Editor’s note: The article below is an important challenge to the major fantasy encouraged by the Obama White House and Sec of State Kerry: that the “peace process” negotiations might yield a reasonable outcome. Lev Grinberg shows why that is very unlikely. Yet it might come up with a proposed settlement that some in the West will think is quite reasonable. In the Winter 2014 issue of Tikkun (coming by the end of January to subscribers and members of the Network of Spiritual Progressives) we lay out a detailed plan that is the minimum acceptable plan for actually providing a plausible and lasting solution. Please use it as a measuring rod when deciding what to think about what emerges from the “peace process.”  If you don’t yet subscribe or haven’t joined the Network of Spiritual Progressives, please do so now at www.spiritualprogressives.org). Meantime, read Grinberg’s insightful article below!–RabbiLerner.tikkun@gmail.com

The ‘Peace Process’ Delusion is Worse than Apartheid[1]

By Lev Grinberg*

The death of Nelson Mandela, a major hero of the struggle for freedom and equality in the 20th century, has generated a host of strange and curious comparisons and interpretations. Strangest of all is the one crowning Mandela as the leader of the non-violent struggle. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may not have been alone in upholding this distorted notion, but in his case, the political intention is unmistakable: to wit, the reason why the Palestinians are unable to achieve their coveted liberty and equality is that they do not have their own Mandela to lead a non-violent struggle. Such interpretation reflects not ignorance, but a deliberate deception. Mandela’s struggle should be reviewed and compared to the Palestinian struggle in order to understand both the similarities and the differences between them. It is thus worthwhile to consider briefly the link between violence and liberation.

Mandela won his senior position when he decided to lead an armed struggle in South Africa, and established the military branch of the African National Congress. Going underground, he then led terror and sabotage operations against the apartheid regime, for which he was sentenced to life in prison. Twenty-seven years later he was released to conduct negotiations with South Africa’s State President Frederik William de Klerk, designed to put an end to the apartheid regime. De Klerk managed to bring the Whites around to concede a regime of White supremacy and privilege, do away with inter-racial segregation, and accept the principle of equal voting rights for Blacks and Whites. Such concessions were the result of not only the armed struggle, but of the apartheid regime’s mounting unpopularity and of the economic and political boycott imposed on South Africa. In other words, it was only when the White elites of South Africa felt the direct impact of these sanctions that de Klerk was able to convince them that they should renounce apartheid and their privileges. It is important to realize that without violent struggle, the Blacks of South Africa would never have won recognition. But armed struggle alone is not enough, because the powers ruling the State are always  more powerful, organized and better equipped. International pressure is therefore necessary. The more international pressure, the less violence is required.

Could an analysis of Black struggle in South Africa teach us something about the Palestinian struggle? I believe that it can, despite the differences between the two regimes in terms of the nature of segregation and types of privileges. Palestinian violence did engender international pressure during 1988-1992, which resulted in Israel’s recognition of the PLO in 1993. Following this recognition, Yasser Arafat committed to a peaceful resolution of the conflict, and got Mandela’s blessing for it. Unfortunately, mutual recognition has led matters in the opposite direction – to an upgraded version of Israel’s military and economic control and oppression. The reason for this is that Israelis, along with the rest of the world, imagined that the sheer act of recognition was the end of the process, rather than its beginning. The world stopped putting pressure on Israel, the Arab boycott was lifted, and every country in the world, including Russia, eastern Europe, China, and the Asian and African continents, have opened their gates for commerce with Israel. Israelis, too, have bought into the peace delusion, turning their attention to internal struggles over Israel’s ‘civic’ agenda, choosing to close their eyes to the doubling and later tripling of the Jewish population in the Occupied Territories. And when the Palestinians resorted to violence once again as diplomacy failed in 2000, Israelis were surprised and disappointed, and supported escalating oppressive violence. Simply put, when the world does not put pressure on the oppressive regime, the privileged group has no motivation to make any concessions. A cyclic routine of violence was thus created, erupting from time to time but never achieving anything beyond mutual bloodshed and destruction.

The result of the ‘Peace Process’ delusion has been worse than South African apartheid; more accurately, it was the realization of South African Whites’ frustrated plans: the division and fragmentation of the Palestinians into several separate and segregated areas under various regimes of control and oppression. This was the objective of the failed Bantustan Plan of the South African apartheid regime. Fearing that Israel was pushing him into accepting Palestinian Bantustans, Arafat declared that he would resist the plan, but without international support, his struggle failed. Israel has managed to effectively divide the Palestinians into five different discrimination regimes: the Arab citizens of Israel; the residents of East Jerusalem; the inhabitants of the West Bank; the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip; and the Palestinian refugees who are outside Israel’s control. Each of these groups is controlled in a different manner, so that its political struggle has taken a different shape. The Palestinians are thus unable to unite, and it is eminently clear that without massive international support, they can never break free from Israel’s iron grip. Violence on its own can only lead to another round of pointless bloodshed.

It is important to understand that this is not about the Palestinians not having a Mandela to lead them; Israeli prisons are home to a number of nationally recognized and respected Palestinian leaders. Rather, it is about Israel having no de Klerk to liberate them, and to negotiate towards putting an end to a regime of Jewish privileges. And without de Klerk, even Mandela would have died in obscurity.

*Professor Lev Grinberg is the author of Politics and Violence in Israel/Palestine – Democracy vs. Military Rule (Routledge, 2010)

Professor Lev Grinberg is a political sociologist, author of the book Imagined Peace; Discourse of War.