By Iqbal Jassat

Now that the freebie propaganda mission has been exposed, it provides fresh opportunities for civil societies as well as the SA government to honour Tutu’s legacy by intensifying the boycott of the apartheid regime.

If anyone is unsure about why South African MPs were treated as royalty in Israel while British MPs were denied entry and chucked out, it is no real mystery and not difficult to understand. 

The former group, made up of MPs representing political parties in South Africa’s Government of National Unity (GNU), is known to be loyal supporters of the apartheid regime. 

Their respective political formations comprising of the Democratic Alliance (DA), Patriotic Alliance (PA) and African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) have not only failed to condemn Israel’s ongoing savagery in the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, but have opposed South Africa’s groundbreaking legal initiative at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). 

That their nine representatives, including an ardent Zionist Rabbi Warren Goldstein, were hosted and in all likelihood funded by a group directly associated with the SA Zionist Federation (SAZF) known as Friends of Israel (FOI) ought not to surprise anyone familiar with Israel’s “Hasbara” (propaganda unit). 

Their so-called “fact-finding mission” had a clear objective: To rubber-stamp Israel’s denial that it is an apartheid state. 

To their shame and humiliation, the cat was let out of the bag when FOI foolishly shot itself in the foot by announcing ahead of time that the group will testify “there was no evidence of apartheid and, to the contrary, Israel is a vibrant progressive multi-racial and multi-ethnic society, in which the rights of all citizens are protected and upheld by the rule of law”. 

Denying the existence and practice of apartheid in the settler colonial regime has been and remains a misplaced article of faith for Rabbi Goldstein and the regime’s front line defender, the SAZF. 

In a 2010 critique I wrote under the heading “SA Rabbi Denies Existence of Apartheid in Israel”, I referred to the late Palestinian author and eloquent spokesman for the Palestinian cause in the West, Edward W. Said’s ‘96 essay titled ‘Mandela, Netanyahu, and Arafat’. 

Though it brilliantly captured the contrasts amongst these leaders, the defining gaps were not related to personalities; instead, Said unpacked crucial differences related to and informed by ideology. 

For instance, he cited Nelson Mandela’s commitment to the African National Congress’ (ANC) single goal for which it was created: the end of apartheid, and the institution of legal equality – one person, one vote – between blacks and whites.

On the other hand, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who incidentally at the time was on his first official trip to the United States, represented bigotry and falsehood. 

Today, 25 years later, one will fully appreciate Said’s criticism of this bigot. His analysis likened Netanyahu to all other Israeli leaders who denied the past and the reality of the Palestinians.

As is borne out by his horrific bloodbath in Gaza, Netanyahu, now indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court (ICC), was profiled back then by Said as a man insensitive to the human toll caused by Israel to millions of Arabs. 

The thrust of my piece centred on Rabbi Goldstein’s open letter to Archbishop Desmond Tutu in which he disputed the strong argument the Arch had made against apartheid in Israel.

Tutu’s devastating critique of Israeli apartheid was underpinned by his support for sanctions against it, unlike Goldstein’s apologetic stance and the absurdity of whitewashing by MPs on the Hasbara trip. 

In a comprehensive 2021 study undertaken by B’tselem, a human rights organisation based in Israel titled “This is Apartheid”, the conclusion was clear: “The entire area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River is organised under a single principle: advancing and cementing the supremacy of one group – Jews – over another – Palestinians”. 

A regime that uses laws, practices, and organized violence to cement the supremacy of one group over another is an apartheid regime, said B’tselem in its report.

“Israeli apartheid, which promotes the supremacy of Jews over Palestinians, was not born in one day or of a single speech. It is a process that has gradually grown more institutionalised and explicit, with mechanisms introduced over time in law and practice to promote Jewish supremacy.”

It cannot be disputed, neither by SAZF nor the DA, PA and ACDP MPs that the accumulated measures as described by B’tselem including their pervasiveness in legislation and political practice, and the public and judicial support they receive, form the basis of its conclusion that the bar for labeling the Israeli regime as apartheid has been met. 

Now that the freebie propaganda mission has been exposed and pressure is mounting to have the MPs disciplined, with the possibility of being barred from their privileged posts, it provides fresh opportunities for civil societies as well as the SA government to honour Tutu’s legacy by intensifying the boycott of the apartheid regime.

The views expressed in the article do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of The Palestine Chronicle.