South African ‘peace’ conference implodes after organizers accused of using it to whitewash Israel’s crimes – Mondoweiss

In early September, pro-Palestinian activists first received information about a conference organized by prominent academic Ivor Chipkin and his Johannesburg-based research NGO, the New South Institute (NSI). This year’s event was launched under the name African Global Dialogue and was entitled “Narrative Conditions for Peace in the Middle East”.

For many, that was harmless enough. What could be harmful about engaging in intellectual dialogues that promote peace? Who could, in her words, oppose a critical yet positive debate “with the aim of opening up a discursive space about Israel/Palestine”?

The conference contrasted its call for “nuance and complexity” with a false equivalence between the “extremism” and “messianism” of the Israeli right and the so-called “fascism” of Hamas, and boasted of an “outstanding cast of experts.” ” from different areas.

However, the fate of the meeting took an unexpected turn when a series of internal documents, including a concept note listing dozens of potential guests, were leaked. South Africans recognized many of the names immediately: international relations minister Ronald Lamola, economist Imraan Valodia, journalist Ferial Haffejee, Robben Island political prisoner Saths Cooper and Wits University vice-chancellor Zeblon Vilakazi. But it was the list of keynote speakers that really shocked people: including famous historian Achille Mbembe, prominent philosopher Etienne Balibar, former International Criminal Court President Chile Eboe-Osuji and former Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. (Following pressure from BDS Palestine, Salam Fayyad also wrote a statement confirming that he did not attend the conference. Nevertheless, the organizers failed to remove his name from the website and other promotional materials, which appeared to have occurred he did not refuse to participate.)

The fact that many of the speakers mentioned, including some committed anti-Zionists, were with genocide deniers and pro-Israel hacks such as sociologist David Hirsh and historian Benny Morris (not to mention proto-fascist Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture Gayton McKenzie). more than surprising. What was going on here?

While South Africans – who recognize the systematic oppression of Palestinians as intimately linked to their own history – are generally anti-Zionist, there is a growing cohort of Western-oriented elites who see their own interests in line with US imperialism and have begun to adopt a policy to enforce sympathy for Israel. Chipkin’s position on this “conflict” is part of this grouping: he seeks to deceive the public by portraying his policies as a middle ground, but in practice acts as a stooge for Zionism. But in South Africa, where we have been deceived by liberal solutions to apartheid in the past, activists quickly saw through the cover and successfully mobilized to challenge the conference’s agenda.

South African Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) activists analyzed the leaked conference documents. In attempting to shift the narrative away from the so-called extremes and toward peace, Chipkin and NSI deliberately obscured the fact of an ongoing genocide and a history of colonization and dispossession that characterizes the so-called conflict. The panels were designed to hide the mass killings and terrorism carried out by the Israeli army and the Mossad. They portrayed the issue as a conflict between two sides that could only be resolved by abandoning decolonization and resistance. What Chipkin and his cohort advocated, then, was not a nuanced middle ground, but rather the capitulation of the Palestinian resistance in favor of a liberal Zionist or “post-Zionist” justification of the extreme status quo. In other words, their own version of extremism but with a sensible human face (to paraphrase Steven Bantu Biko).

If we can simply find our way to peace through dialogue, we do not have to dismantle the colonial structure, its occupation and its apartheid regime. Of course, dialogue and diplomacy do not have to replace anti-colonial resistance: they can be a tactical consideration within a broader political and material struggle.

But in NSI’s formulation, armed and other forms of resistance must first capitulate to a postcolonial (read: neocolonial) framework for this dialogue to take place. This would use the promise of peace to keep oppressive structures intact. Zionism would be reclaimed by its zealots and re-articulated as a rational project of Jewish national liberation. However, in reality, this is no different than US President Joe Biden calling for a ceasefire while simultaneously arming and supporting Israeli aggression.

The great fraud

But while such a position remains mainstream in the United States, it raises immediate alarm in South Africa. For South African activists, it is reminiscent of the reformers of the apartheid era: those who sought to save apartheid and suppress resistance by establishing a three-tier parliament called the Tricameral Parliament and granting expanded – if still unequal – rights to black South Africans. Although these Apartheid-lite Although reformers attempted to make blacks share in their own oppression, their attempts were firmly rejected by the liberation movements. The three-chamber parliament was largely boycotted and other alternative solutions were largely rejected.

It is this legacy that many South Africans see in the liberal Zionist project of dialogue and peace. For this reason, news of the conference provoked opposition from civil society groups and individuals, including the South African BDS Coalition, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and South African Jews for a Free Palestine.

The BDS coalition released a statement criticizing organizers for promoting their event with a list of participants and participants who had no intention of attending. Named participants also responded and firmly rejected any insinuation that they were involved. Liepollo Pheko condemned “the unethical use of these colleagues without permission in a manner that implies that these individuals sanction Zionism, ethnic cleansing, racism and genocide.” Achille Mbembe has publicly withdrawn his name as one of the conference’s featured panelists.

After activists announced a protest outside the venue and some media outlets weighed in on the controversy, the conference began to implode. The great Zionist fraud has been exposed.

The venue

One of the most controversial aspects of the conference was the choice of venue: Constitution Hill.

A World Heritage Site, it was an old colonial and apartheid prison that once housed famous political prisoners from Albertina Sisulu, Winnie Mandela, Fatima Meer and Joe Slovo to Robert Sobukwe, Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi. Today it is a popular museum, a venue for civil society conferences and the seat of the country’s highest constitutional court. It is considered the flame of South Africa’s democratic order.

The fact that a conference to legitimize a racist colonial ethnostate took place in the symbolic heart of South African democracy was an outrageous insult to those who fought for freedom in this country.

Comments were made. Constitution Hill Trust, the NGO that runs the adjacent museum, distanced itself from the conference in its own message. They made it clear that they had nothing to do with bookings at Constitution Hill.

After considerable pressure, the Constitution Hill Development Company, the district’s actual manager, withdrew from hosting the conference. NSI was forced to move the event online and to an undisclosed alternate location at a hotel in suburban Sunnyside.

Don’t bring your liberal genocide rhetoric to South Africa

The conference still took place – in South Africa’s free constitutional order it could not be banned – but it was a shell of their larger ambitions. The venue was abolished and with it the symbolism of the post-apartheid order. The panels were reorganized as closed, invitation-only panels. Finally, important participants withdrew at the last minute. Despite estimates that NSI spent more than $100,000 organizing and promoting the conference, including $25,000 on online advertising alone, CNN and local media outlets declined to broadcast it. Since the number of participants was limited, the impact of the conference was negligible.

African Global Dialogue released its own statement on the controversy, condemning this anti-apartheid activism as an extremist attack on freedom of expression. But virtually everyone has seen through the rhetoric of peace and moderation.

Through widespread activism and pressure, South African activists exposed the major Zionist hoax and ensured that it could not be portrayed as favoring either side.

As South African activists, we have learned that liberal measures cannot be trusted in the fight against apartheid. In the 1980s, such attempts to undermine the South African anti-apartheid movement threatened to extend apartheid well past its expiry date. More recently, we have also seen how liberalism’s co-optation of political parties after 1994 prevented the transformation of our society into the post-apartheid order.

This experience and our successful resistance to the NSI Zionist Conference are a beacon for activists in the West, inviting them to take a similar position when confronted with liberal Zionist justifications for apartheid in Israel.