed. Ten years later I returned,
this time to summer, in a democratic country in which Apartheid has been defeated, the ANC
is in power, and a vigorous, contentious civil society is engaged in trying to complete
the task of bringing equality and social justice to this still divided and economically
troubled country. But, the liberation struggle that ended Apartheid and instituted the
first democratically elected government on 27 April 1994, remains one of the great human
achievements in recorded history. Despite the problems of the present, South Africa is an
inspiring place to visit and think about, partly because for Arabs, it has a lot to teach
us about struggle, originality, and perseverance. I
came here this time as a participant in a conference on values in education, organised by
the Ministry of Education. Qader Asmal, the minister of education, is an old and admired
friend whom I met many years ago when he was in exile in Ireland. I shall say more about
him in my next article. But, as a member of the cabinet, a longtime ANC activist, and a
successful lawyer and academic, he was able to persuade Nelson Mandela (now 83, in frail
health, and officially retired from public life) to address the conference on the first
evening. What Mandela said then made a deep impression on me, as much because of Mandela's
enormous stature and profoundly affecting charisma, as for the well-crafted words he
uttered. Also a lawyer by training, Mandela is an especially eloquent man who, in spite of
thousands of ritual occasions and speeches, always seems to have something gripping to
say.
This time it was two phrases about the past that struck me in a fine speech about
education, a speech which drew unflattering attention to the depressed present state of
the country's majority, "languishing in abject conditions of material and social
deprivation." Hence, he reminded the audience, "our struggle is not over,"
even though -- here was the first phrase -- the campaign against Apartheid "was one
of the great moral struggles" that "captured the world's imagination." The
second phrase was in his description of the anti-Apartheid campaign not simply as a
movement to end racial discrimination, but as a means "for all of us to assert our
common humanity." Implied in the words "all of us" is that all of the races
of South Africa, including the pro-Apartheid whites, were envisaged as participating in a
struggle whose goal finally was coexistence, tolerance and "the realisation of humane
values."
The first phrase struck me cruelly: why did the Palestinian struggle not (yet) capture the
world's imagination and why, even more to the point, does it not appear as a great moral
struggle which, as Mandela said about the South African experience, received "almost
universal support... from virtually all political persuasions and parties?"
True, we have received a great deal of general support, and yes, ours is a moral struggle
of epic proportions. The conflict between Zionism and the Palestinian people is admittedly
more complex than the battle against Apartheid, even if in both cases one people paid and
the other is still paying a very heavy price in dispossession, ethnic cleansing, military
occupation and massive social injustice. The Jews are a people with a tragic history of
persecution and genocide. Bound by their ancient faith to the land of Palestine, their
"return" to a homeland promised them by British imperialism was perceived by
much of the world (but especially by a Christian West responsible for the worst excesses
of anti-Semitism) as a heroic and justified restitution for what they suffered. Yet, for
years and years, few paid attention to the conquest of Palestine by Jewish forces, or to
the Arab people already there who endured its exorbitant cost in the destruction of their
society, the expulsion of the majority, and the hideous system of laws -- a virtual
Apartheid -- that still discriminates against them inside Israel and in the occupied
territories. Palestinians were the silent victims of a gross injustice, quickly shuffled
offstage by a triumphalist chorus of how amazing Israel was.
After the reemergence of a genuine Palestinian liberation movement in the late '60s, the
formerly colonised people of Asia, Africa and Latin America adopted the Palestinian
struggle, but in the main, the strategic balance was vastly in Israel's favour; it has
been backed unconditionally by the US ($5 billion in annual aid), and in the West, the
media, the liberal intelligentsia, and most governments have been on Israel's side. For
reasons too well known to go into here, the official Arab environment was either overtly
hostile or lukewarm in its mostly verbal and financial support.
Because, however, the shifting strategic goals of the PLO were always clouded by useless
terrorist actions, were never addressed or articulated eloquently, and because the
preponderance of cultural discourse in the West was either unknown to or misunderstood by
Palestinian policymakers and intellectuals, we have never been able to claim the moral
high ground effectively. Israeli information could always both appeal to (and exploit) the
Holocaust as well as the unstudied and politically untimely acts of Palestinian terror,
thereby neutralising or obscuring our message, such as it was. We never concentrated as a
people on cultural struggle in the West (which the ANC early on had realised was the key
to undermining Apartheid) and we simply did not highlight in a humane, consistent way the
immense depredations and discriminations directed at us by Israel. Most television viewers
today have no idea about Israel's racist land policies, or its spoliations, tortures,
systematic deprivation of the Palestinians just because they are not Jews. As a black
South African reporter wrote in one of the local newspapers here while on a visit to Gaza,
Apartheid was never as vicious and as inhumane as Zionism: ethnic cleansing, daily
humiliations, collective punishment on a vast scale, land appropriation, etc., etc.
But, even these facts, were they known better as a weapon in the battle over values
between Zionism and the Palestinians, would not have been enough. What we never
concentrated on enough was the fact that to counteract Zionist exclusivism, we would have
to provide a solution to the conflict that, in Mandela's second phrase, would assert our
common humanity as Jews and Arabs. Most of us still cannot accept the idea that Israeli
Jews are here to stay, that they will not go away, any more than Palestinians will go
away. This is understandably very hard for Palestinians to accept, since they are still in
the process of losing their land and being persecuted on a daily basis. But, with our
irresponsible and unreflective suggestion in what we have said that they will be forced to
leave (like the Crusades), we did not focus enough on ending the military occupation as a
moral imperative or on providing a form for their security and self-determinism that did
not abrogate ours. This, and not the preposterous hope that a volatile American president
would give us a state, ought to have been the basis of a mass campaign everywhere. Two
people in one land. Or, equality for all. Or, one person one vote. Or, a common humanity
asserted in a binational state.
I know we are the victims of a terrible conquest, a vicious military occupation, a Zionist
lobby that has consistently lied in order to turn us either into non-people or into
terrorists -- but what is the real alternative to what I've been suggesting? A military
campaign? A dream. More Oslo negotiations? Clearly not. More loss of life by our valiant
young people, whose leader gives them no help or direction? A pity, but no. Reliance on
the Arab states who have reneged even on their promise to provide emergency assistance
now? Come on, be serious.
Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs are locked in Sartre's vision of hell, that of
"other people." There is no escape. Separation can't work in so tiny a land, any
more than Apartheid did. Israeli military and economic power insulates them from having to
face reality. This is the meaning of Sharon's election, an antediluvian war criminal
summoned out of the mists of time to do what: put the Arabs in their place? Hopeless.
Therefore, it is up to us to provide the answer that power and paranoia cannot. It isn't
enough to speak generally of peace. One must provide the concrete grounds for it, and
those can only come from moral vision, and neither from "pragmatism" nor
"practicality." If we are all to live -- this is our imperative -- we must
capture the imagination not just of our people, but that of our oppressors. And, we have
to abide by humane democratic values.
Is the current Palestinian leadership listening? Can it suggest anything better than this,
given its abysmal record in a "peace process" that has led to the present
horrors? |