COMMENT
Mike Berger
The “declaration of conscience” published in The Sunday Independent (December 9) challenges the Jewish community to admit that Israel is the transgressor in the Middle East and, hence, bears the responsibility for bringing the conflict to a just resolution. Although the latter assertion does not logically follow from the former, the document as a whole requires careful attention in view of the enormous publicity it has received and the prominence of some of the signatories. The opening assertion of the declaration constitutes the foundation for the rest of the statement: “The fundamental causes of the current conflict are Israels suppression of the Palestinian struggle for national self-determination and its continued occupation of Palestinian lands.” This unequivocal accusation is softened slightly by condemnation of Palestinian violence and of terrorism. But, in turn, the qualification is undermined by suggestions that an “occupied” people cannot reasonably be expected to honour their agreements. Thus, shortcomings on the part of Palestinians are excusable by virtue of their victimhood. The opening salvo is an extraordinary reduction of a complex and tragic history into the slogans of an ideologically configured moral landscape. In this vision blame and responsibility are readily abstracted from complex historical reality and assigned to national entities and groups. The truth is rarely so simple, especially considering the Byzantine complexities of the Middle East. Perhaps in retrospect the moral structure of the 100-year conflict is blindingly clear to some omnipotent minds. But this was not so to the actors on both sides, at the time driven by a complex mix of political visions, violent prejudices and desperate needs. And it is certainly not reflected from the scholarly controversies that continue to swirl around the rich and intricate history of Israeli-Palestinian-Arab relationships. The record is rich with diverse personalities, different purposes and perspectives, extraordinarily incompatible cultures, prejudices and hatreds, great honesty and clarity of vision, competing national agendas and strategies and simple misunderstandings and failures of communication. The formation of al-Fatah in the early 20th century, the machinations and violent anti-Jewish sentiments of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the brutal riots and murders of initially defenceless Jewish settlers in the 1920s and 1930s, the promise of a “momentous massacre” and “extermination” by Azzam Pasha, head of the Arab League, prior to invading the new state of Israel in 1948, are swept aside as irrelevant to the grand analysis. The Palestinians are victims and they are thus excluded as contributors to and participants in the evolution of the conflict. The distancing effect of ideology is reflected in yet another assertion by the authors: “We reject any approach that is guided by existential fear and which sacrifices principles of justice in the name of collective survival.” Given the history of the Jews and the ongoing violence directed at Israel by its neighbours, this coldly insensitive comment alone disqualifies the authors from claiming a Jewish identity for their declaration. Elsewhere, under “Repression intensifies resistance”, the authors display a laundry list of alleged Israeli sins as though the sheer weight of accusation creates its own truth. Some inaccuracies and decontextualised assertions are immediately apparent. Israel does not deploy lethal force against civilians armed with stones as a “matter of policy”. “Ruthless” is in the eye of the beholder. The first task of a state is to protect its civilians against murderous assassins. If “ruthless” measures are needed then it is their moral duty to use them; the major criterion in such situations is necessity. I will leave it to others to respond to the remaining specific allegations. Nevertheless, the authors are right in expecting the Israelis to limit the use of force while bearing in mind their first obligation is to their own citizens. It is the selective blindness that is so deeply repugnant in the declaration. On almost every measure of human rights, democratic practice, religious tolerance, respect for the rule of law and freedom of information, Israel is incontestably superior to the Palestinians and the despotic, corrupt theo-cracies that are its chief supporters. Amnesty International and others have documented widespread use of torture by the Palestine Liberation Organisation yet this receives no mention in the declaration. The extremist culture of Hamas and the terror network it is part of is subsumed under the bland term of “resistance” and receives a limp smack on the wrist. In the perspective of the left, Israel is defined as a settler colonialist state. All reality is filtered through this ideological prism and the actors emerge in their assigned and permanent roles of oppressed and oppressor, victim and racist. According to this impoverished view of reality, the oppressed largely escape moral censure that is borne in full by the oppressor. Contrary facts are dismissed as irrelevant or simply excluded from consciousness. All Jews, indeed all people, of good conscience wish to see the violence and deprivation brought to an end. We all wish to see both peoples receive the opportunity to express their national identities in safety. We would wish them to have the material resources to achieve prosperity and freedom from hunger and disease. But Israel alone is not responsible for the current predicament and alone cannot achieve the desired outcome. In the jargon of the region, it needs a partner for peace. Michael Berger is a former professor of chemical pathology at the University of Natal