Response to "The Voices in my Head" by Stephen Clingmann that appeared in Kaleidoscope Issue 3

Dennis M. Davis

To The Editor,

Stephen Clingman is a wonderful writer.  In particular, his biography of Bram Fisher is a magnificent achievement bringing into eloquent focus a man born into Afrikaner elite circles who dedicated his entire life to transcending the parameters of that identity while working towards a non-racial democratic South Africa.  Given Stephen’s work on Fisher, it is unsurprising that the question of identity has played so considerable a role in his contribution to this

publication and to his reflection on the voices in his head as he struggled to make meaning of the Gaza/Israel war.

He has written a piece of great power, persuasion and eloquence.   In so many ways there is little that I can add.  But I do come from a different background.  I was in Habonim.  I am a graduate of Herzlia School, Cape Town. I was brought up to believe that it was truly possible for Israel to be both a democratic and Jewish State.  It was at Habonim, thanks to that most distinguished of anthropologists Professor John Comaroff who was then my madrich, that I first

encountered the work of Marx whose analytical framework continues to influence my thinking.  

I went to Israel for the first time on an Ulpan in 1966 as a fifteen-year-old.  It was a very different country then.  There was little material wealth but considerable dedication to the reconstruction of the society.  It was so refreshingly different from apartheid South Africa.  At that time, as a fifteen-year-old, I did not entirely comprehend the great challenge of reconciling

the legitimate demands for a Jewish state born out of the ashes of the Holocaust with the rights of Palestinians who also had been living in the same area for multiple generations.   

As adulthood dawned, I became heavily influenced by the work of Hannah Arendt holding to the hope that a Jewish tradition which embraced cosmopolitanism could solve this problem and vindicate the rights of all who lived in Israel, including Palestine.   Yes, I know that Arendt became critical of the political direction of Zionism and the danger of ethno-nationalism. But, I

held to the hope that her cosmopolitan politics which aligned with my reading of the Jewish tradition read in its most moral light could accommodate the pressing demands of Jews while respecting the rights of Palestinians.

I have held to that vision for almost half a century, notwithstanding my earlier public criticisms of what occurred in the Lebanese war in the early 1980’s, and the brutality of settlers on the West Bank.   I thought that when Yitzchak Rabin began the Oslo process, as imperfect as it was,

it would, in similar fashion to the initial halting steps which brought about constitutional democracy in South Africa, result in the unexpected; a reconciliation between competing demands of two peoples.  That Rabin was murdered as a result of sustained hatred caused by his fellow citizens, often led by fundamentalist rabbis, who refused to accept his aspirations remains a tragedy that I cannot entirely grasp nor can I easily forgive those who so persistently poured hatred upon him and his attempts at achieving what now

appears to be the impossible.

Unquestionably any such dream has been rendered even more impossible by the events of October 2023.    I find it incomprehensible that there are those who purport to be progressive but seem to find nothing wrong with the barbarism which was exhibited by Hamas in the murder, rape and torture of more than 1200 people.  Together with Stephen Clingman, I see nothing of a liberation movement in Hamas.  At best these are religious fundamentalists who

see the world in so myopic a fashion that it allows space for no one else other than those who show obeisance to their mantras.  

That having been said, any rational analysis must accommodate the nuance and complexity that bedevils the politics of the region. The Israel to which I first went in 1966 was supposed to be a light unto other nations.  It was not designed to descend to levels of immorality and sustained breaches of international law which can only be justified on the basis of ‘well look at

Hamas’.   It is inconceivable to me that one can turn a blind eye on the thousands of children and women and other non-combatants who have been killed over an almost two-year period. That the Israel of which I once dreamt can sustain a food blockade of a kind that can only be designed to cause the widest possible famine, starvation and death to so many innocents is as

incomprehensible to me as are those in my own community who, by their writings and speeches, treat Palestinians as non-humans.  

To those who claim that all these deaths, mayhem and starvation is Hamas’ fault entirely, the answer is that a coherent response cannot be a binary one.  Yes, Hamas has behaved with manic cruelty to its own and a complete disregard for the welfare of those in Gaza who might well have been saved had Hamas behaved like rational human beings.  But to say that Hamas’ attitude means that Israel gets off scot-free, that it has no moral agency and that the incessant bombings and the starvation campaign are none of its fault is but an obscene justification.  Let us be clear: the present Israeli government constitutes a foundational existential threat to the future of Israel.  The Netanyahu government is at war with the vision of a democratic and

Jewish Israel and   acts consistently, contrary to any basic international law standard. It is bent on genocide and ethnic cleansing as defined in international jurisprudence.   

Where I differ with Stephen Clingman is that tragically Israel/Palestine is not South Africa.  In South Africa there was no fundamental religious divide which caused the historical turmoil. Yes, race was the problem and it was egregious racism and prejudice.   But in the main it was a country, where given the great leadership of Nelson Mandela, it was possible, with all its imperfections, to fashion a society which belongs to all. Tragically, too much lack of accountable

governance and endemic corruption means that so much remains to be done.  The majority of the population continue to suffer from poverty.  Inequality expands mainly but not exclusively on race.  But there is still a realistic possibility of a more egalitarian society.  The political conditions in South Africa were so different. Apartheid represented government by a small

minority of the population; at the time 4.7m whites in a population of 36m. In addition, the liberation movement envisaged a secular democracy for all. Indeed, when FW De Klerk held a referendum in 1992 to gain support for constitutional negotiations, 68 % of the white voters voted in favour. In summary, the social and political context in which constitutional democracy was achieved differs fundamentally with that of Israel and the Palestinians. Out of the catastrophe of Apartheid and decades of struggle came a form of overlapping consensus that permitted the achievement of democracy. To mechanically apply this outcome to the totally different

contemporary context of Israel/Palestine is regrettably unrealistic.

 For these reasons, I cannot envisage a secular democratic constitutional framework for Israel/Palestine, not now. Frankly, I do not know when.  The conditions are entirely different. For these reasons therefore, only a two- state solution is possible.  It remains the only realistic option to reconcile the legitimate demands of both peoples.  The parameters thereof and its framework, however, must be left to the parties and not to people like myself sitting 6000 miles away.   

Like Stephen Clingman I must hold to hope.  There is only one way that we can move from the present tragedy to some peace for all and that is by embracing the humanity of all who live in this contested corner of the world.  As one whose Jewish identity is crucial, my prayer is for a compassionate, democratic Israel whose governance is devoid of religious fanatics to be reborn

and for Palestinians who eschew blind hatred to take hold of their future. Bombing their children and starving them can only result in pushing the majority of Palestinians away from

secular roots and into the fundamentalist camp. Only if these conditions arise will neither nation lift up sword against the other.  This can only be done within a climate of mutual recognition.  In this the Sinwars, Ben-Gvirs and Smotrichs must have no place in the governance of their people.

Dennis Davis,

DM Davis, Retired Judge President Competition Appeal Court, South Africa

Hon Professor of Law, University of Cape Town.