GHALEB CACHALIA: Treatment of Palestinians and freedom of speech central to ructions in the DA

My recent stance on the evolving debacle in Gaza and the ructions it has caused in my party, the DA, has provided cause to reflect on two key aspects emanating from my position: the integrity of my view and the question of freedom of speech within political parties (“Ghaleb Cachalia axed from DA shadow cabinet over anti-Israel comments”, November 2).

Regarding the former, few people would dispute that the greatest victims of the establishment of the state of Israel have been Palestinians. Despite the metrics of measurement — deaths, displacement, imprisonment, deprivation of national territory, identity and dignity, removal of resources, curtailment of movement, forced dependency, job reservation and more — there can be little dispute that, as the last outpost of enforced settler occupation facilitated by colonial authorities, the treatment meted out to these indigenous inhabitants of historic Palestine remains a festering sore that has finally captured the attention of most of the world.

It is precisely this that prompted Nelson Mandela, in celebrating the freedom of the SA people from the yoke of apartheid, to say: “Our freedom cannot be complete without the freedom of the Palestinian people.” Sadly, the freedom of Palestinians to claim the same right of concern from the world as other oppressed peoples, including the Jews, and to exercise the right to tell their story, has largely been suppressed, ignored or distorted through the lifespan of successive generations.

It is only with the rise of resistance movements after 1967 and the growth lately of dissenting voices, including those of many Jews, that the story of their plight at the hands of successive Israeli governments has begun to emerge to counter widely-held sentiments in the industrial West. These sentiments were encapsulated by the author of the Balfour Declaration, in which he wrote in 1919: “Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land”.

As US academic and public intellectual Noam Chomsky drily remarked in 1978 with reference to Balfour “somehow the Palestinian peasants, mired in their prejudice, were never able to appreciate their moral responsibility to expiate the sins of Christian Europe”.

Against this background of global and local calls, many are appalled by Western politicians and intellectuals when they explain their backing for Israel’s policies in terms of a “moral obligation”. Chomsky went on to say it is “as if the sins of the Nazis and their predecessors, or of the Americans who closed their doors to refugees from Hitler’s horrors, require the sacrifice of Palestinians on ‘moral grounds’. How easy it is to meet one’s moral obligations by sacrificing someone else’s life”. 

The population of Gaza is hemmed in, with no entry or exit points, while more tonnage of bombs than was dropped on Hiroshima is rained on its people, largely indiscriminately, resulting in untold numbers of civilian deaths, mainly women and children.   

Against this background, global and local calls, including those by the UN and its agencies, for an unconditional ceasefire, must be taken seriously. Then the tough task of negotiating with all stakeholders needs to begin — as we did to end apartheid and as the people of Britain did to end the “Troubles” in Northern Ireland, as they were quaintly called.

Political solution

As American author Adam Shatz wrote in his widely disseminated article, Vengeful Pathologies, first published in the London Review of Books: “The inescapable truth is that Israel cannot extinguish Palestinian resistance by violence, any more than the Palestinians can win an Algerian-style liberation war: Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs are stuck with each other, unless Israel, the far stronger party, drives the Palestinians into exile for good.

“The only thing that can save the people of Israel and Palestine, and prevent another Nakba (“catastrophe” in Arabic) — a real possibility, while another Holocaust remains a traumatic hallucination — is a political solution that recognises both as equal citizens, and allows them to live in peace and freedom, whether in a single democratic state, two states or a federation. So long as this solution is avoided, a continuing degradation, and an even greater catastrophe, are all but guaranteed.”

Then there is the question of freedom of speech in political parties, in which the preservation of party members’ moral agency constitutes a significant interest. This, it is argued, is best served by the protection of their speech vis-à-vis the party. There is therefore a compelling presumptive case in favour of freedom of speech within the party, and while there may be circumstances in which this may be overridden, it may be harder to defeat than one might first think.

While members may be free to exit their respective parties, exit from one’s party is not a plausible substitute for exercising moral agency within the organisation. Depending on the context, it may negatively affect one’s exercise of political rights to democratic participation, impose costs on an individual’s social status, or carry nonmaterial costs attached to the severing of close ties and relationships with copartisans. 

Clearly we all have, or should in a liberal context, the right to express ourselves freely and hold our own opinions — even if our views are unpopular or could upset or offend others. I believe freedom of expression takes on special significance for parliamentarians. It allows them to connect with citizens, raise their concerns and denounce possible abuses.

It is crucial that parliamentarians can do this unhampered and without fear of reprisal. Alas, as the Afrikaans adage goes, dis nou mostert ná die maal (after meat comes mustard). 

• Cachalia, a DA MP, was public enterprises spokesperson.