The Arab and the Jew may never solve their problems, not because the problem is insoluble, but because they seem both to be terminally disabled by the disease of ideology, both religious and nationalist in character. Ideology makes impossible any objective debate. This is Laura Stovel’s point (“A debate long overdue”, August 17).
Frog-marching these two errant brothers to the principal’s office, the United Nations, where they can be relieved of their duty to resolve this dispute, in which they seem so incompetent, would look like a sensible solution. This won’t work either, however, for that surrogate parent is just as riddled with ideologues who are more likely to give Israel six of the best, stacked as it is with majority support for the Arab cause, and therefore to find in favour of the Palestinians, as David Saks (“A weapon against Israel”, August 17) would contend.
The Satan here is religion and nationalism, which in their case is actually one and the same thing. They both believe in the essential truth and vision of their position, and are so enslaved by its dogma that to abandon it means death itself, literally. When challenged by the irrationality of their delusions they are as apt, as Marx, to reply that it is we who are deluded by our “false consciousness”.
Like bad rhetoricians they counter the sceptic by the appalling tactic of discrediting him or the motives behind his critique. It is quite obvious they won’t admit any evidence that would shatter their beliefs. And so, in the face of mounting incredulity at the buffoonery that passes for diplomacy, they goose-step all over each other’s rocks and mounts and domes, determined to show exactly who is the alpha male around here.
It takes courage to face the hidden ideology behind our beliefs and
actions. It is possible, though. We did it here in South Africa. We abandoned our ideology in favour of reality. We changed our map to fit the territory. Perhaps the Arab and the Jew will find the courage to do likewise. Somehow I remain doubtful. Perhaps we all are not willing to give up our neurosis yet. Perhaps we need the Israelis and the Palestinians to act it out for us. David Erasmus, Durban
Upon his visit to Israel in 1990, Archbishop Desmond Tutu (hardly the anti-Israeli lobbyist) was struck by the parallels between the treatment of Palestinians by the Israeli government and the plight of black South Africans under apartheid.
The history of relations between the Israelis and the white South African regime during apartheid, especially after a United Nations-sanctioned embargo against apartheid South Africa, also do not say much for Israel’s concern for human rights. The same applies to Israeli relations with brutal military juntas in Latin America during the Cold War.
It is a shame that South Africa is hosting an Israeli embassy, when we are the same people who benefited from international solidarity (through isolation) against racism in this country. Velaphi Msimang, Mowbray
David Saks complains that the state of Israel is being singled out for approbation, while other states guilty of racism get away scot-free. His complaint reminds one of the ridiculous tears cried by South African diplomats in the days of apartheid, when trying to defend the practices of their state to foreign critics.
Certainly Saks, like the apologists of apartheid, is right that there is a lot of hypocrisy in the way certain countries are singled out for criticism and sanctions, while other, equally guilty ones are ignored. But surely he does not expect us to condone the racist oppression of Palestinians by the Israeli state on the grounds that similar crimes are committed in Cuba, China, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan and Sudan? After all, two wrongs don’t make a right. Nor do a million. Gerrit Brand, Utrecht, Holland