This year’s Israel Apartheid Week (IAW) bears almost no resemblance to that of 2012. Apart from a series of anonymous posters, placed around campus and Peppergrove Mall, responding to IAW’s references to Israel as an “apartheid” state, the voice of “the other side”, those of an Israeli standpoint is entirely missing. This was not the case in 2012, due to the formation of the Balance the Debate (BTD) campaign.
This year’s Israel Apartheid Week (IAW) bears almost no resemblance to that of 2012. Apart from a series of anonymous posters, placed around campus and Peppergrove Mall, responding to IAW’s references to Israel as an “apartheid” state, the voice of “the other side”, those of an Israeli standpoint is entirely missing. This was not the case in 2012, due to the formation of the Balance the Debate (BTD) campaign.
The Rhodes University Palestinian Solidarity Forum (RUPSF), which comprises students and staff rallying for the Palestinian cause, and IAW events, seek to build solidarity with the people of Palestine and to promote greater awareness and understanding of their daily oppression.
However, BTD attempted to provide a pro-Israeli stance during IAW 2012. “We came up with a campaign that we wanted to run parallel to this [IAW] campaign… because people are only getting one side,” said the founders of BTD.
During the 2013 discussions RUPSF members have repeatedly lamented the fact that the University’s pro-Israel constituency has not engaged with them in meaningful debate, opting rather to hide behind anonymous and “explicitly racist” posters full of “hate-speech”.
RUPSF has been slow to come to this conclusion however. In 2012, BTD activists felt they were attacked during the week’s events, including their being described as “equal to white liberalism in our own apartheid era”. BTD also noted that little was done to engage in a debate with members of the pro-Israeli stance and no pro-Israeli academics were approached.
This is highly problematic, according to Rhodes university graduate Chuck Volpe. As an academic institution, Rhodes should be teaching critical thinking: providing students with all of the arguments and all of the perspectives on this conflict so that they can make up their own minds.
“I follow the argument wherever it takes me,” said Volpe, who advocates from a pro-Israeli standpoint. “I am not interested in just being a drum basher and a flag waver.” It is for this very reason that he, when approached by Port Elizabeth ANC ward councillors in 2012, in order to explain the Israeli perspective, suggested that they make a debate out of it. “They didn’t even know there was another side to the debate,” Volpe said.
Volpe maintains that if students do not know all the arguments, they will do no more than trumpet one story and even then, they will not be able to do justice to it. The IAW campaign is highly problematic, he said, using generalisations and emotive slogans.”If you tell a lie often enough,” he said, “people will start to believe it.”
Indeed, IAW’s decision to use the word “apartheid” in reference to Israel has caused controversy, with BTD arguing that this is manipulative, insulting and plays on the South African memory of trauma and post-apartheid white guilt. It is also argued to be inappropriate to the Israel state, which is the only Middle Eastern nation classified as “Free” by Freedom House.
The RUPSF defends their use of the term however, stating that it is used not to undermine the human rights abuses that occurred in apartheid South Africa, but rather to demonstrate the extent of similar abuses in the occupied territories. Politics lecturer and member of RUPSF Georgina Barrett explained: “The insecurity in Palestine, as it was during apartheid in South Africa, is not limited to soldiers and policing but is normalised in the routines of daily life for those who endure it.”
Meanwhile, Rhodes has made clear what this week is about. “The University would like to make the point that the struggles of the people of Palestine are real, as real as the struggle against Apartheid,” according to a statement from the Communications Division.
Referring to the controversial hosting of Israel-born musician Yossi Reshef earlier this week, the statement said it agrees with the principles of the global campaign against the oppression currently taking place in Palestine through the implementation of Israeli government policies. It also distanced Rhodes from any relationship with the Israeli government or academic institutions.
Indeed, comments from individuals such as Barrett make it clear that the kind of engagement that occurred in 2012, following the founding of the Balance the Debate Campaign, was inappropriate and deliberately detracted from the systematic oppression and gross human rights violations of the Palestinians.
“There needs to be a dramatic change in the actions of the Israeli state and its external supporters before such dialogue can effectively begin,” said Barrett.
It remains uncertain therefore, whether Rhodes will allow individuals such as Volpe or groups such as BTD to engage in meaningful debate, or indeed, if these discussions can really have any resonance in an international community that is already so viciously divided on the argument.
