PDA

View Full Version : Christians praying for Mandela’s recovery




BlackTerrel
02-27-2012, 09:35 PM
The world is going to lose one of the few true heroes when he passes...

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/christians.praying.for.mandelas.recovery/29391.htm


Christians are praying for former South African President Nelson Mandela as he recovers at home following surgery for an abdominal complaint.

The 93-year-old was discharged from hospital on Sunday following an overnight stay to uncover the cause of the discomfort.

Officials said Mandela was resting with family at his home in the Houghton area of Johannesburg.

His release from hospital will be a great relief to millions of South Africans who continue to adore the man who led the nation out of the dark years of apartheid.

The South African Council of Churches said it was praying for Mandela’s recovery.

“[The SACC] wishes the former President Nelson Mandela a speedy and full recovery,” the organisation tweeted.

Mandela was remembered by worshippers at the Regina Mundi church in Soweto during Sunday Mass.

The church that was a frequent gathering place for members of the anti-apartheid movement and a prominent stained glass window bears his image. Mandela was to later speak at the church in 1997, seven years after his release from prison.

Tom Nakeni was at the church on Sunday to pray for Mandela’s quick recovery.

He told the BBC: “We need him … the world needs him.”

moderate libertarian
02-27-2012, 09:41 PM
Isn't it time US took him off from this list?


U.S. has Mandela on terrorist list - USATODAY.com
Apr 30, 2008 ... Nobel Peace Prize winner and international symbol of freedom Nelson Mandela
is flagged on U.S. terrorist watch lists and needs special ...

www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-04-30-watchlist_N.htm

Arafat was removed from list decades ago, why Mandela wasn't.

Hopefully he lives or leaves behind a prodigy who can be elected as PM in mideast democracy now that SA apartheid is over.

BlackTerrel
02-27-2012, 09:53 PM
WASHINGTON — Nobel Peace Prize winner and international symbol of freedom Nelson Mandela is flagged on U.S. terrorist watch lists and needs special permission to visit the USA. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calls the situation "embarrassing," and some members of Congress vow to fix it.

Well your article was from 2008. Sounds like hopefully that was fixed.

smhbbag
02-27-2012, 10:27 PM
It's not embarrassing. It's embarrassing that such a totalitarian, Marxist-terrorist is praised by anyone to the right of Fidel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKO7MmJ60zY&feature=relmfu

Kluge
02-27-2012, 10:50 PM
It's not embarrassing. It's embarrassing that such a totalitarian, Marxist-terrorist is praised by anyone to the right of Fidel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKO7MmJ60zY&feature=relmfu

While Mandela is obviously a flawed human being like the rest of us, it's pointless and harmful to embark on a mission to discredit the good he has done.

smhbbag
02-27-2012, 11:15 PM
Is any word that I said false?

Is he not a Marxist? Is he not a totalitarian whose best friends make up a real-life Murderer's Row? Was he not a terrorist with the blood of children on his hands?

Failing to mention such minor parts of a 'flawed human being like the rest of us' is a pretty major oversight.

They made a celebrated movie based on his life, and somehow failed to mention WHY he was in prison, or why nobody (other than fellow terrorists in the ANC), including Amnesty International, objected to his trial or punishment. His prison sentence was, in fact, hailed for its leniency by liberal outlets around the world, because everyone acknowledged the severity of his crimes.

Nobody knows this stuff, and to pass over it as if it's unimportant is to contribute to public ignorance.

sparebulb
02-27-2012, 11:22 PM
Was Mandela using communism to fight racism?

Or was he using racism to promote communism?

Either way, he's a despicable communist.

FrankRep
02-28-2012, 12:18 AM
How to be a Good Communist (http://www.archive.org/details/HowToBeAGoodCommunist)
- Nelson Mandela, 2002

Archive.org
http://www.archive.org/details/HowToBeAGoodCommunist



http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories/US_12-2009/mandelaslovo.001.jpg
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories/US_12-2009/mandelavictory2.001.jpg

specsaregood
02-28-2012, 12:34 AM
Is any word that I said false?

That has nothing to do with what Kluge said. You seem to have completely missed the point.

smhbbag
02-28-2012, 12:47 AM
That has nothing to do with what Kluge said. You seem to have completely missed the point.

It's precisely the point.

To say that Mandela is a 'flawed human being like the rest of us' whose good we shouldn't overlook, is to be one of two things: ignorant, or dishonest.

Either one needs to be pointed out. I tend to think folks just aren't facing the cold, hard reality of the facts. He was a terrorist by every definition of the term, and killed innocent people in the name of his racism and communism. He supports and befriends the worst of the worst, and then sets himself up as a victim and achieves world fame from a life story that simply never happened.

That is not 'a flawed human being like the rest of us.'

No, I am not a terrorist, nor a murderer, nor a radical, totalitarian Marxist. I am not a racist, and I don't sing songs longing for the extermination of any race. I don't have the balls to complain about how hard the sun hurt my eyes during the prison sentence I got for killing people.

Bin Laden has funded many charities. Hamas does humanitarian stuff.

I don't feel the need, nor should I feel the need, to point out that stuff when I speak of them as monsters. They're monsters, and I don't care if I gloss over the raindrop of falsely-motivated 'good' deeds that accompanied their terror.

specsaregood
02-28-2012, 12:54 AM
It's precisely the point.
To say that Mandela is a 'flawed human being like the rest of us' whose good we shouldn't overlook, is to be one of two things: ignorant, or dishonest.


Uhm no. Perhaps that is why you needed to cherry pick that piece of the quote. Let's put the whole thing in context:

While Mandela is obviously a flawed human being like the rest of us, it's pointless and harmful to embark on a mission to discredit the good he has done.

I'm guessing you get the point now.

smhbbag
02-28-2012, 01:13 AM
He is, and was, a very bad person. That is not public knowledge. It needs to be public knowledge.

You would never say the same thing, I hope, about leaders of terrorist organizations similar to the ANC. Many of them do a lot of good.

It is pointless and harmful to embark on a mission to suppress knowledge of their evil.

To speak of him this way reveals a fundamental non-acceptance of the significance of what he did.

Perhaps the savagery of his wife will jolt you back to reality. She said, in 1986, "we shall liberate this country with our our boxes of matches and our necklaces."
http://century.guardian.co.uk/1980-1989/Story/0,,110268,00.html

Necklacing is torture and execution by forcing a rubber tire, filled with petrol, around a victim's chest and arms, and setting it on fire.

That's his wife. That's who she is. That's who he is. This statement was a mere 7 years before Mandela became the President of South Africa. And 6 years before he won the Nobel Peace Prize.

I submit that it is impossible for any decent human being to look at that honestly and then say "Well, we shouldn't discredit his good."

Vanilluxe
02-28-2012, 01:29 AM
He is, and was, a very bad person. That is not public knowledge. It needs to be public knowledge.

You would never say the same thing, I hope, about leaders of terrorist organizations similar to the ANC. Many of them do a lot of good.

It is pointless and harmful to embark on a mission to suppress knowledge of their evil.

To speak of him this way reveals a fundamental non-acceptance of the significance of what he did.

Perhaps the savagery of his wife will jolt you back to reality. She said, in 1986, "we shall liberate this country with our our boxes of matches and our necklaces."
http://century.guardian.co.uk/1980-1989/Story/0,,110268,00.html

Necklacing is torture and execution by forcing a rubber tire, filled with petrol, around a victim's chest and arms, and setting it on fire.

That's his wife. That's who she is. That's who he is. This statement was a mere 7 years before Mandela became the President of South Africa. And 6 years before he won the Nobel Peace Prize.

I submit that it is impossible for any decent human being to look at that honestly and then say "Well, we shouldn't discredit his good."

Mandela did not have the opportunity to do peaceful protest, because the government has already waged wars and raided black settlements suppressing liberty, he fought against the apartheid and won. It is just like George Washington who fought and killed British, because protesting won't work against the redcoats, is George Washington a terrorist? If we lost the revolution, we might think of him as an "evil" terrorist disrupting lives of colonist.

smhbbag
02-28-2012, 01:37 AM
Mandela did not have the opportunity to do peaceful protest, because the government has already waged wars and raided black settlements suppressing liberty, he fought against the apartheid and won. It is just like George Washington who fought and killed British, because protesting won't work against the redcoats, is George Washington a terrorist? If we lost the revolution, we might think of him as an "evil" terrorist disrupting lives of colonist.

Get back to me when Washington turns out to have bombed public places, killed civilian men, women, and children on purpose, called for the total extermination of any race, and threw burning tires around the necks of countless people who were not involved in anything.

This world has officially gone mad.

Vanilluxe
02-28-2012, 01:42 AM
Get back to me when Washington turns out to have bombed public places, killed civilian men, women, and children on purpose, called for the total extermination of any race, and threw burning tires around the necks of countless people who were not involved in anything.

This world has officially gone mad.

There were lots of farm collateral damage and the Battle of Trenton and Yorktown received lots of artillery barrage. Also the government destroyed massive mounts of black settlements and machine gunned down teenagers in peaceful protest. Mandela lead a revolution against the racist and suppressive Apartheid regime.

smhbbag
02-28-2012, 01:47 AM
You have to be kidding.

Vanilluxe
02-28-2012, 01:48 AM
You have to be kidding.

I thought you were kidding ;)

Aus4RP
02-28-2012, 02:23 AM
Isn't there a video of Mandela singing "kill all the white men" getting around the net?

smhbbag
02-28-2012, 02:33 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcOXqFQw2hc

But don't worry. George Washington would have done that, too. :)

robert68
02-28-2012, 02:37 AM
There were lots of farm collateral damage and the Battle of Trenton and Yorktown received lots of artillery barrage. Also the government destroyed massive mounts of black settlements and machine gunned down teenagers in peaceful protest. Mandela lead a revolution against the racist and suppressive Apartheid regime.

Also:

...As the British concentrated on the southern United States in 1779, General George Washington took action against the Iroquois.

He instructed General John Sullivan to attack and destroy Iroquois villages in upper New York. Leading about 5,000 troops, Sullivan defeated the Iroquois in the Battle of Newtown, then destroyed over 40 Iroquois villages and all their stored crops in the fall of 1779. Because of the social disruption and crop losses, some Iroquois men, women, and children died of starvation that winter. Many of the Iroquois retreated to Fort Niagara and other parts of Canada, where they spent a cold and hungry winter...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Indian_War#American_Revolution

Vanilluxe
02-28-2012, 02:43 AM
Isn't there a video of Mandela singing "kill all the white men" getting around the net?

I think that is just Apartheid propaganda, would you prefer white apartheid killing blacks?

smhbbag
02-28-2012, 02:59 AM
I'm struck with the irony of all these Paul people defending the Establishment myth about Mandela.

puppetmaster
02-28-2012, 03:08 AM
=Kluge;4225329]While Mandela is obviously a flawed human being like the rest of us, it's pointless and harmful to embark on a mission to discredit the good he has done.
Please don't group me in with this person.

The_Ruffneck
02-28-2012, 06:08 AM
all i know is crime is a heck of a lot worse in SA now than befoee he got in
his achievements are overrated

LibertyEagle
02-28-2012, 06:23 AM
The world is going to lose one of the few true heroes when he passes...

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/christians.praying.for.mandelas.recovery/29391.htm

I'm sorry, but he is no hero.

sparebulb
02-28-2012, 10:28 AM
It is not very plausible that Nelson Mandela didn't engage in the same tactics as his wife. The following is taken from a website named "Classically Liberal", which is far more charitable to Nelson Mandela's character than I find believable. Enjoy reading about his loving wife Winnie.......


http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/06/winnie-mandela-kidnapper-torturer-child.html

Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Winnie Mandela: kidnapper, torturer, child killer, liar.

Canada denied a visa to Nelson Mandela’s former wife, Winnie Madikizela-Mandela. The Canadians have not said why. The potential reasons are many.

First, Winnie terrorized her own neighborhood with a group of thugs she called a “football” team. The Mandela United Football Club wasn’t known to kick a soccer ball around but they did kick in a few heads and sometimes Winnie helped. She was one nasty piece of work and that is one reason her ex husband dumped her. That, along with her constant betrayal of him.

She ordered the kidnapping of a 14 year old boy, Stompie Moeketsi and had him brought to her home. There she and her football team beat the child. She got worried and went to see a doctor in Soweto who informed her the boy was so seriously injured that he would die without hospital care. Winnie had the boy dumped in a field and then sent men to execute the doctor. She then claimed she never visited the doctor even though there were records that showed she had and it was confirmed by the doctor’s receptionist, Albertina Sisulu, the wife of ANC president Walter Sisulu. The doctor, Abu Baker Asvat, had been a close friend and Winnie’s own doctor.

When Albertina Sisulu was called to testify about Winnie’s involvement in both these killings at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Winnie’s “football team” put in a threatening appearance and Mrs. Sisulu suddenly had memory lapses. Zakhele Mbatha, who was convicted of the murder, says Winnie paid him for the assassination. The doctor had been a vocal antiapartheid activist but Winnie didn’t want any lose strings.

Winnie and football thugs engaged in torture at her home. The Makanda brothers were beaten repeatedly, hung by the neck, had plastic bags put over their heads, had a large M for Mandela carved into their chest, had battery acid poured on them, had the words “Viva ANC” carved into their backs and nothing was done to her. I am quite familiar with the evil record of Winnie Mandela and I contend that someday the evidence will materialize that she was a police informer which offered her a great deal of immunity. For instance she was never prosecuted for the torture of the Makandas.

Throughout the Stompie affair police co-operated with Winnie and evidence that existed tying her to the killing disappeared once it was in police custody. One witness to the killing

Winnie also tried to smear Methodist minister Paul Verryn with her typical antigay remarks. She spread the story he was attacking young boys and she sent a young man to beg Verryn for shelter and told the man to try to seduce the minister so she could end his popularity in Soweto. This is also tied to the reason she had Dr. Asvat killed. She demanded he testify that he saw medical evidence that Verryn had raped young boys and the doctor refused saying it wasn’t true.

Mbatha says when he tried to tell the truth about Winnie’s involvement he was blocked by the police. Katiza Cebekhulu was at Winnie’s home the day she and her thugs attacked Stompie. Fearful that he could be next he fled. The South African police tracked him down and turned him over to Winnie. Cebekhulu managed to escape again. Once again the police arrested him but once again they didn’t take him to jail. They instead drove to Shell House, the ANC headquarters, and turned him over to Winnie a second time. Nelson Mandela had Katiza bundled up and forced out of the country to be held in a foreign prison. A British MP tracked Katiza down and managed to get him freed. He fled to England

The testimony against Winnie in her killing spree was convincing and overwhelming. Her own bodyguard, Jerry Richardson testified that Winnie was involved in these killings and that he was there. Katiza was there and said the same thing. The killer of Dr. Asvat said the same thing. But evidence kept vanishing from police custody and in the end the judge said without the vanished evidence he couldn’t convict.

On one occasion she decided to get rid of her daughter’s boyfriend, and the father of her grandchild. She told the young man to deliver some weapons for her and had them put in the trunk of his car. She then had the police called and told the weapons were in the car. The young man was arrested and died in police custody.

A stooge for Winnie in Canada, Carole Adrianns, who was bringing Mandela to the country says she is shocked. Obviously she is ignorant of Winnie’s murderous and violent past. Adriaans says she was “blown away” (though not like Dr. Asvat) because Winnie had received an award for her work on AIDS.

I must admit that remark caused me to gag a bit. I just couldn’t help remember one occasion when Winnie had to go to court for her crimes, one of those occasions when the police again lost the evidence for her. She was getting into her limo outside the courthouse surrounded by a crowd of people. Someone touched her arm. She turned with the most vicious look I have every seen on someone and started screaming hysterically:

“Don’t touch me. Don’t touch me. How do I know you don’t have AIDS.” Yes, work with AIDS sufferers indeed.

I can believe she would do so technically because there is money in it and she has always skimmed funds off her fake charities and organizations for herself. She owned a very large mansion in Soweto which is where she lived most of the time. She had another small house nearby where she held press events. It looked better that way. I have personally seen both houses. Winnie has been convicted of multiple counts of swindling money out of the coffers of the ANC Women’s League and that was under a government run by her own party.

Adrianns, a useful idiot for the likes of Comrade Winnie, says it would “have been such an honor to have her there for us”. No doubt she would go ape over Dr. Mengela as well. While in Canada Winnie was to attend a “multimedia opera” entitled “The Passion of Winnie”. Murderer, liar, swindler, torturer, kidnapper. Somehow I suspect this disgusting opera left out those facts.

jmdrake
02-28-2012, 10:33 AM
Mandela did not have the opportunity to do peaceful protest, because the government has already waged wars and raided black settlements suppressing liberty, he fought against the apartheid and won. It is just like George Washington who fought and killed British, because protesting won't work against the redcoats, is George Washington a terrorist? If we lost the revolution, we might think of him as an "evil" terrorist disrupting lives of colonist.

Yes according to FEMA.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPg9MdN9Gio

Anyway, to the OP, I wish Mandela the best and will pray for him myself. And I don't give a rats ass what anyone else thinks about Mandela or me praying for him.

jmdrake
02-28-2012, 10:47 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcOXqFQw2hc

But don't worry. George Washington would have done that, too. :)

I don't speak the language and I bet neither do you. Anybody can put up a video of something in another language, add their own subtitles and many will assume it's the truth. Assuming it is true, why didn't the white guy next to Mandela get killed? Why was he singing the same song? Did he go out and kill himself right afterwards? Why didn't Mandela start killing off white people after coming to power? It's not like there isn't a precedent for a leader of an African nation to go rogue, declare himself "dictator for life" and start killing off wide swaths of the population. (Idi Amin. Robert Mugabe etc). Ah yes. It's a "conspiracy". Mandela is waiting for just the right time to kill off the white people just as soon as he takes off his lizard costume. :rolleyes: Anyway, I really don't care. Hate the man all you want. The South African experiment turned out much better than expected.

iamse7en
02-28-2012, 11:33 AM
How to be a Good Communist (http://www.archive.org/details/HowToBeAGoodCommunist)
- Nelson Mandela, 2002

Archive.org
http://www.archive.org/details/HowToBeAGoodCommunist



http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories/US_12-2009/mandelaslovo.001.jpg
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories/US_12-2009/mandelavictory2.001.jpg

Leave it to FrankRep to bring some sanity to the conversation. Mandela is no hero. Just as criticizing Abraham Lincoln doesn't make you racist and endorse government-enforced slavery, attacking Mandela doesn't make you racist and endorse government-enforced apartheid.

Original_Intent
02-28-2012, 11:50 AM
Mandela was in a Nickelback video so he must be a good guy..... :rolleyes:

robert68
02-28-2012, 12:38 PM
...That's his wife. That's who she is. That's who he is. This statement was a mere 7 years before Mandela became the President of South Africa. And 6 years before he won the Nobel Peace Prize...



Mandela is to blame for what his wife did while he was in prison? Is he to blame for her unfaithfulness to him as well? They were actually married for very few years before he went to prison, and were together for very little time after he was released.

My understanding is that he was guility of blowing up some state property, not killing people; and your posts haven't given me reason to believe otherwise.

smhbbag
02-28-2012, 04:18 PM
The South African experiment turned out much better than expected.

Evidence?

Cowlesy
02-28-2012, 04:22 PM
Geez I always thought he was a good guy, albeit I don't think I've read anything more than maybe a Time magazine article or two on him back when I was a teen.

Aus4RP
02-28-2012, 05:41 PM
I think that is just Apartheid propaganda, would you prefer white apartheid killing blacks?

White separation killed blacks?

Vanilluxe
02-28-2012, 08:49 PM
White separation killed blacks?

Apartheid police raiding and ransacking black settlements does kill blacks obviously.

smhbbag
02-28-2012, 09:53 PM
Apartheid police raiding and ransacking black settlements does kill blacks obviously.

Then it would be an inconvenient truth to learn that blacks killed each other 10 times more often than whites killed them during the 'years of struggle.'

Black tribal violence and power-plays between the ANC and Inkatha Freedom Party accounted for the vast, vast majority of killings in the last decade of apartheid. People like Mandela are the primary reason so many of them died, not the whites.

Countdown to being called a racist....3....2....1.....and GO!

Vanilluxe
02-28-2012, 10:07 PM
Then it would be an inconvenient truth to learn that blacks killed each other 10 times more often than whites killed them during the 'years of struggle.'

Black tribal violence and power-plays between the ANC and Inkatha Freedom Party accounted for the vast, vast majority of killings in the last decade of apartheid. People like Mandela are the primary reason so many of them died, not the whites.

Countdown to being called a racist....3....2....1.....and GO!

That is bs, if blacks are killing each other 10 times more than the gov. is killing them, wouldn't there be an all out factions bloody civil war?

Vanilluxe
02-28-2012, 10:17 PM
I admit there were casualties, but Nelson Mandela wanted to target military installations and he even criticized his own party for trying to hurt people, after a year he went to prison and nothing was in his control until he was released in 1990 and elected as the first black president and appointing the white Boer F. W. De Clerk as his vice president.

In 1961 Mandela became leader of the ANC's armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (translated Spear of the Nation, and also abbreviated MK), which he co-founded.[36] He coordinated sabotage campaigns against military and government targets, making plans for a possible guerrilla war if the sabotage failed to end apartheid.[37] Mandela also raised funds for MK abroad and arranged for paramilitary training of the group.[37]
Fellow ANC member Wolfie Kadesh explains the bombing campaign led by Mandela: "When we knew that we [sic] going to start on 16 December 1961, to blast the symbolic places of apartheid, like pass offices, native magistrates courts, and things like that ... post offices and ... the government offices. But we were to do it in such a way that nobody would be hurt, nobody would get killed."[38] Mandela said of Wolfie: "His knowledge of warfare and his first hand battle experience were extremely helpful to me."[14]
Mandela described the move to armed struggle as a last resort; years of increasing repression and violence from the state convinced him that many years of non-violent protest against apartheid had not and could not achieve any progress.[14][39]
Later, mostly in the 1980s, MK waged a guerrilla war against the apartheid government in which many civilians became casualties.[37] Mandela later admitted that the ANC, in its struggle against apartheid, also violated human rights, sharply criticising those in his own party who attempted to remove statements supporting this fact from the reports of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.[40]

Source: Wikipedia

smhbbag
02-28-2012, 10:33 PM
That is bs, if blacks are killing each other 10 times more than the gov. is killing them, wouldn't there be an all out factions bloody civil war?

It would mean that, if the assumption that the government killed a lot of blacks were true.

In reality, most estimates come in at around at around 2000 blacks killed by the government over the course of 50 years. Meanwhile, nearly 10,000 violent black deaths were at the hands of other blacks just in the last 6 years of apartheid. Regular murders and such were separated out, and these refer only to political killings.

These numbers are taken from a book by Max Coleman - A Crime against Humanity: Analysing Repression of the Apartheid State. This was an official publication of the Human Rights Committee of South Africa, and Coleman was its head (written after apartheid).

That source beats the pants off of wikipedia, which is especially unreliable on the biographies of sacred political cows.

Zap!
02-28-2012, 11:42 PM
I wish him well, but a little to commie for me to ever admire.

Vanilluxe
02-29-2012, 12:13 AM
It would mean that, if the assumption that the government killed a lot of blacks were true.

In reality, most estimates come in at around at around 2000 blacks killed by the government over the course of 50 years. Meanwhile, nearly 10,000 violent black deaths were at the hands of other blacks just in the last 6 years of apartheid. Regular murders and such were separated out, and these refer only to political killings.

These numbers are taken from a book by Max Coleman - A Crime against Humanity: Analysing Repression of the Apartheid State. This was an official publication of the Human Rights Committee of South Africa, and Coleman was its head (written after apartheid).

That source beats the pants off of wikipedia, which is especially unreliable on the biographies of sacred political cows.

Well, colonialism and the apartheid regime smacked tribes together to form South Africa and just like how the Belgians made the Hutus jealous of the Tutsi's status causing a horrible genocide.

Vanilluxe
02-29-2012, 12:16 AM
I wish him well, but a little to commie for me to ever admire.

True, he is a communist and I do not admire him much, but as he is a Christian trying his best, I wish him well too.

Danke
02-29-2012, 12:21 AM
93, not bad.

Zippyjuan
02-29-2012, 12:25 AM
I'm struck with the irony of all these Paul people defending the Establishment myth about Mandela.

Kind of ironic to be critical of somebody who wanted to get rid of an opressive government which denied freedom and rights to a majority of its own citizens which had people thrown in jail or killed for no real reaons and used police force to impose their will.

If he was hateful, he had the opportunity for vengence when he became the first black leader of South Africa but he urged people to not be vengeful. He promoted unity via the Truth and Reconciliation Committee. http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/


The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was set up by the Government of National Unity to help deal with what happened under apartheid. The conflict during this period resulted in violence and human rights abuses from all sides. No section of society escaped these abuses.

The TRC was based on the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, No 34 of 1995 (pdf)

"... a commission is a necessary exercise to enable South Africans to come to terms with their past on a morally accepted basis and to advance the cause of reconciliation."
Mr Dullah Omar, former Minister of Justice

The TRC effected its mandate through 3 committees: the Amnesty Committee, Reparation and Rehabilitation (R&R) Committee and Human Rights Violations (HRV) Committee....more

The Register of Reconciliation gave members of the public a chance to express their regret at failing to prevent human rights violations and to demonstrate their commitment to reconciliation...more


It would have been difficult for him to have done some of the things he is accused of here when he was in prison for 27 years. If Ron Paul was a black South African he would be forced to use different tactics than he can in the freer United States to try to create change in government. When you are not allowed to be a part of the system, you need different tactics than when you can operate within it. There were certainly much more militant members of the ANC than Mandela.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgcTvoWjZJU

smhbbag
02-29-2012, 01:04 AM
which had people thrown in jail or killed for no real reaons and used police force to impose their will.

SA security forces were responsible for the death of 2000 people over the course of 42 years. Remove those who were actively engaging in terrorism and murder that they were right to kill, and the number is even less. Apartheid was wrong, but it was also....pretty much nothing on the scale of evil-governments-of-the-world.

Of course I'm not going to defend forced segregation, but in the face of the savagery of the opposition to the South African government, they showed remarkable and repeated restraint in the face of people who were much worse than them.

The black population nearly tripled over those 42 years. That shows a government not nearly so hostile as many suppose. Life expectancy among blacks in South Africa was nearly approaching that of Western Europe by the end of apartheid.

Now that those evil bastards are gone, South Africa is the rape capital of the world.

Since Mandela came to power, more than 3000 white farmers have been murdered by black vigilantes, which exceeds the total number of blacks killed by SA security forces in 42 years of apartheid.

Every year, polling shows more and more South Africans (both white and black in roughly equal percentages) are saying they preferred the less corrupt, more socially stable, cheaper government, and safer society, that they had under apartheid.

Vanilluxe
02-29-2012, 02:05 AM
SA security forces were responsible for the death of 2000 people over the course of 42 years. Remove those who were actively engaging in terrorism and murder that they were right to kill, and the number is even less. Apartheid was wrong, but it was also....pretty much nothing on the scale of evil-governments-of-the-world.

Of course I'm not going to defend forced segregation, but in the face of the savagery of the opposition to the South African government, they showed remarkable and repeated restraint in the face of people who were much worse than them.

The black population nearly tripled over those 42 years. That shows a government not nearly so hostile as many suppose. Life expectancy among blacks in South Africa was nearly approaching that of Western Europe by the end of apartheid.

Now that those evil bastards are gone, South Africa is the rape capital of the world.

Since Mandela came to power, more than 3000 white farmers have been murdered by black vigilantes, which exceeds the total number of blacks killed by SA security forces in 42 years of apartheid.

Every year, polling shows more and more South Africans (both white and black in roughly equal percentages) are saying they preferred the less corrupt, more socially stable, cheaper government, and safer society, that they had under apartheid.

Most of the times there are no answers to problems in our society. Things get thrown at us in life, and we must make lemonade with what we have, especially given that the GOP succeeded in not letting Ron Paul win a state.

robert68
02-29-2012, 02:28 AM
Then it would be an inconvenient truth to learn that blacks killed each other 10 times more often than whites killed them during the 'years of struggle.'

Black tribal violence and power-plays between the ANC and Inkatha Freedom Party accounted for the vast, vast majority of killings in the last decade of apartheid. People like Mandela are the primary reason so many of them died, not the whites.

Countdown to being called a racist....3....2....1.....and GO!

Surprise, suprise! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inkatha_Freedom_Party#History) :rolleyes:


Fearing an erosion of his power, Buthelezi collaborated with the South African Defence Force and received military training for Zulu militia from SADF special forces starting in the 1980s as part of Operation Marion. IFP members were involved in several massacres in the run-up to South Africa's first democratic elections, including the Trust Feed massacre on December 3rd, 1988 and the Boipatong massacre on June 17th 1992.

Many of the attacks carried out by the Inkatha militants were passively and, at times, actively supported by the South African police force, probably as a result of a coincidence of interest in ensuring that the ANC did not gain political dominance in the coming liberation.

ZenBowman
02-29-2012, 10:55 AM
I'm struck with the irony of all these Paul people defending the Establishment myth about Mandela.

You my friend, are a total idiot.

Mandela was only violent against the supporters of a state who violently oppressed his people. And once he gained power, he did not exercise the option to oppress his former oppressors.

And you glorify the founding fathers, many of whom oppressed people who had done them no harm.

leonster
02-29-2012, 11:36 AM
It would mean that, if the assumption that the government killed a lot of blacks were true.

In reality, most estimates come in at around at around 2000 blacks killed by the government over the course of 50 years. Meanwhile, nearly 10,000 violent black deaths were at the hands of other blacks just in the last 6 years of apartheid. Regular murders and such were separated out, and these refer only to political killings.

These numbers are taken from a book by Max Coleman - A Crime against Humanity: Analysing Repression of the Apartheid State. This was an official publication of the Human Rights Committee of South Africa, and Coleman was its head (written after apartheid).

That source beats the pants off of wikipedia, which is especially unreliable on the biographies of sacred political cows.

Assuming your numbers to be correct... sorry, totally unconvinced.

Government killing people is fundamentally different from citizens murdering each other. Obama just ordered a couple of Middle Eastern American citizens murdered by drones... that's irrelevant, right, because those are only two people while thousands of murders happen each year?

Sorry, I'm not buying it. Yeah sometimes people kill each other, etc. Doesn't mean it's ok for the government to do it.

Mandela may have been a flawed man, true. He may have been labeled a terrorist for attacking government institutions--isn't that a good thing, though? Attacking an oppressive government? But sorry, you guys lost me on this one--what he (not single-handedly, of course) accomplished was a huge net win for liberty human rights, in much the same way as the American Revolution (though also imperfect) was.

Edit: I say the last sentence, above, even with the knowledge that he significantly reduced economic freedoms (socialism), etc. However that may be... putting everyone on the same level without regard to stupid distinctions such as skin color is a much bigger issue to me.

ZenBowman
02-29-2012, 11:38 AM
Assuming your numbers to be correct... sorry, totally unconvinced.

Government killing people is fundamentally different from citizens murdering each other. Obama just ordered a couple of Middle Eastern American citizens murdered by drones... that's irrelevant, right, because those are only two people while thousands of murders happen each year?

Sorry, I'm not buying it. Yeah sometimes people kill each other, etc. Doesn't mean it's ok for the government to do it.

Mandela may have been a flawed man, true. He may have been labeled a terrorist for attacking government institutions--isn't that a good thing, though? Attacking an oppressive government? But sorry, you guys lost me on this one--what he (not single-handedly, of course) accomplished was a huge net win for liberty and human rights, in much the same way as the American Revolution (though also imperfect) was.

Exactly.

LibertyEagle
02-29-2012, 11:39 AM
Mandela, and his wife for him when he was in prison, murdered countless other Africans and many of them through necklacing.

He was a Communist and far from a hero.

My how this forum has gone downhill.

smhbbag
02-29-2012, 02:22 PM
Assuming your numbers to be correct... sorry, totally unconvinced.

They aren't my numbers. They are the numbers of the Human Rights Committee of South Africa in their official report. Given who created them, and why, they have every incentive to inflate, not deflate, the number killed by the apartheid government.

Stupified
02-29-2012, 05:57 PM
He may have been labeled a terrorist for attacking government institutions--isn't that a good thing, though? Attacking an oppressive government?

Apparently not if the usurper is a communist. That seems to be the argument here.


"V" from V For Vendetta killed hundreds of government workers and blew up a building (just like Mandela) in order to overthrow an oppressive government, but I see quotes from that movie all over this forum.

Vanilluxe
02-29-2012, 11:09 PM
Mandela, and his wife for him when he was in prison, murdered countless other Africans and many of them through necklacing.

He was a Communist and far from a hero.

My how this forum has gone downhill.

Uh, Mandela was in prison and his wife was acting independent of him, and she also had an affair with another person which then Mandela divorced her after he was released. Mandela is actually considered a national hero in South Africa; I personally don't think Mandela is a hero, but he is not a Hitler either, and this forum is not going downhill, people simply disagree with you, so we can have a discussion.

Zap!
03-01-2012, 01:56 AM
Mandela, and his wife for him when he was in prison, murdered countless other Africans and many of them through necklacing.

He was a Communist and far from a hero.

My how this forum has gone downhill.

Exactly. Try being a white farmer in South Africa today. It is very dangerous.

leonster
03-01-2012, 02:48 AM
They aren't my numbers. They are the numbers of the Human Rights Committee of South Africa in their official report. Given who created them, and why, they have every incentive to inflate, not deflate, the number killed by the apartheid government.

Like I said... I'm assuming they're correct, and not challenging them.

My point was, even if the numbers were ten times worse than they are, it still doesn't change the fact that gov'ts killing people is fundamentally different from citizens murdering each other. Unless everyone suddenly believes in utilitarianism...

Zippyjuan
03-01-2012, 01:03 PM
Under Aparteid 80% of the population was restricted to less than 20% of the land- and that land was poor to begin with- not good for growing or much of anything else. Most of the jobs available were basically as servants to the rich white folks who controlled the other 80% of the country. Yeah- they were better off under aparteid and Mandella was somehow evil for trying to change that?

ZenBowman
03-01-2012, 01:54 PM
Under Aparteid 80% of the population was restricted to less than 20% of the land- and that land was poor to begin with- not good for growing or much of anything else. Most of the jobs available were basically as servants to the rich white folks who controlled the other 80% of the country. Yeah- they were better off under aparteid and Mandella was somehow evil for trying to change that?

People here are morons, they claim the American people are sheep for not revolting against the government, yet despise actual revolutionaries.

At least Rothbard was clear, regardless of political views, resistance, even violent resistance against oppression was justified.

http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_3/3_3_1.pdf


Che is dead, and we all mourn him. Why? How is it that
so many libertarians mourn this man; how is it that we
just received a letter from a briIIiant young libertarian,
a former objectivist and Birchite, which said, in part:
"if they did finally get Che . . . I am sure that his memory
will live to haunt both Latin America and the U. S. for
decades to come. Long live Che!. How come? Surely
not because Che was a Communist. Precious few people
in this country or anywhere else will mourn the passing,
for example, of Brezhnev, Kosygin, or Ulbricht, Com-
munist leaders all. No, it is certainly not Che's Com-
munist goals which made his name a byword and a legend
throughout the world, and throughout the New Left in
this country.
What made Che such an heroic figure for our time is
that he, more than any man of our epoch or even of our
century, was the living embodiment of the principle of
Revolution.

NCGOPer_for_Paul
03-01-2012, 02:13 PM
White people in South Africa are treated worse than Ron Paul delegates at a Nevada GOP convention.

ZenBowman
03-01-2012, 02:19 PM
White people in South Africa are treated worse than Ron Paul delegates at a Nevada GOP convention.

The difference is that Ron Paul delegates don't have a century long history of oppressing the GOP.

BlackTerrel
03-03-2012, 04:49 PM
Was Mandela using communism to fight racism?

Or was he using racism to promote communism?

Either way, he's a despicable communist.

That's idiotic. Try living in his shoes.

BlackTerrel
03-03-2012, 04:52 PM
I don't speak the language and I bet neither do you. Anybody can put up a video of something in another language, add their own subtitles and many will assume it's the truth. Assuming it is true, why didn't the white guy next to Mandela get killed? Why was he singing the same song? Did he go out and kill himself right afterwards? Why didn't Mandela start killing off white people after coming to power? It's not like there isn't a precedent for a leader of an African nation to go rogue, declare himself "dictator for life" and start killing off wide swaths of the population. (Idi Amin. Robert Mugabe etc). Ah yes. It's a "conspiracy". Mandela is waiting for just the right time to kill off the white people just as soon as he takes off his lizard costume. :rolleyes: Anyway, I really don't care. Hate the man all you want. The South African experiment turned out much better than expected.

This.

For a discerning audience we have quite a few members who will believe anything on the internet or on a youtube clip (as long as it fits their narrow worldview)

PierzStyx
03-03-2012, 05:30 PM
The difference between Washington and Mandela is the intentional torture of civilians. Washington went to war and as part of that war civilians did die. Its a sad fact of war that civilians always die. The difference though is that Washington did not engage in torture of civilians. Mandela and his group did. The fact that this has been glossed over by history is one of the proofs of how touchy race is in America. It is my belief that Mandela has gotten away with the evil he did not because he was fighting against an oppressive regime, but because of the color of his skin. The media would have crucified a person of any other race. Look at Milosevic. He and Mandela are about on the same level in the inhumanity of their acts, yet one gets international acclaim while the other gets tried in international courts.

As for terrorist....I'm kind of tired of this label. Every terrorist is someone else's liberator. George Washington, was both a traitor and a terrorist to the ideas of the legitimate government of England, of which Empire he was a citizen. And really its gotten to the point to where I can see the difference between this: http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/ww2_17/s_w20_95490389.jpg

and this:


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_AS7A2bRK5fs/TGtlPtTvBoI/AAAAAAAAAPQ/A0eUtPAhBVc/s1600/ground-zero-september_11_ground_zero.jpg



other than the fact that we did one of them and the other was done to us.

BlackTerrel
03-03-2012, 05:53 PM
The difference between Washington and Mandela is the intentional torture of civilians. Washington went to war and as part of that war civilians did die. Its a sad fact of war that civilians always die. The difference though is that Washington did not engage in torture of civilians.

Washington just went ahead with owning other people... funny that.

LibertyEagle
03-03-2012, 05:59 PM
People here are morons, they claim the American people are sheep for not revolting against the government, yet despise actual revolutionaries.

At least Rothbard was clear, regardless of political views, resistance, even violent resistance against oppression was justified.

http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_3/3_3_1.pdf

Pol Pot was a revolutionary too and I don't celebrate him, either.

LibertyEagle
03-03-2012, 06:04 PM
I'm sorry, but he is no hero.

Ha ha. Black Terrel just neg repped me for this post. He said "shame".

Shame for what, Black Terrel? Because I refuse to celebrate a Communist who directed mass murder in South Africa?

If anyone has anything to be ashamed of, it is you, dude.

smhbbag
03-03-2012, 06:29 PM
This.

For a discerning audience we have quite a few members who will believe anything on the internet or on a youtube clip (as long as it fits their narrow worldview)

This is the video in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcOXqFQw2hc

Have any of you been to South Africa? Have any of you read a single book about it?

These songs are as well known there, and as clear and indisputable in their message, as America the Beautiful or God Bless the USA.

Simply put, you all have no idea what you are talking about.

Here is another "Great Leader," current South African President Jacob Zuma, singing "Kill Whitey":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_Br-PEddYU&feature=player_embedded

This is the song he's singing: http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/english-translation-of-aw-dubul-ibhunu-1.479503

IOL is a major news outlet in South Africa. Are they reliable enough for a simple translation?

"White South African Farmer" should be on the History Channel's next list of most dangerous jobs in the world.

And with the Che Guevara love making its way in, I can see this will continue to be an uphill battle.

smhbbag
03-03-2012, 07:21 PM
Before colonization, South Africa was a sparsely-populated, constantly warring and very savage region.

There was FAR less slavery and oppression after colonization than before it. And there was far more peace, social cohesion, happiness, and stability under apartheid than now. That's precisely why so many blacks moved there, because colonization established something orders of magnitude better than non-colonized parts of Africa.

Apartheid was bad. Apartheid was very bad. I have no wish to deny that or to defend the imperialists. The only thing I will give them is that they were light years better than those who came before and after them. Again, the very explosion of the black population (mostly by immigration) in South Africa testifies to the fact that it was better.

But, today, racially-motivated sins trump all others.

BlackTerrel
03-03-2012, 07:52 PM
Ha ha. Black Terrel just neg repped me for this post. He said "shame".

Shame for what, Black Terrel? Because I refuse to celebrate a Communist who directed mass murder in South Africa?

If anyone has anything to be ashamed of, it is you, dude.

Guy fought against apartheid. That's far more than 99% ever will or ever will have to. That's heroic in my mind and it's a shame when the few true heroes we have in this world are tarnished.

ExPatPaki
03-03-2012, 07:55 PM
Guy fought against apartheid.

Funny, Palestinians are doing the same thing against Israel, and yet your hatred for Palestinians is quite extreme. You're nothing but a pathetic and ignorant hypocrite, BT.

BlackTerrel
03-03-2012, 08:04 PM
This is the video in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcOXqFQw2hc

Have any of you been to South Africa? Have any of you read a single book about it?

These songs are as well known there, and as clear and indisputable in their message, as America the Beautiful or God Bless the USA.

Simply put, you all have no idea what you are talking about.

Here is another "Great Leader," current South African President Jacob Zuma, singing "Kill Whitey":

I'd love to take your word for it but if he is really singing "Kill whitey" then why is there a white guy right next to him the whole time?

I take shit I read on the internet with a grain of salt.

BlackTerrel
03-03-2012, 08:10 PM
Funny, Palestinians are doing the same thing against Israel, and yet your hatred for Palestinians is quite extreme. You're nothing but a pathetic and ignorant hypocrite, BT.

Yeah they aren't even close to the same thing... unless you REALLY want to pretend.

ExPatPaki
03-03-2012, 08:12 PM
Yeah they aren't even close to the same thing... unless you REALLY want to pretend.

Yes, the Palestinians have it much worse. Thanks for admitting you're a pathetic, ignorant hypocrite. At least we got something out of this thread.
Was there anything like Gaza in South Africa during apartheid where 1400 civilians, mostly children, were killed by white phosphorous bombs? Be sure to answer that question, because I know you won't, you hypocritical troll. You can go on pretending to be a peace-loving Christian now.
Mandela is a big supporter of the Palestinian cause, but I'm sure that will not get in the way of your racist hatred towards the Palestinians.

smhbbag
03-03-2012, 08:14 PM
I'd love to take your word for it but if he is really singing "Kill whitey" then why is there a white guy right next to him the whole time?

I take shit I read on the internet with a grain of salt.

It was the original translation for a television program. Here is the longer clip, including some commentary after the song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcOXqFQw2hc

The 'white guy' is/was a very prominent member of the ANC - Ronald Kasrils. His grandparents were Russian Jews who fled the pogroms. He was an activist for the Communist Party, and was a founder of the most violent arm of the ANC, the Umkhonto we Sizwe. The song specifically praises the organization he helped to found, so yeah, he'd sing it.

He was a communist, and singing these songs was exactly in-line with his aims. The Boer was what stood between South Africa and communism (and between South Africa and savage tribalism, without the Boer it could've gone either way). He knew he didn't really count as 'whitey.'

GeorgiaAvenger
03-03-2012, 08:15 PM
Mandella...supporter of Adi Amin, Ghaddafi, Hussein, Assad, Castro

GeorgiaAvenger
03-03-2012, 08:16 PM
This guy has the same moral argument as Timothy McVeigh.

Government bad: Therefore blow up innocent people.

BlackTerrel
03-03-2012, 08:21 PM
Yes, the Palestinians have it much worse. Thanks for admitting you're a pathetic, ignorant hypocrite. At least we got something out of this thread.
Was there anything like Gaza in South Africa during apartheid where 1400 civilians, mostly children, were killed by white phosphorous bombs? Be sure to answer that question, because I know you won't, you hypocritical troll. You can go on pretending to be a peace-loving Christian now.
Mandela is a big supporter of the Palestinian cause, but I'm sure that will not get in the way of your racist hatred towards the Palestinians.

The Palestinians and Israelis are engaged in an active war. Something that if you look at objectively this particular war loss of life is far less than average. It's also something where if Israel just pulled out they'd continue to be bombed. Big difference.

Apartheid South Africa was one solid country where the government said "this group of people has more rights than this group of people".

BlackTerrel
03-03-2012, 08:22 PM
It was the original translation for a television program. Here is the longer clip, including some commentary after the song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcOXqFQw2hc

The 'white guy' is/was a very prominent member of the ANC - Ronald Kasrils. His grandparents were Russian Jews who fled the pogroms. He was an activist for the Communist Party, and was a founder of the most violent arm of the ANC, the Umkhonto we Sizwe. The song specifically praises the organization he helped to found, so yeah, he'd sing it.

He was a communist, and singing these songs was exactly in-line with his aims. The Boer was what stood between South Africa and communism (and between South Africa and savage tribalism, without the Boer it could've gone either way). He knew he didn't really count as 'whitey.'

So this Russian Jew guy also wants to kill all white people? And Mandela is not including him in his "all white people must be killed" plan?

Seems unlikely.

ExPatPaki
03-03-2012, 08:26 PM
The Palestinians and Israelis are engaged in an active war.

Thank you for justifying the murder of children. It's what ignorant hypocrites do. It's not war, my little ignorant hypocrite, it's occupation of one people over another because they believe they are racially superior.


It's also something where if Israel just pulled out they'd continue to be bombed. Big difference.

Another lie, from the lying troll, with no evidence whatsoever.



Apartheid South Africa was one solid country where the government said "this group of people has more rights than this group of people".

Same in Israel, only with a much more violent, racist character. You're too close minded to see that.

BlackTerrel
03-03-2012, 08:31 PM
Thank you for justifying the murder of children. It's what ignorant hypocrites do. It's not war, my little ignorant hypocrite, it's occupation of one people over another because they believe they are racially superior.

How so? Why aren't the 20% of Muslims who live in Israel also occupied?

PierzStyx
03-03-2012, 08:33 PM
Washington just went ahead with owning other people... funny that.

Touche. But I will own up to that about the man. Can Mandela's supporters own up to the evils he did? From this thread I'd say apparently not.

LibertyEagle
03-03-2012, 08:38 PM
Washington just went ahead with owning other people... funny that.

Slavery was horrible. But, you know, never once have I heard you denounce the African tribes who sold these people from their own stock of slaves. Stop acting like our forefathers invented slavery. Go scream at African tribal leaders for awhile.

From the very beginning, everything to you has had to do with race. Get the chip off your shoulder.

PierzStyx
03-03-2012, 08:39 PM
[QUOTE=BlackTerrel;4243460 It's also something where if Israel just pulled out they'd continue to be bombed.".[/QUOTE]

Really? How do you know? Got a secret line none the rest of us have?

The reason Palestinians choose to support groups like Hamas is because those groups will do what all the rest of us bigger nations won't do-they fight back. But would the Palestinians continue to support Hamas if Israel retreated? I doubt it. Those people are tired of war.

But if they did, well what do you expect when you've been waging a war of conquest on a people for the past 30 years, that they'll be happy just to barely survive and get back what was rightfully theirs in the first place? Or do you think they'd have a right to be pissed off? I do. I would be.

ExPatPaki
03-03-2012, 08:41 PM
How so?

You will know if you read the news, that is, if you knew how to read.


Why aren't the 20% of Muslims who live in Israel also occupied?
How many Muslims in Israel do you actually know? Did you know they don't have the same rights as Jews when it comes to property?

Kluge
03-03-2012, 08:44 PM
The Palestinians and Israelis are engaged in an active war. Something that if you look at objectively this particular war loss of life is far less than average. It's also something where if Israel just pulled out they'd continue to be bombed. Big difference.

Apartheid South Africa was one solid country where the government said "this group of people has more rights than this group of people".

ExPatPaki is right. I lived in South Africa for almost a year during apartheid, and it was bad for black people there, but I could make the argument that it's worse for Palestinians. Mandela has actually spoken out about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, and called it apartheid if I recall correctly.

smhbbag
03-03-2012, 08:46 PM
But would the Palestinians continue to support Hamas if Israel retreated? I doubt it

Without question, yes, they would continue to support Hamas. War is their religion, and they are not tired of their religion. But that's the last I'll say on that subject because this is about Mandela and South Africa.


I lived in South Africa for almost a year during apartheid, and it was bad for black people there

You're forgetting a central question: compared to what?

Yes, it was bad, but compared to what? Compared to anything else South African blacks had ever experienced, it was not just better, but WAY better. European lifespans for blacks in South Africa would have been absolutely unthinkable if the Boer were gone.

Kluge
03-03-2012, 08:52 PM
Without question, yes, they would continue to support Hamas. War is their religion, and they are not tired of their religion.

Really? So you too have bought into the neocon bullshit that Palestinians (and Muslims in general) are subhuman, violent religious fanatics.

Might I remind you that it's us, a mostly Christian nation who's been attacking Muslims since (at least) 1953? Will that cause more Muslims to turn to extremist groups to fight back? Sure.

I'm agnostic, but I'd probably join up with a Christian militia if I saw my own child blown to pieces by invading people of whatever religion.

ExPatPaki
03-03-2012, 08:53 PM
To: Thomas L. Friedman (columnist New York Times)
From: Nelson Mandela (former President South Africa)

Dear Thomas,

I know that you and I long for peace in the Middle East, but before you continue to talk about necessary conditions from an Israeli perspective, you need to know what's on my mind. Where to begin? How about 1964. Let me quote my own words during my trial. They are true today as they were then:

"I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."

Today the world, black and white, recognise that apartheid has no future. In South Africa it has been ended by our own decisive mass action in order to build peace and security. That mass campaign of defiance and other actions could only culminate in the establishment of democracy.

Perhaps it is strange for you to observe the situation in Palestine or more specifically, the structure of political and cultural relationships between Palestinians and Israelis, as an apartheid system. This is because you incorrectly think that the problem of Palestine began in 1967. This was demonstrated in your recent column "Bush's First Memo" in the New York Times on March 27, 2001.

You seem to be surprised to hear that there are still problems of 1948 to be solved, the most important component of which is the right to return of Palestinian refugees.

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not just an issue of military occupation and Israel is not a country that was established "normally" and happened to occupy another country in 1967. Palestinians are not struggling for a "state" but for freedom, liberation and equality, just like we were struggling for freedom in South Africa.

In the last few years, and especially during the reign of the Labour Party, Israel showed that it was not even willing to return what it occupied in 1967; that settlements remain, Jerusalem would be under exclusive Israeli sovereignty, and Palestinians would not have an independent state, but would be under Israeli economic domination with Israeli control of borders, land, air, water and sea.

Israel was not thinking of a "state" but of "separation". The value of separation is measured in terms of the ability of Israel to keep the Jewish state Jewish, and not to have a Palestinian minority that could have the opportunity to become a majority at some time in the future. If this takes place, it would force Israel to either become a secular democratic or bi-national state, or to turn into a state of apartheid not only de facto, but also de jure.

Thomas, if you follow the polls in Israel for the last 30 or 40 years, you clearly find a vulgar racism that includes a third of the population who openly declare themselves to be racist. This racism is of the nature of "I hate Arabs" and "I wish Arabs would be dead". If you also follow the judicial system in Israel you will see there is discrimination against
Palestinians, and if you further consider the 1967 occupied territories you will find there are already two judicial systems in operation that represent two different approaches to human life: one for Palestinian life and the other for Jewish life. Additionally there are two different approaches to property and to land. Palestinian property is not recognised as private property because it can be confiscated.

As to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, there is an additional factor. The so-called "Palestinian autonomous areas" are bantustans. These are restricted entities within the power structure of the Israeli apartheid system.

The Palestinian state cannot be the by-product of the Jewish state, just in order to keep the Jewish purity of Israel. Israel's racial discrimination is daily life of most Palestinians. Since Israel is a Jewish state, Israeli Jews are able to accrue special rights which non-Jews cannot do. Palestinian Arabs have no place in a "Jewish" state.

Apartheid is a crime against humanity. Israel has deprived millions of Palestinians of their liberty and property. It has perpetuated a system of gross racial discrimination and inequality. It has systematically incarcerated and tortured thousands of Palestinians, contrary to the rules of international law. It has, in particular, waged a war against a civilian population, in particular children.

The responses made by South Africa to human rights abuses emanating from the removal policies and apartheid policies respectively, shed light on what Israeli society must necessarily go through before one can speak of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and an end to its apartheid policies.

Thomas, I'm not abandoning Mideast diplomacy. But I'm not going to indulge you the way your supporters do. If you want peace and democracy, I will support you. If you want formal apartheid, we will not support you. If you want to support racial discrimination and ethnic cleansing, we will oppose you. When you figure out what you're about, give me a call.

GeorgiaAvenger
03-03-2012, 08:55 PM
Really? So you too have bought into the neocon bullshit that Palestinians (and Muslims in general) are subhuman, violent religious fanatics.Actually their religion teaches that though I will admit most are not faithful to their scripture. I have read the Koran so you can not say it is neocon BS.

Yes, I do understand why people are willing to buy into that though when they have some motivation prodding them.

Kluge
03-03-2012, 09:01 PM
Actually their religion teaches that though I will admit most are not faithful to their scripture. I have read the Koran so you can not say it is neocon BS.

Yes, I do understand why people are willing to buy into that though when they have some motivation prodding them.

The Koran states that Muslims are subhuman, violent religious fanatics? What verse is that?

And do you apply the same standard to Christians and Jews who have the Old Testament as a basis of their religion? That's pretty damned violent.

ExPatPaki
03-03-2012, 09:04 PM
I have read the Koran so you can not say it is neocon BS.


Who was the translator and the publisher?

GeorgiaAvenger
03-03-2012, 09:04 PM
The Koran states that Muslims are subhuman, violent religious fanatics? What verse is that?

And do you apply the same standard to Christians and Jews who have the Old Testament as a basis of their religion? That's pretty damned violent.

Religious doctrine uses the latest information as the text that should be followed. Jihad was Mohammads latter teaching, while violence in the Old Testament was later superceded.

GeorgiaAvenger
03-03-2012, 09:08 PM
Who was the translator and the publisher?

I don't know, but why are you even trying to deny it?

Kluge
03-03-2012, 09:11 PM
Religious doctrine uses the latest information as the text that should be followed. Jihad was Mohammads latter teaching, while violence in the Old Testament was later superceded.

Perhaps you need a more balanced viewpoint:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/03/08/dark_passages/?page=full


Unconsciously, perhaps, many Christians consider Islam to be a kind of dark shadow of their own faith, with the ugly words of the Koran standing in absolute contrast to the scriptures they themselves cherish. In the minds of ordinary Christians - and Jews - the Koran teaches savagery and warfare, while the Bible offers a message of love, forgiveness, and charity. For the prophet Micah, God's commands to his people are summarized in the words "act justly, and love mercy, and walk humbly with your God" (Micah 6:8). Christians recall the words of the dying Jesus: "Father, forgive them: they know not what they do."

But in terms of ordering violence and bloodshed, any simplistic claim about the superiority of the Bible to the Koran would be wildly wrong. In fact, the Bible overflows with "texts of terror," to borrow a phrase coined by the American theologian Phyllis Trible. The Bible contains far more verses praising or urging bloodshed than does the Koran, and biblical violence is often far more extreme, and marked by more indiscriminate savagery. The Koran often urges believers to fight, yet it also commands that enemies be shown mercy when they surrender. Some frightful portions of the Bible, by contrast, go much further in ordering the total extermination of enemies, of whole families and races - of men, women, and children, and even their livestock, with no quarter granted. One cherished psalm (137) begins with the lovely line, "By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept"; it ends by blessing anyone who would seize Babylon's infants and smash their skulls against the rocks.

Please read the whole article, that's just an excerpt. And I've read the bible several times, so you can't honestly argue against these points.

ExPatPaki
03-03-2012, 09:12 PM
I don't know

We already knew that, you don't know lots of things.

GeorgiaAvenger
03-03-2012, 09:13 PM
We already knew that, you don't know lots of things.

I knew your bizarre trap but I was nice enough to answer anyways, buzz off now.

ExPatPaki
03-03-2012, 09:16 PM
I knew your bizarre trap but I was nice enough to answer anyways, buzz off now.

LOL, nice cop out, coward. And you didn't answer anything, you simply told me something I already knew, that you don't know anything.

Kluge
03-03-2012, 09:18 PM
Oh, and this is specific to the New Testament:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html

GeorgiaAvenger
03-03-2012, 09:18 PM
Perhaps you need a more balanced viewpoint:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/03/08/dark_passages/?page=full

Please read the whole article, that's just an excerpt. And I've read the bible several times, so you can't honestly argue against these points.

Perhaps not.


In a standard English translation of the Old Testament, the words "war" and "battle" each occur more than 300 times, not to mention all the bindings, beheadings, and rapes.

Well, of course war and battle is going to be mentioned a lot.

The difference between the Bible and the Koran is this: Followers of Jesus Christ are not instructed to do those things, while followers of Allah are.

GeorgiaAvenger
03-03-2012, 09:19 PM
LOL, nice cop out, coward. And you didn't answer anything, you simply told me something I already knew, that you don't know anything.

I didn't remember the translator and publisher. Bathe in your glory.

smhbbag
03-03-2012, 09:21 PM
So this Russian Jew guy also wants to kill all white people? And Mandela is not including him in his "all white people must be killed" plan?

Seems unlikely.

Unlike libertarians, communists stick together. If a 'kill the Boer' campaign, through a violent, black-nationalist communist group helps establish communism, he will be on board. In fact, he was leading the pack to establish the most violent wing of the ANC.

The words are the words.

ExPatPaki
03-03-2012, 09:23 PM
I didn't remember the translator and publisher.

You don't remember the translator? Very surprising, it's a very simple thing to remember. How sad for you, pathetic lying troll.

GeorgiaAvenger
03-03-2012, 09:24 PM
Oh, and this is specific to the New Testament:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html

That is some of the worst understanding of scripture I have ever seen.

GeorgiaAvenger
03-03-2012, 09:25 PM
You don't remember the translator? Very surprising, it's a very simple thing to remember. How sad for you, pathetic lying troll.
I certainly won't forget you, going insane over a non-issue.

ExPatPaki
03-03-2012, 09:25 PM
That is some of the worst understanding of scripture I have ever seen.

It's actually one of the best.

Kluge
03-03-2012, 09:26 PM
Perhaps not.



Well, of course war and battle is going to be mentioned a lot.

The difference between the Bible and the Koran is this: Followers of Jesus Christ are not instructed to do those things, while followers of Allah are.


Acts

Peter claims that Deuteronomy 18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be killed. 3:23

Romans

Homosexuals (those "without natural affection") and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them") are "worthy of death." 1:31-32
The guilty are "justified" and "saved from wrath" by the blood of an innocent victim. 5:9


I'm sure I could find more, but I find religious texts tedious and having very little to do with the character of the person who follows the religion, whether the text is positive or negative.

ExPatPaki
03-03-2012, 09:26 PM
I certainly won't forget you, going insane over a non-issue.

I'm sure you will, if you can't remember whose translation you read of the Quran.

GeorgiaAvenger
03-03-2012, 09:27 PM
It's actually one of the best.

Says the trolling non-Christian.

Kluge
03-03-2012, 09:29 PM
That is some of the worst understanding of scripture I have ever seen.

So...what you're saying is that someone could take those passages as a justification for violence against other human beings?

No way.

Onward Christian soldiers!

I'll finish here because I have no interest in bashing anyone of any religion, even if it's to defend people of another religion. Perhaps you might want to take a closer look at your own before you go on to disparage another though.

GeorgiaAvenger
03-03-2012, 09:33 PM
I'm sure I could find more, but I find religious texts tedious and having very little to do with the character of the person who follows the religion, whether the text is positive or negative.
What it really says:
Acts 3:23
"Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from among his people."

That does not mean be killed.

Romans: 1:31-32
"Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Abominations are deserving of death in God's eyes. That is not an order for Christians to kill them.

Romans 5:9
"Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!"

Jesus' blood saves them, not the innocent victim.

You know, the rampant dishonesty from these quotes is so incredible almost every verse they paraphrase has to be corrected.

smhbbag
03-03-2012, 09:36 PM
Can we get back to our contortions to find ways to praise a violent communist, please?

Bonnieblue
03-03-2012, 09:49 PM
I suggest that you read Into the Cannibal's Pot by Ilana Mercer, a native South African. The evil of Mandela's legacy will become obvious.

palm
03-03-2012, 10:02 PM
I thank God for him but People cant live forever, be grateful for the outstanding effort and achievements of mandela and let his life last however long its going to.


I think praying someone remains on earth is rediculaous sometimes, yes to live is Christ and to die is gain, but even the Apostle Paul acknowledged that life in heaven is better than life on earth.

palm
03-03-2012, 10:04 PM
It's precisely the point.

To say that Mandela is a 'flawed human being like the rest of us' whose good we shouldn't overlook, is to be one of two things: ignorant, or dishonest.

Either one needs to be pointed out. I tend to think folks just aren't facing the cold, hard reality of the facts. He was a terrorist by every definition of the term, and killed innocent people in the name of his racism and communism. He supports and befriends the worst of the worst, and then sets himself up as a victim and achieves world fame from a life story that simply never happened.

That is not 'a flawed human being like the rest of us.'

No, I am not a terrorist, nor a murderer, nor a radical, totalitarian Marxist. I am not a racist, and I don't sing songs longing for the extermination of any race. I don't have the balls to complain about how hard the sun hurt my eyes during the prison sentence I got for killing people.

Bin Laden has funded many charities. Hamas does humanitarian stuff.

I don't feel the need, nor should I feel the need, to point out that stuff when I speak of them as monsters. They're monsters, and I don't care if I gloss over the raindrop of falsely-motivated 'good' deeds that accompanied their terror.

Thanks I did not know this

palm
03-03-2012, 10:25 PM
That is some of the worst understanding of scripture I have ever seen.


I agree with both of you


You are right that link is trash

BlackTerrel
03-04-2012, 01:17 PM
Slavery was horrible. But, you know, never once have I heard you denounce the African tribes who sold these people from their own stock of slaves. Stop acting like our forefathers invented slavery. Go scream at African tribal leaders for awhile.

From the very beginning, everything to you has had to do with race. Get the chip off your shoulder.

That's because no one ever praises the African tribal leaders.

I regularly read on here how amazing George Washington was and how he fought for liberty and how in the past 50 years "all our liberties have been stolen". I see it the other way around. Americans are FAR more wealthy and free than we were in 1776.

BlackTerrel
03-04-2012, 01:20 PM
Really? How do you know? Got a secret line none the rest of us have?

The reason Palestinians choose to support groups like Hamas is because those groups will do what all the rest of us bigger nations won't do-they fight back. But would the Palestinians continue to support Hamas if Israel retreated? I doubt it. Those people are tired of war

Well because it's what Hezbollah did after Israel retreated from Lebanon and what Hamas did after they pulled out of Gaza.


But if they did, well what do you expect when you've been waging a war of conquest on a people for the past 30 years, that they'll be happy just to barely survive and get back what was rightfully theirs in the first place? Or do you think they'd have a right to be pissed off? I do. I would be.

In other words Israel getting bombed is always justified. No matter what they do. A second ago you said they were tired of war.

BlackTerrel
03-04-2012, 01:22 PM
Unlike libertarians, communists stick together. If a 'kill the Boer' campaign, through a violent, black-nationalist communist group helps establish communism, he will be on board. In fact, he was leading the pack to establish the most violent wing of the ANC.

The words are the words.

So it wasn't really about "killing all white people" because he is giving Communists a pass?

You're twisting your words here again - which is why I am skeptical.

ExPatPaki
03-04-2012, 02:00 PM
Well because it's what Hezbollah did after Israel retreated from Lebanon and what Hamas did after they pulled out of Gaza.


Wrong again, lying troll. Israel still occupies parts of Lebanon and regularly violates Lebanese airspace on a weekly, if not daily basis. Israel may have pulled out of Gaza, but it still economically blockades Gaza by sea and air.

ExPatPaki
03-04-2012, 02:15 PM
Who Said Nearly 50 Years Ago that Israel was an Apartheid State? (http://palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=14924)


At the onset of international 'Israel Apartheid Week' in solidarity with the embattled Palestinian people, I want to start by quoting a South African who emphatically stated as far back as 1963 that "Israel is an apartheid state." Those were not the words of Nelson Mandela, Archbishop Tutu or Joe Slovo, but were uttered by none other than the architect of apartheid itself, racist Prime Minister, Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd.

He was irked by the criticism of apartheid policy and Harold Macmillan’s “Winds of Change” speech , in contrast to the West’s unconditional support for Zionist Israel.

To be sure Verwoerd was correct. Both states preached and implemented a policy based on racial ethnicity; the sole claim of Jews in Israel and whites in South Africa to exclusive citizenship; monopolized rights in law regarding the ownership of land, property, business; superior access to education, health, social, sporting and cultural amenities, pensions and municipal services at the expense of the original indigenous population; the virtual monopoly membership of military and security forces, and privileged development along their own racial supremacist lines - even both countries marriage laws designed to safeguard racial “purity”.

The so-called “non-whites” in apartheid South Africa, indigenous Africans, others of mixed race or of Indian origin - like second or third class non-Jews in Israel - were consigned to a non-citizenship status of Kafkaesque existence, subject to bureaucratic whims and the laws prohibiting their free movement, access to work and trade, dictating where they could reside and so forth.

Verwoerd would have been well aware of Israel’s dispossession of indigenous Palestinian in 1948 - the year his apartheid party similarly came to power - of the unfolding destruction of their villages, the premeditated massacres and the systematic ethnic cleansing.

Within a few short years the apartheid regime was ruthlessly clearing South Africa’s cities and towns of so-called “black spots” - where the “non-whites” lived, socialized, studied and traded - bulldozing homes, loading families onto military trucks, and forcibly relocating them to distant settlements. Unlike the “native reserves” - soon to be reconstituted as Bantustans - not too far away from industrial areas because the economy thrived on a quota of cheap black labor.

Whilst he did not live to see the division of Palestinian territory after the Six Day War, and the subsequent creation of miniscule Bantustans in the West Bank and Gaza, he would have greatly admired and approved of the machinations that enclosed the Palestinians in their own ghettoized prisons. This after all was the Verwoerdian grand plan, and the reason why Jimmy Carter could so readily identify the Occupied Palestinian Territories as being akin to apartheid. In fact the Bantustans consisted of 13% of apartheid South Africa, uncannily comparable to the derisory, ever shrinking pieces of ground Israel is consigning to the Palestinians.

A further comment about the Bantustans. When I visited Yasser Arafat in his virtually demolished headquarters in Ramallah as part of a South African delegation in 2004, he pointed around him and said “See this is nothing but a Bantustan!” No, we responded, pointing out that no Bantustan, in fact not even our townships, had been bombed by warplanes, pulverized by tanks. To a wide-eyed Arafat we pointed out that Pretoria pumped in funds, constructed impressive administration buildings, even allowed for Bantustan airlines to service the Mickey Mouse capitals in order to impress the world that they were serious about so-called “separate development.”

What Verwoerd admired too was the impunity with which Israel exercised state violence and terror to get its way, without hindrance from its Western allies, increasingly key among them the USA. What Verwoerd and his ilk came to admire in Israel, and seek to emulate in the southern African region, was the way the Western powers permitted an imperialist Israel to use its unbridled military with impunity in expanding its territory and holding back the rising tide of Arab nationalism in its neighborhood.

After the Six Day War, Verwoerd’s successor John Vorster, infamously stated: “The Israelis have beaten the Arabs before lunchtime. We will eat the African states for breakfast.”

But it was not only the racial doctrine of Israel that excited apartheid’s leaders, it was the use of the biblical narrative as the ideological rationale to justify its vision, aims and methods.

The early Dutch pioneers, the Afrikaners, had used Bible and gun as colonizers elsewhere, to carve out their exclusive fortress bastion in South Africa’s hinterland. Like the biblical Israelites they claimed to be “God’s chosen people” with a mission to tame and civilize the wilderness; disregarding the productivity and industriousness of people who had tilled the soil and traded for centuries - claiming it was only they who would make the land flow with milk and honey. They invoked a covenant with God to deliver their enemies into their hands and to bless their deeds. Until the advent of South Africa’s democracy, the racial history books generally taught that the white man arrived in South Africa more or less as the so-called “Bantu tribes” from the north were wandering across the Limpopo - South Africa’s border with Zimbabwe - and that they the were pioneer settlers in a land without people.

Such a colonial racist mentality which rationalized the genocide of the indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australasia, in Africa from Namibia to the Congo and elsewhere, most clearly has its parallels in Palestine.

What is so shameless about this anachronistic colonial barbarism is that Zionist Israel has been permitted by the West to aspire to such a goal even into the 21st Century.

It is by no means difficult to recognize from afar, as Verwoerd had been able to do, that Israel is indeed an apartheid state. Verwoerd’s successor, Balthazar John Vorster visited Israel after the 1973 October War, when Egypt in a rare victory regained the Suez Canal and Sinai from Israel. After that Israel and South Africa were virtually twinned as military allies for Pretoria helped supply Israel militarily in the immediacy of its 1973 setback and Israel came to support apartheid South Africa at the height of sanctions with weaponry and technology - from naval ships and the conversion of supersonic fighter planes to assistance in building six nuclear bombs and the creation of an arms industry.

For the liberation movements of southern Africa, Israel and apartheid South Africa represented a racist, colonial axis. It was noted that people like Vorster had been Nazi sympathizers, interned during World War II - yet feted as heroes in Israel and incidentally never again referred to by South African Zionists as an anti-Semite!. This did not surprise those that came to understand the true racist nature and character of Zionist Israel.

Time and space does not allow further elaboration, but it is instructive to add that in its conduct and methods of repression, Israel came to resemble more and more apartheid South Africa at its zenith - even surpassing its brutality, house demolitions, removal of communities, targeted assassinations, massacres, imprisonment and torture of its opponents, collective punishment and the aggression against neighboring states.

Certainly we South Africans can identify the pathological cause, fuelling the hate, of Israel’s political-military elite and public in general. Neither is this difficult for anyone acquainted with colonial history to understand the way in which deliberately cultivated race hate inculcates a justification for the most atrocious and inhumane actions against even defenseless civilians - women, children, the elderly amongst them. In fact was this not the pathological racist ideology that fuelled Hitler’s war lust and implementation of the Holocaust?

I will state clearly, without exaggeration, that any South African, whether involved in the freedom struggle, or motivated by basic human decency, who visits the Occupied Palestinian Territories are shocked to the core at the situation they encounter and agree with Archbishop Tutu’s comment that what the Palestinians are experiencing is far worse than what happened in South Africa, where the Sharpeville massacre of 69 civilians in 1960 became international symbol of apartheid cruelty.

I want to recall here the words of an Israeli Cabinet Minister, Aharon Cizling in 1948, after the savagery of the Deir Yassin massacre of 240 villagers became known. He said: “Now we too have behaved like the Nazis and my whole being is shaken.”

Recently the veteran British MP, Gerald Kaufman, long time friend of Israel, was reported as remarking that a spokeswoman of the Israeli Defence Force, talked like a Nazi, when she coldly dismissed the deaths of defenseless civilians in Gaza - many women and children amongst them.

It needs to be frankly raised that if the crimes of the Holocaust are at the top end of the scale of human barbarity in modern times, where do we place the human cost of what has so recently occurred in Gaza and against the Palestinians since 1948 in the ‘Nakba’ (catastrophe) they have endured?

How do we evaluate the inhumanity of dropping bombs and blazing white phosphorous on civilian populations, burning people alive, gassing them in a Gaza ghetto under relentless siege with no place to run or hide. For 22 days relentless bombardment whole families vaporized before the horrified eyes of a surviving parent or child.

Guernica, Lidice, the Warsaw Ghetto, Deir Yassin, Mai Lei, Sabra and Shatilla, Sharpeville are high on that scale - and the perpetrators of the slaughter in Gaza are the off-spring of holocaust victims yet again, in Cizling’s words, behaving like Nazis. This must not be allowed to go unpunished and the international community must demand they be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. For the lesson is that if apartheid Israel is not stopped in its tracks these crimes will get greater and spread not only to engulf the entire Middle East and Iran, but indeed anywhere that Israel is challenged . Like the apartheid security forces the hand of Mossad stretches very far indeed. And of course with Israel a key ally in the USA’s “War on Terror” and all the motives for that onslaught, oil resources included, there will be no end to this bloody saga - with the Palestinians targeted to go the way of the extinct peoples of the former colonial era.

But such a fate must not and will not happen, if together with the unconquerable Palestinian people we share the resolve and determination to halt this insidious Zionist project, and its Great Power backing and encouragement.

Once more, let me turn to our South African experience.

There, as with other struggles such as Vietnam, Algeria, the former Portuguese colonies, the just nature of the struggle was the assurance for success.

With that moral advantage, on the basis of a just liberation struggle, we learnt the secret of Vietnam’s victory and strategies according to what we termed our Four Pillars of Struggle:

Political mass struggle; reinforced by armed struggle; clandestine underground struggle; and international solidarity.

At times any one of these can become predominant and it is not for outsiders to direct those at the frontline of struggle what and how to choose but to modestly provide the lessons of our experience pointing out that the unity of the struggling people is as indispensable as the moral high-ground they occupy. For the Vietnamese the military element was generally primary but always resting on popular mass support.

In South Africa the mass struggle became the primary way, with sabotage actions and limited guerrilla operations inspiring our people. It all depends on the conditions and the situation.

But unquestioningly, what helped tip the balance, in Vietnam and South Africa, was the force and power of international solidarity action. It took some 30 years but the worldwide Anti-Apartheid Movements campaigns - launched in London in 1959 - for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions - not only provided international activists with a practical role, but became an incalculable factor in (a) isolating and weakening the apartheid regime (b) inspiring the struggling people (c) undermining the resolve of those states that supported and benefited from relations with apartheid South Africa, (d) generated a change of attitude amongst the South African white public generally, and political, business, professional, academic, religious and sporting associations in particular. Boycott made them feel the pinch in their pocket and their polecat status everywhere - whether on the sporting fields, at academic or business conventions, in the world of theatre and the arts they were totally shunned like biblical lepers. There was literally no place to hide from universal condemnation backed by decisive and relentless action which in time became more and more creative.

To conclude: we must spare no effort in building a world-wide solidarity movement to emulate the success of the Anti-Apartheid Movement which played such a crucial role in toppling the apartheid regime in South Africa. Nelson Mandela stated after South Africa attained democratic rule that “we South Africans cannot feel free until the Palestinians are free.” A slogan of South Africa’s liberation struggle and our trade union movement is “An injury to one is an injury to all!“ That goes for the whole of humanity. Every act of solidarity demonstrates to the Palestinians and those courageous Jews who stand by them in Israel - that they are not alone.

Israel has lost in Gaza. Whilst many Palestinians have lost their lives the Palestinians have not been conquered or cowed. Repression generates resistance and that will grow. Israeli aggression stands exposed. A turning point has been reached in humanity‘s perception of this issue. The time is ripe for us to drive home the advantage. When 150,000 Palestinians within Israel itself demonstrated against the carnage in Gaza; when Jewish women staged a sit-in in at the Israeli Consulate in Toronto; when Norwegian tram drivers stopped their transport in sympathy; when municipalities and colleges decide to divest like Hampshire college in the USA (the first that took this step against apartheid South Africa), when Durban dockworkers refused to unload a ship with Israeli cargo; joining with the countless thousands around the world, from Australia to Britain to Belgium to Canada to Cairo, Jordan, Indonesia and the USA we know the times are changing and Zionist hegemony is fast losing control. BDS represents three words that will help bring about the defeat of Zionist Israel and victory for Palestine. Like South Africa this can mean, must mean: freedom, peace, security, equality and justice for all - Muslim, Christian and Jew. That is well worth struggling for!

- Ronnie Kasrils is South Africa’s Minister of Intelligence. This article was based on Mr. Kasrils’ address at “Israel Apartheid Week”, South Africa, delivered on Feb. 28, 2009.

ExPatPaki
03-04-2012, 02:17 PM
Israel's apartheid is worse than South Africa's
The system preserving this apartheid is more ruthless as it is equipped with the lie of being 'temporary.' (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israel-s-apartheid-is-worse-than-south-africa-s-1.4590)
By Yitzhak Laor


The shock that gripped the shrunken peace camp following Hillary Clinton's statement that the settlement construction freeze is not what we thought it would be, but rather what Benjamin Netanyahu thought it would be, is reminiscent of other shocks generated by American peace plans ever since the 1960s.

Had the educated people of this camp not outnumbered its foot soldiers, this shock and amazement could be compared to other superstitions, like the correlation between rainfall and women's fertility.

But precisely because the Israeli intelligentsia is always coming up with prophecies about "American pressure," it would not be unreasonable to assume that we can once again expect expert regurgitation of speculations about a "first-term president" versus a "second-term" one, and about when he stops being an "incoming" president and starts being a "lame duck."

The truth is simpler. Regardless of whether there is a Democrat or a Republican in the White House, the United States became a distinctly pro-Israel world power after the 1967 war. It has no intention of being a "balanced mediator" when it comes to the conflict with the Palestinians.

Barack Obama's public relations moves in the Arab world have frightened many average Israelis. But Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, allies of the final takeover of the West Bank, know very well that U.S. policy has not changed. It doesn't take a genius to read the working papers of past prime ministers.

The prevailing attitude of all U.S. administrations was drafted by Henry Morgenthau, and was later updated by Kenneth Waltz. One line guided all of them - Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, George Mitchell - essentially, that any possible settlement must match the positions of the stronger party.

This is how the Americans abandoned the refugee issue, and this is why they abandoned the opposition to settlements. Netanyahu is no genius. He is simply not interested in saying good-bye to the occupation. That is all. After all, he came to power because of this. To complain about him is to complain about November rain.

The Israeli public's choice is a different matter. The spokesmen of the dovish camp tell us horror stories about a future binational state. But the binational state is already here. It has a rigid apartheid legal system, as the High Court of Justice fades away.

The system preserving this apartheid is more ruthless than that seen in South Africa, where the black were a labor force and could therefore also make a living. It is equipped with the lie of being "temporary." Occasionally, Israel's indifference comes up with allegations against the Palestinians.

Abba Eban captured the allegation by coining a phrase repeated by the doves of all parties, who never really went to battle over Israel's future and allowed the "settlement project" to spread. After all, occupation makes Israelis richer. Why oppose it?

Yaakov (Jack) Teitel is the American aid secured by moderate Israel. What Yitzhak Rabin failed to do after the massacre by the last import, Baruch Goldstein - to uproot the Jewish settlement in Hebron - will not happen now either. Shvut Rachel, Tapuah or any other such town will not be moved, nor will the smaller "illegal" outposts.

Beyond the two Palestinians whose murders were never really investigated, and past what Ami Ortiz or Professor Ze'ev Sternhell went through, Teitel is a Made-in-the-U.S.A. reminder that "no one will do for you what you fail to do for yourselves."

How to do what needs to be done? Surely, not through the rules drafted back in the 1970s, when "we" were in power and "they" were the opposition. The settlers are in power. The Shin Bet security service and Obama will not fight them.

ExPatPaki
03-04-2012, 02:29 PM
Israel and Apartheid: Is It a Fair Comparison?
by Edward C. Corrigan / March 1st, 2010 (http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/03/israel-and-apartheid-is-it-a-fair-comparison/)

There is a controversy raging in North America over Israeli Apartheid Week (March 1-7 2010).1 A resolution was passed in the Ontario Provincial Parliament which was unanimously supported (only 30 MPPs voted) and declared the comparison of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians to apartheid as “odious.” To quote an article in the Toronto Star Canada’s largest circulation paper.

In a rare show of unanimity, Ontario MPPs of all political stripes have banded together to condemn “Israeli Apartheid Week.”

Progressive Conservative MPP Peter Shurman (Thornhill) tabled the motion Thursday to denounce the sixth annual provocative campus event that kicks off next week at universities and colleges in 35 cities around the world.

“Resolutions in the Ontario Legislature send a message. They are about moral suasion,” said Shurman, adding “it is close to hate speech” to liken democratic Israel to apartheid-era South Africa.

“I want the name changed. It’s just wrong,” he said, emphasizing that “respectful” debate about the Middle East is much more constructive than slinging slurs.

“Israeli Apartheid Week is not a dialogue, it’s a monologue, and it is an imposition of a view by the name itself – the name is hateful, it is odious,” he said, adding it is also offensive to the millions of black South Africans oppressed by a racist white regime until the early 1990s.2

Progressive Conservative MPP Peter Shurman (Thornhill) was quoted as saying that he wants “the name changed. It’s just wrong” and that his resolution is about “moral suasion”, and that the term apartheid is “close to hate speech…hateful” and “odious”. He says he wants a “respectful” debate much more “constructive” than “slinging slurs.”

New Democratic MPP Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale-High Park) also claimed that the word apartheid is “inflammatory” and ”used inappropriately in the case of Israel”. “Apartheid does not help the discussion,” she states.

Shurman also argued that the comparison “is also offensive to the millions of black South Africans oppressed by a racist white regime until the early 1990s.”2

It is interesting to see what South African’s who actually lived under the Apartheid system have to say about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. The natural basis of such kinship between the policies of Israel and South Africa was apparently recognized by the virulent supporter of Apartheid and prime minister of South Africa, Hendrik Verwoerd. He noted in 1961 that Jews “took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. In that I agree with them, Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state.”3

The much revered leader of the struggle against racism and Apartheid in South Africa and the first President of the non-racist Republic of South Africa Nelson Mandela had the following to say on the issue of the Palestinians. To quote journalist John Pilger, “To Nelson Mandela, justice for the Palestinians is ‘the greatest moral issue of our time.’”4

Here is an excerpt from a speech Nelson Mandela gave on International day of Solidarity with the Palestinians.

The temptation in our situation is to speak in muffled tones about an issue such as the right of the people of Palestine to a state of their own. We can easily be enticed to read reconciliation and fairness as meaning parity between justice and injustice. Having achieved our own freedom, we can fall into the trap of washing our hands of difficulties that others faces.

Yet we would be less than human if we did so.

It behooves all South Africans, themselves erstwhile beneficiaries of generous international support, to stand up and be counted among those contributing actively to the cause of freedom and justice.

Even during the days of negotiations, our own experience taught us that the pursuit of human fraternity and equality — irrespective of race or religion – should stand at the centre of our peaceful endeavours. The choice is not between freedom and justice, on the one hand, and their opposite, on the other. Peace and prosperity; tranquility and security are only possible if these are enjoyed by all without discrimination.

It is in this spirit that I have come to join you today to add our own voice to the universal call for Palestinian self-determination and statehood.5

In March 1985, Denis Goldberg, a Jewish South African and member of the African National Congress and sentenced in 1964 to life imprisonment for “conspiring to overthrow the apartheid regime,” was released through the intercession of his daughter, an Israeli, and top Israeli officials, including the president of Israel and allowed to go into exile to Israel.

Goldberg said after arriving in Israel that he saw “many similarities in the oppression of blacks in South Africa and of Palestinians.” He called for a total economic boycott of South Africa, singling out Israel as a major ally of the apartheid regime. Refusing to live in a country that supported Apartheid South Africa Goldberg quickly left Israel and moved to London, England.6

Mr. Aziz Pahad, the South African Deputy Foreign Minister, and Mr. Kgalema Motlanthe, the Deputy President of the African National Congress (ANC), met with Palestinian human rights activists on 6 June 2008 in South Africa. The South Africans officials had recently returned from a visit to the 1967 Occupied Palestinian Territory. In the meeting with Arab Political Leaders and Adalah representatives Mr. Pahad and Mr. Motlanthe stressed the South African government’s support for the Palestinian people. Mr. Motlanthe stated that in his view “the current situation for Palestinians in the OPT is worse than conditions were for Blacks under the Apartheid regime.”7

Here is an excerpt from an article describing the reactions of Veteran African Congress members after visiting the Palestinian Occupied Territories.

Veterans of the anti-apartheid struggle said last night that the restrictions endured by Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied territories was in some respects worse than that imposed on the black majority under white rule in South Africa.

Members of a 23-strong human-rights team of prominent South Africans cited the impact of the Israeli military’s separation barrier, checkpoints, the permit system for Palestinian travel, and the extent to which Palestinians are barred from using roads in the West Bank.

After a five-day visit to Israel and the Occupied Territories, some delegates expressed shock and dismay at conditions in the Israeli-controlled heart of Hebron. Uniquely among West Bank cities, 800 settlers now live there and segregation has seen the closure of nearly 3,000 Palestinian businesses and housing units. Palestinian cars (and in some sections pedestrians) are prohibited from using the once busy streets.

“Even with the system of permits, even with the limits of movement to South Africa, we never had as much restriction on movement as I see for the people here,” said an ANC parliamentarian, Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge of the West Bank. “There are areas in which people would live their whole lifetime without visiting because it’s impossible.”8

Israeli journalist Gideon Levy also wrote an article on this visit by South African dignitaries. Here are excerpts from his report:

Lunch is in a hotel in the city, and Madlala-Routledge speaks. “It is hard for me to describe what I am feeling. What I see here is worse than what we experienced. But I am encouraged to find that there are courageous people here. We want to support you in your struggle, by every possible means. There are quite a few Jews in our delegation, and we are very proud that they are the ones who brought us here. They are demonstrating their commitment to support you. In our country we were able to unite all the forces behind one struggle, and there were courageous whites, including Jews, who joined the struggle. I hope we will see more Israeli Jews joining your struggle.”

She was deputy defense minister from 1999 to 2004; in 1987 she served time in prison. Later, I asked her in what ways the situation here is worse than apartheid. “The absolute control of people’s lives, the lack of freedom of movement, the army presence everywhere, the total separation and the extensive destruction we saw.”

Madlala-Routledge thinks that the struggle against the occupation is not succeeding here because of U.S. support for Israel – not the case with apartheid, which international sanctions helped destroy. Here, the racist ideology is also reinforced by religion, which was not the case in South Africa. “Talk about the ‘promised land’ and the ‘chosen people’ adds a religious dimension to racism which we did not have.”

Equally harsh are the remarks of the editor-in-chief of the Sunday Times of South Africa, Mondli Makhanya, 38. “When you observe from afar you know that things are bad, but you do not know how bad. Nothing can prepare you for the evil we have seen here. In a certain sense, it is worse, worse, worse than everything we endured. The level of the apartheid, the racism and the brutality are worse than the worst period of apartheid.

“The apartheid regime viewed the blacks as inferior; I do not think the Israelis see the Palestinians as human beings at all. How can a human brain engineer this total separation, the separate roads, the checkpoints? What we went through was terrible, terrible, terrible – and yet there is no comparison. Here it is more terrible. We also knew that it would end one day; here there is no end in sight. The end of the tunnel is blacker than black.9

Here is what other prominent South Africans have to say about the issue of Israel and Apartheid.

“I’ve been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about.”
– Archbishop Desmond Tutu10

“When I hear, ‘that used to be my home’, it is painfully similar to the treatment in South Africa when coloureds had no rights.”
– Archbishop Desmond Tutu11

“… the fundamental cause of the conflict — lest anyone remains unclear. It stems from the Zionist world view — its belief in a perpetual anti-Semitism that requires that Jewish people around the world — a faith group — should have a national home of their own. The biblical narrative was evoked to proclaim Palestine as the promised land reserved exclusively for God’s ‘chosen people’ and their civilizing mission. It sounds all too familiar as a vision the Voortrekkers had in this country. It gives rise to racism, apartheid and a total onslaught on those who stand in your way, whether blacks or Arabs or red Indians. Many Jews do not agree with this Zionist world view, and declare that being anti-Zionism and critical of Israel does not equate with anti-semitism.”
– Speech given to the South African Parliament by Government Minister Ronnie Kasrils12

“… Israel came to resemble more and more apartheid South Africa at its zenith – even surpassing its brutality, house demolitions, removal of communities, targeted assassinations, massacres, imprisonment and torture of its opponents, collective punishment and the aggression against neighbouring states.”
– Former South African Intelligence Minister Ronnie Kasrils from a speech at Israel Apartheid Week 2009.13

“But what is interesting is that every black South African that I’ve spoken to who has visited the Palestinian territory has been horrified and has said without hesitation that the system that applies in Palestine is worse.”
– Professor John Dugard, Former U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Occupied Palestine.14

“Apartheid Israel can be defeated, just as apartheid in South Africa was defeated.”
– Winnie Mandela15

“”When I come here and see the situation [in the Palestinian territories], I find that what is happening here is ten times worse than what I had experienced in South Africa. This is Apartheid.”
– Arun Ghandi16

“The horrendous dehumanisation of Black South Africans during the erstwhile Apartheid years is a Sunday picnic, compared with what I saw and what I know is happening to the Palestinian people.”
– Willie Madisha, former head of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU)17

“As someone who lived in apartheid South Africa and who has visited Palestine I say with confidence that Israel is an apartheid state. In fact, I believe that some of Israel’s actions make the actions of South Africa’s apartheid regime appear pale by comparison.”
– Willie Madisha, in a letter supporting CUPE Ontario’s resolution.18

“I say with confidence that Israel is an Apartheid state. The trade union movement must move beyond resolutions, otherwise history will look back on us and spit on our graves.”
– Willie Madisha, at a trade union conference held in London, England.19

“Indeed, for those of us who lived under South African Apartheid and fought for liberation from it and everything that it represented, Palestine reflects in many ways the unfinished business of our own struggle.”
– Farid Esack, Writer, Visiting Professor at Harvard and Anti-apartheid Spokesperson.20

“They support Zionism, a version of global racist domination and apartheid based on the doctrine that Jews are superior to Arabs and therefore have a right to oppress them and occupy their country.”
– Current COSATU President, Sidumo Dlamini.21

Former U.S President Jimmy Carter who helped bring about the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt has also have written and spoken out on Israel’s policy towards the Palestinians. In an interview in Israel Carter stated the following on the Apartheid comparison:

When Israel does occupy this territory deep within the West Bank, and connects the 200-or-so settlements with each other, with a road, and then prohibits the Palestinians from using that road, or in many cases even crossing the road, this perpetrates even worse instances of apartness, or apartheid, than we witnessed even in South Africa.

Carter said his new book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” was meant to spark U.S. discussion of Israeli policies. “The hope is that my book will at least stimulate a debate, which has not existed in this country. There’s never been any debate on this issue, of any significance.22

Carter’s book Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid resulted in him being severely criticized by the American Jewish community. Here is what Cecilie Surasky, from the Jewish Voice for Peace and Muzzle Watch, had to say about this treatment.

Few people anywhere have endured more vicious demonization regarding the Israel issue than Nobel-prize-winning former US president Jimmy Carter. It is a sad statement that the man who did more for peace for the Israelis than any other U.S. president, is now vilified as an anti-Semite in Jewish communities across the land, most notably for titling his book Palestine: Peace, not Apartheid. In fact, Carter is one of Israel’s few true friends who remains impressively committed to doing whatever he can to bring about some kind of resolution, rather than taking the easy road by giving the self-destructive government more of what it wants- arms and money to occupy more land. 23

Issues that are virtually forbidden in the North American public arena are treated much differently in Israel where such topics are part of the general political discourse and debate. Many Israelis use the term Apartheid to describe Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians. It is worth reviewing the political debate and public discussion of these questions in Israel.

Michael Ben-Yair was Israel’s attorney general from 1993‑96. He wrote that after Israel won the Six Day War in June 1967:

We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these activities. Passionately desiring to keep the occupied territories, we developed two judicial systems: one — progressive, liberal — in Israel; and the other — cruel, injurious — in the occupied territories. In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture.

That oppressive regime exists to this day.24

Avraham Burg was speaker of Israel’s Knesset in 1999‑2003 and is a former chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel. Here is how Burg is described in an article published in The New Yorker magazine.

Short of being Prime Minister, Burg could not be higher in the Zionist establishment. His father was a Cabinet minister for nearly four decades, serving under Prime Ministers from David Ben‑Gurion to Shimon Peres. In addition to a decade‑long career in the Knesset, including four years as Speaker, Burg had also been leader of the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency for Israel. And yet he did not obey the commands of pedigree. Defeating Hitler and an earlier book, God Is Back, are in combination, a despairing look at the Israeli condition. Burg warns that an increasingly large and ardent sector of Israeli society disdains political democracy. He describes the country in its current state as Holocaust‑obsessed, militaristic, xenophobic, and, like Germany in the nineteen‑thirties, vulnerable to an extremist minority.25

In 2003, Burg wrote in an article:

Israel must shed its illusions and choose between racist oppression and democracy.

The Zionist revolution has always rested on two pillars: a just path and an ethical leadership. Neither of these is operative any longer. The Israeli nation today rests on a scaffolding of corruption, and on foundations of oppression and injustice. As such, the end of the Zionist enterprise is already on our doorstep. There is a real chance that ours will be the last Zionist generation. There may yet be a Jewish state here, but it will be a different sort, strange and ugly.26

In 2007 another article was published in Haaretz on Avraham Burg. He is quoted: “to define the State of Israel as a Jewish state is the key to its end. A Jewish state is explosive. It’s dynamite.” In the interview Burg said that he was Ain favor of abrogating the Law of Return and calls on everyone who can to obtain a foreign passport.”27

Here are the words of another veteran Israeli politician, Yossi Sarid, on the comparison of Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians and Apartheid. Sarid served as a member of the Knesset for the Alignment, Ratz and Meretz between 1974 and 2006. A former Minister of Education and Minister of the Environment, he led Meretz between 1996 and 2003.

The white Afrikaners, too, had reasons for their segregation policy; they, too, felt threatened — a great evil was at their door, and they were frightened, out to defend themselves. Unfortunately, however, all good reasons for apartheid are bad reasons; apartheid always has a reason, and it never has a justification. And what acts like apartheid, is run like apartheid and harasses like apartheid, is not a duck – it is apartheid. Nor does it even solve the problem of fear: Today, everyone knows that all apartheid will inevitably reach its sorry end. One essential difference remains between South Africa and Israel: There a small minority dominated a large majority, and here we have almost a tie. But the tiebreaker is already darkening on the horizon. Then the Zionist project will come to an end if we don’t choose to leave the slave house before being visited by a fatal demographic plague. It is entirely clear why the word apartheid terrifies us so. What should frighten us, however, is not the description of reality, but reality itself. Even Ehud Olmert has understood at last that continuing the present situation is the end of the Jewish democratic state, as he recently said.28

Another prominent Israeli politician who served many years in the Knesset, Shulamit Aloni, has also been scathing in her criticism of Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians.29 Aloni, is the Israeli Prize laureate who once served as Minister of Education under Yitzhak Rabin. She wrote, “Jewish self‑righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what’s right in front of our eyes. It’s simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population.”30

Aloni also defended former U.S. President Jimmy Carter:

The US Jewish Establishment’s onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies. Its army has turned every Palestinian village and town into a fenced‑in, or blocked‑in, detention camp. All this is done in order to keep an eye on the population’s movements and to make its life difficult. Israel even imposes a total curfew whenever the settlers, who have illegally usurped the Palestinians’ land, celebrate their holidays or conduct their parades.31

Here is what Yossi Paritzky, a member of the Shinui Party who served in the Israeli Knesset and also in the Israeli cabinet, had to say about racial discrimination in Israel:

One of the clearest rules that distinguishes a democratic state from a non‑democratic state is the principle of equality when it comes to rights and obligations. In a democratic country, all citizens regardless of race, religious, gender or origin are entitled to equality when it comes to national assets, services and resources, and all citizens regardless of race, religion, gender or origin are equally obligated by national duties.

For example, in a democratic country everyone must pay taxes (although at different rates, of course,) and everyone must obey the law. On the other hand, every citizen in a democratic state is entitled to enjoy individual freedoms. One is entitled to purchase assets in the country, marry anyone he or she wish, work wherever one wants, study whatever one wishes, and express himself or herself as they wish.

In short, equality is the basic tenet of a liberal western democracy and without it a country is not democratic in practice although possibly democratic by law.

… in a series of three decisions that are separate but connected through a stench of racism and discrimination, Israel entered the dismal pantheon of non‑democratic states. This past Wednesday, Israel decided to be like apartheid‑era South Africa, and some will say even worse countries that no longer exist.32

The following are comments made by Yossi Beilin, a member of the Knesset, and chairman of the Israeli Meretz‑Yahad Party, on the uproar caused in the United States over former U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.

I cannot recall when the publication of a book has generated such a debate in Israel. And even though we are talking here about a book that was published in the United States and has yet to be translated into Hebrew, the quiet way in which Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid has been received in Israel is nevertheless noteworthy, not least because it is Israel itself that is the object of Carter’s opprobrium.

Part of the explanation for why Carter’s book did not set off any public outcry in Israel lies in the difference in literary culture. For better or worse C and I, for one, certainly think that it is for worse C books just don’t matter here in the way they still do elsewhere. Yet perhaps a larger part of the explanation lies with the difference in political culture, and with local sensitivities (or perhaps insensitivities) to language and moral tone.

It is not that Israelis are indifferent to what is said about them, but the threshold of what passes as acceptable here is apparently much higher than it is with Israel’s friends in the United States. In the case of this particular book, the harsh words that Carter reserves for Israel are simply not as jarring to Israeli ears, which have grown used to such language, especially with respect to the occupation.

In other words, what Carter says in his book about the Israeli occupation and our treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories C and perhaps no less important, how he says it C is entirely harmonious with the kind of criticism that Israelis themselves voice about their own country. There is nothing in the criticism that Carter has for Israel that has not been said by Israelis themselves.33

Uri Davis, author of Israel: An Apartheid State (London: Zed Books, 1987) and many other studies34 on Israel and Zionism, was elected in August 2009 to serve on the Fatah Revolutionary Council.35 He wrote:

Following the establishment of the state of Israel, however, and the introduction of the legislation detailed below into the body of Israeli law, the legal situation governing the activities of the World Zionist Organization, the Jewish Agency, the Jewish National Fund, the Histadrut, the Workers’ Company, and their various subsidiaries radically altered. Their respective restrictive constitutions, which were legally binding on what were, until 1948, technically voluntary organisations, are now incorporated into the legal foundations and the body of law of the state of Israel, thereby establishing a situation of radical legal apartheid of Jew versus non-Jew.36

Davis further added the following quote from Israel’s Defense minister Moshe Dyan.

We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs, and we are building here a Hebrew, Jewish state. In a considerable portion of localities we purchased the land from the Arabs. Instead of the Arab villages Jewish villages were established. You even do not know the name of the villages and I do not blame you, because these geography books no longer exist. Not only the books, but also the villages no longer exist. Nahalal was established in the place of Mahalul, Gevat in the place of Jibta, Sarid in the place of Hanifas and Kefar Yehoshu’a in the place of Tel Shaham. There is not a single settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab village (Dayan, 19 March 1969; as quoted in Haaretz, 4 April 1969)37

Another example of the type of discussion that goes on in Israel is the following statement made by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert: “For sixty years there has been discrimination against Arabs in Israel. This discrimination is deep‑seated and intolerable.” Olmert made this statement while addressing a meeting of the Knesset committee that was investigating the lack of integration of Arab citizens in the Israeli public service.38 Prime Minister Olmert also made the following comment in an interview with Haaretz: “If the day comes when the two‑state solution collapses, and we face a South African‑style struggle for equal voting rights, then as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished.”39

Here is a recent discussion of Apartheid which was published in the Israel press titled, “Are Israel and apartheid South Africa really different?,” by Akiva Eldar, Haaretz, January 5, 2010. The author is discussing a ruling of an Israeli judge.

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, which appealed against the ban on Route 443, dared suggest the word apartheid and was reprimanded for it. In her ruling, Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch wrote that “the great difference between the security means adopted by the State of Israel for defense against terrorist attacks and the unacceptable practices of the policy of apartheid requires that any comparison or use of this grave term be avoided.” A similar argument was voiced during the days of Israel’s military administration over its Arab citizens, which was lifted in 1966, and which is today considered a dark period in the country’s history.

Beinisch herself is a co-author of about a dozen rulings that exposed the malicious use of the segregation regime in an effort to take over Palestinian land. In some cases, most notably one concerning the separation fence near Bil’in, she wrote that the invasive route set by the army was inferior from a security point of view to the route proposed by experts at the Council for Peace and Security. In another case the state admitted that the person in charge of planning the fence did not inform government lawyers that the route had been adjusted to the blueprint for expanding the settlement of Tzofin. Were it not for human rights organizations and conscientious lawyers, who would prevent shortsighted politicians from annexing more and more territory “for security against terrorism”? asked Beinisch.

One of the myths among whites in South Africa was that “blacks want to throw us into the sea.” Many of apartheid’s practices were formally based on security, mostly those involving restrictions on movement. Thus, for example, at a fairly early stage, black citizens needed permits to move around the country. During the final years of apartheid, when the blacks’ struggle intensified as did terrorism, its practices became more severe.

To avoid the rude word apartheid, Beinisch pulled out the well-known argument that apartheid is “a policy of segregation and discrimination based on race and ethnicity, which is based on a series of discriminatory practices designed to achieve the superiority of a certain race and oppress those of other races.” Indeed, systematic segregation (apartheid) and discrimination in South Africa were meant to preserve the supremacy of one race over others.

In Israel, on the other hand, institutional discrimination is meant to preserve the supremacy of a group of Jewish settlers over Palestinian Arabs. As far as discriminatory practices are concerned, it’s hard to find differences between white rule in South Africa and Israeli rule in the territories; for example, separate areas and separate laws for Jews and Palestinians.40

Ehud Barak, Israel’s defence minister, and former Prime Minister, also has used the Apartheid analogy. At the annual national security conference in the Israeli city of Herzliya Barak “delivered an unusually blunt *warning to his country that a failure to make peace with the Palestinians would leave either a state with no Jewish *majority or an “apartheid” regime.”41

To quote the Guardian, “His stark language and the South African analogy might have been unthinkable for a senior Israeli figure only a few years ago and is a rare admission of the gravity of the deadlocked peace process.”

Barak, a former general and Israel’s most decorated soldier, said that a two-state solution was “the only way to secure Israel’s future as a “Zionist, Jewish, democratic state.” Barak also said:

As long as in this territory west of the Jordan river there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic… If this bloc of millions of *Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.41

Can you ever imagine a top American or Canadian politician making statements like these, or a leading Canadian or American newspaper publishing comments like these ones? If the politicians did make statements like these what would be the reaction?

This article only reviews a portion of the critical debate in Israel from Israeli politicians. There is much more debate and critical examination of Zionism and of Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians. The comparison between Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians and to Apartheid is a legitimate part of that debate and this is an analogy frequently used by Israelis.

Serious discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must include the full spectrum of opinion in keeping with democratic values, free speech and much needed critical inquiry. In Israel, there is a vibrant political debate, and while this debate and democratic discourse is coming increasingly under attack, this debate contributes to the vitality of Israeli society as it deals with the Palestinian issue, the nature of a “Jewish State” and how to govern its society.

America, which provides a great deal of financial, military and political support for Israel, needs to be aware of this debate in Israel and in Jewish circles, and to understand the ramifications of uncritical support for the policies and actions of Israel toward the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors. To stifle and censor the discussion of these important issues does no favors for the United States, Canada or for Israel or the Jewish people.