Suchergebnisse

Introduction -- The Communist Party of South Africa -- The rise of African nationalism -- The Palestinian Communist Party, 1919-1948 -- Palestinian-Arab nationalism -- South Africa : the apartheid era -- Israel/Palestine post-1948 : dispersal and new beginnings -- Post-1967 : resistance, occupation and civic struggle -- Comparisons and conclusions.

"This book provides a comparative historical study of the rise and evolution of anti-colonial movements in South Africa and Israel/Palestine. It focuses on the ways in which major political movements and activists conceptualized their positions vis-a-vis historical processes of colonial settlement and indigenous resistance over the last century. Drawing on a range of primary sources, the author engages with theoretical debates involving key actors operating in their own time and space. Using a comparative framework, the book illustrates common and divergent patterns of political and ideological contestations and focuses on the relevance of debates about race and class, state and power, ethnicity and nationalism. Particular attention is given to South Africa and Israel/Palestine's links to global campaigns to undermine foreign domination and internal oppression, tensions between the quests for national liberation and equality of rights, the role of dissidents from within the ranks of settler communities, and the various attempts to consolidate indigenous resistance internally while forging alliances with other social and political forces on the outside. This book will be of interest to scholars in the fields of African History, Middle East History and African Studies, and to social justice and solidarity activists globally"--

The term Apartheid was coined to describe the system of segregation, practiced for many years in South Africa. However the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court omitted all references to South Africa in its definition of 'the crime of apartheid' and the term is now defined globally as a crime against humanity. This article explores the similarities and differences between the now abandoned practice of apartheid in South Africa and the current apartheid policies of Israel, highlighting the need to differentiate between Israel proper (within its pre-1967 boundaries), Greater Israel (within the post-1967 boundaries), and Greater Palestine. Whereas Israel claims it offers democratic rights for all its citizens, all seven pillars of apartheid can be shown to exist in the occupied territories, where the Israeli regime is the sole authority, leaving the Palestinian Authority powerless. The article details how the influx of the different immigrant communities to Israel has disenfranchised the Palestinians from their land. It provides a new definition for the policies practiced, and the many ways in which Israel dictates to the lives of the Palestinians, as "Apartheid of a special type". It concludes with a proposal to support the policy of bi-nationalism, as stated in in the Haifa Declaration of 2007, which calls for a "change in the definition of the State of Israel from a Jewish state to a democratic state established on national and civil equality between the two national groups, and enshrining the principles of banning discrimination and of equality between all of its citizens and residents."

Le présent article examine la notion de modernité « alternative », souvent invoquée par les gouvernements et les acteurs politiques locaux pour affirmer qu'ils gardent le contrôle de leurs ressources intellectuelles et techniques face aux pressions de la mondialisation. À partir de l'exemple de l'Afrique du Sud post-apartheid, l'auteur analyse certains aspects des politiques économiques et sociales de ce pays pour examiner ce qu'elles nous apprennent de la signification qu'il faut donner aux notions de savoir local et savoir global et des rapports entre les deux. L'Afrique du Sud post-apartheid a choisi de s'inscrire résolument dans la mouvance des courants socioéconomiques planétaires, dans la mesure où sa politique exprime une adhésion sans réserve aux objectifs conventionnels du développement, de la modernisation, et de la croissance économique. En même temps, elle s'efforce de replacer et de réaliser ces objectifs dans un contexte national de transition sociale et politique tout en transformant les relations de pouvoir existantes. En tant que parti au pouvoir, l' anc défend pour sa part une conception du développement qu'on pourrait qualifier d'« alternative », qui met en exergue la notion de compétences locales ou africaines. Dans la réalité, il semblerait que l'on se préoccupe moins du contenu ou de l'origine des connaissances mises en œuvre que de savoir qui les contrôle et les applique. L'essentiel, autrement dit, c'est la liberté de décider à quelles compétences faire appel et comment les utiliser. Le fait de savoir dans quelle mesure ces compétences sont vraiment enracinées dans le contexte local ou africain passe tout à fait au second plan. Une telle approche restreint la portée de ce qui voudrait être une alternative à la conception dominante du développement.

AbstractThe paper discusses historical lessons offered by the experience of two leftwing movements, the pre-1948 Palestinian Communist Party, and the post-1948 Israeli Socialist Organization (Matzpen). The focus of discussion is the relationship between class and nation as principles of organization.The Palestinian Communist Party was shaped by forces that shaped the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: British rule, Zionist ideology and settlement practices, and Arab nationalism. At intensified conflict periods it was torn apart by the pressures of competing nationalisms. By the end of the period, its factions agreed on one principle: the need to treat members of both national groups equally, whether as individuals or as groups entitled to self-determination. This position was rejected by both national movements as incompatible with their quest for control.In the post-1948 period, Matzpen epitomized the radical critique of Zionism. It was the clearest voice speaking against the 1967 occupation and for restoration of Palestinian rights. However, it never moved beyond the political margins, and its organization failed to provide members with a sustainable mode of activism. It was replaced by a new mode, mobilizing people around specific issues instead of presenting an overall program.The paper concludes with suggestions on how the Left may use these lessons to develop a strategy to focus on the quest for social justice and human rights.