up to the idiots in his party attacking Mandela.

Words fail me.

That kind of garbage does not belong on DU.

(Author of op-ed is a regular at Front Page Mag and other far RW trash sites)

maybe I missed you critising shira for doing exactly the same on almost a daily basis ?

I haven't seen it. Certainly not on a daily basis as you claim. Is it your assertion that Times of Israel is an extremist settler website? J Post? Forward?

you might have missed it ... I have not .

" Is it your assertion that Times of Israel is an extremist settler website? J Post? Forward?

No ... the Times and the Jerusalem Post are both outlets for the right/centralist english speaking community .
Not sure about " Forward " ...maybe you could enlighten me ?

I see the difference between that and the type of sites that shira does post from.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/nelson-mandela-was-close-to-jews-resolutely-loyal-to-palestinians/


NNelson Rolihlahla Mandela had close friendships and alliances with many Jews, but his relationship with the Jewish state was complicated. While always courteous and never hate-filled, the South African icon’s dealings with Israel were overshadowed by Jerusalem’s staunch support for his tormentors and, even more so, his ironclad loyalty to the Palestinian cause.

Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email
and never miss our top stories FREE SIGN UP!

In the name of reconciliation, he made no ongoing issue of Jerusalem’s strong long-term partnership with the apartheid regime after he was released from a lengthy prison sentence and became South Africa’s first black president in 1994. He professed the legitimacy of Zionism as Jewish nationalism and, upon receiving the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize, he said Yitzhak Rabin deserved it more (Rabin was co-honored the following year). But his primary concern in dealings with Israel’s government was the advancement of the peace process and the well-being of the Palestinian people.


http://www.timesofisrael.com/nelson-mandela-was-close-to-jews-resolutely-loyal-to-palestinians/

I cannot conceive of Israel withdrawing if Arab states do not recognize Israel, within secure borders.

Nelson Mandela


Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/nelsonmand178788.html#REexg9D3lSvoqFvB.99

Last edited Sun Dec 8, 2013, 09:15 PM - Edit history (2)

Nor did he ever once call for the dismantling of the Jewish state and he never supported BDS.

Sounds more like a liberal zionist opining on Israel than an anti-zio...

But go figure, the BDS anti-Israel crowd claims him as one of their own in their war vs. Israel.

Yet another one of their many lies.

I thought you might appreciate the OP the quote came from:



Israel is right to ask for recognition from the Arabs in exchange for land, Nelson Mandela said on Tuesday, lending his considerable moral support to Prime Minister Ehud Barak's demand for a full peace with Syria.

Mandela, who retired from the South African presidency in June, is touring the region as a private citizen ÿ albeit, a private citizen with guaranteed access to each of the leaders of the region.

'My view is that talk of peace remains hollow if Israel continues to occupy Arab lands,' Mandela said after a lengthy meeting with Foreign Minister David Levy.

He went on to say he 'understood' why Israel would continue to occupy land as long as Arab states remained at war with Israel.

'I cannot conceive of Israel withdrawing if Arab states do not recognize Israel, within secure borders,' he said.Barak wants to renew the peace process with Syria. However, Syria demands that Barak commit to returning the entire Golan Heights, captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war, before resuming talks that ended in 1996.

Barak has hinted he is willing to return most of the heights but he has also said that if the Syrians want a prior commitment, he also needs a prior commitment about the extent of peace.

Israeli media have reported that Syrian President Hafez Assad is reluctant to agree to normalization, fearing it would open his country to the West and undermine his regime.

Mandela's word carries considerable moral weight in the Arab world, where he forged allies during his long struggle against apartheid. Israel backed the apartheid state.

Much of his visit was devoted to reconciliation he chided Israel for its support of apartheid, including weapons sales and military training, but said Tuesday he had formed 'warm friendships' with Israeli leaders on his two-day trip.

Mandela also visited Iran, and said he is convinced the country bears no aggressive intentions toward Israel.Levy interrupted, telling Mandela that Iran had demonstrated implacable hostility to the Jewish state by backing south Lebanese anti-Israel guerrillas, as well as terror attacks against Israel and Jews abroad.

Mandela elaborated that it was his impression that the moderate views of President Mohammed Khatami were gaining the upper hand in Iran.

'When we took the decision to see our enemies, we were also viciously attacked by our colleagues,' he said of his own historic decision to negotiate peace with apartheid's ruling white minority. 'You don't expect unanimity.'

Mandela revealed that Khatami told him there was no evidence linking 13 detained Iranian Jews to spy charges - suggesting they would likely be freed.

Western nations have been pressing Iran to free the Jews, who have been imprisoned without trial for months.Mandela left Jerusalem for Gaza, where he is wrapping up his Mideast tour with a visit with a man he called his 'old friend' Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

Arafat and Mandela supported each other's struggles for self-determination over the years.Arafat kissed Mandela on the forehead when he arrived at Gaza airport. The airport was lined with children who held up signs reading 'We have a common dream a free land.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/mandela-says-israel-must-give-up-arab-land--but-only-for-peace-740133.html

It came from Mandela , but thanks for the OP link that reported it .

Israeli President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have joined world leaders in paying tribute to Nelson Mandela, who has died at the age of 95.
Mr Peres said: "The world has lost a great leader who changed the face of history. Nelson Mandela was a human rights fighter who made his mark on the war against discrimination and racism."
Mr Netanyahu said that Mr Mandela "was one of the outstanding figures of our time. He was the father of his nation, a man of vision, a fighter for freedom who avoided violence".
He added that the anti-apartheid icon "worked to heal the rifts in South African society and succeeded, through the power of his character, in preventing racial hatred.
"He will be remembered as the father of the new South Africa and a moral leader of the highest order".


http://www.thejc.com/news/world-news/113777/jewish-world-mourns-nelson-mandela

He made abundantly clear his deep and abiding gratitude to the many South African Jews who helped him over the years, starting with his first job as an apprentice as an attorney to a Jewish law firm that waived the usual 500 pound fee for his apprenticeship. He went on to name leading Jews, who, as his associates in the ANC and outside, supported him in his struggle against apartheid and in his fight with the South African government. He told us that Gaddafi originally conditioned his financial help to the ANC on the ANC's willingness to disassociate itself from South African Jews but recognized that Mandela would not succumb to such pressure. He also told us that he had learned much from the way David Ben Gurion fought the British and won a homeland for Jews and from Menachem Begin, whom he admired for his toughness in leading the Irgun. He was grateful, too, to Golda Meir for her early denunciation of apartheid.

With respect to Israel and the Palestinians, he noted that he unequivocally recognized Israel, not only as a de facto entity but its de jure right to exist as a state behind secure borders. But those borders, he stated, were the borders before the 1967 war. He saw Israel as an occupier and analogized Israel's occupation to South Africa's treatment of its black population, both in taking over their lands and in the use of force to repress any counter efforts. Repeatedly, he said that the only path to peace in the Middle East lay in direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. He was grateful to Arafat and Gaddafi for their friendship and support for the ANC when it was all but abandoned by others.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-k-lifton/nelson-mandela-and-the-is_1_b_4404392.html

Leaders of American and South African Jewry who have been in the forefront of the anti-apartheid movement are urging Nelson Mandela to reconsider his recent remarks equating the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with the struggle of South African blacks.

Like foes of apartheid, Mandela said that Arafat “is fighting against a unique form of colonialism, and we wish him success in his struggle,” Mandela was quoted as saying.

At a news conference Wednesday, he reiterated his support of the PLO.

Asked whether such remarks might alienate South Africa’s 100,000 Jews, who are prominent in that nation’s business elite and in the anti-apartheid Liberal Party, Mandela retorted, “If the truth alienates the powerful Jewish community in South Africa, that’s too bad.”

He added, “We expect everybody who is exploring the possibility of lasting solutions to be able to face the truth squarely. I believe that there are many similarities between our struggle and that of the PLO.

“We live under a unique form of colonialism in South Africa, as well as in Israel, and a lot flows from that.”

Read more: http://www.jta.org/1990/03/02/archive/south-african-and-u-s-leaders-dismayed-over-mandelas-remarks

Probably something that others would wish could slide down the memory hole.

But yea, if no one thought he wasn't clear on I/P they should listen up.

Cracked me up how he did paralyze Koppel....that was great too., ha ha.

when Koppel said that the South African government perceived itself as part of the struggle against apartheid, and Mandela snorted with laughter.

If the Palestinians had someone that could match him even halfway, the Israelis would have had to roll over years ago. Its a great example of a good orator taking a smarmy interviewer and carting him around the park.

The part at 7:42 where Koppel indicated that Jews might take umbrage to his support for the PLO and call for the sanctions to be lifted was pretty gauche, although candid by today's standards. Mandela for his part essentially said that if American Jews wanted to support the apartheid regime, by all means, do your worst.

Nothing has changed, the worthless, moderate-sounding, mealy-mouthed bullshit appeals to "find common ground". If anything it is even worse now.

Talk about enablers of injustice..ugh.

True about Mandela...the Palestinians have the opposite, horrendous levels of corruption
within their leadership.

I'd post it myself but I'm too Arab for GD.

Mainly due to Israel's shameful support and cooperation with the South African regime and Libya's Gaddaffi and the PLO support of the ANC.

Mandela got far better respect , treatment and support from Jews within South Africa than Israel ( to its Shame)

he meant about US policy..what was complicated?

Mandela accused the United States of committing what he called "unspeakable atrocities" around the globe. "If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don't care."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mandela-slams-bush-on-iraq/

well, let's see... To really grasp this you've just got to consider MidEast political history (which everyone knows is super straightforward in the 2nd half of the 20th century), PLUS African post-colonial politics around the fall of apartheid. There's literally nothing about any of this that I would think of as simple. Whole dissertations could (and I'm sure have been), written just on the subject of Israel's relationship with SA as it relates to any single vector. Let alone the morass of conflicting interests that accompanied the fall of apartheid.

South Africa and Israel were both strong allies and there's no question that Israel's friendship with SA during apartheid meant foreign policy acts that stood in direct opposition to Mandela's goal. Israel strengthened the SA government during apartheid and thus, strengthened apartheid, even in its dying years.

What's complex is why. Remember that Israel was the FIRST nation to officially voice opposition to apartheid at the UN, (back in the early 60s, if memory serves.) And Israel was among the first (if not THE first) state to withdraw its ambassador in protest of apartheid. And Jews have, as a rule, stood against oppression in all of its forms in the modern era, and supported equality as a core ideal, (if not admittedly being one that furthers their own interests.) So why this glaring exception? Why was Israel so cozy with the same government it so publicly opposed, against a few years before?

Within Israel's borders it's simple to draw parallels between the Jews as being the oppressors, but in the world at large the Jews, and especially Israel, were still themselves oppressed. In fiscal terms Israel paid a steep price for merely existing, as the Arab League, OPEC and every state that didn't want similar treatment, enforced a trade embargo against it. I remember when it was impossible to buy a Pepsi in the entire country, (although I was very young then.) In short, Israel had few states willing to do business with it, much less be a friend, and in this landscape of widespread hostility it saw a kindred spirit in SA, which enjoyed similar unpopularity and political strife abroad because of issues that were (internally at least), thought of as domestic, and thus outside of the purview of international groups like the UN.

Do you see how this isn't anything remotely straightforward? It was never a situation, (though many of Israel's detractors constantly love to portray it as such), a friendship between states built on a framework of shared ideologies... Zionism and Apartheid; but rather a situation that arose out of political need on both sides. When you begin factoring in Mandela's remarks and their reception in SA's Jewish community you have to look at the broader political picture to see just how seriously the political realities of the time made for strange bedfellows. Basically, if you don't find it confusing then you're missing something.

their best interest.

As I said earlier, Mandela stated clearly his opinions of Israeli policy and that of the
United States. I am not aware that he has ever felt the need to explain away why
other nations supported apartheid, only that they did.

Relations with SA and Israel today continue to be problematic:

A day after calling for an end to sanctions against Iran and saying that Tehran respects human rights, South Africa’s Foreign Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane said Friday that South African ministers are not visiting Israel out of solidarity with the Palestinians.

“Ministers of South Africa do not visit Israel currently. Even the Jewish Board of Deputies that we engage with here, they know why our ministers are not going to Israel,” South Africa’s The Times quoted the minister as saying.

Nkoana-Mashabane was speaking at a meeting of South Africa’s largest trade union, which was also addressed by a group campaigning for the release of all Palestinian political prisoners, the Times reported.

“The struggle of the people of Palestine is our struggle,” she said.

“The last time I saw a map of Palestine, I couldn’t sleep,” Nkoana-Mashabane added, explaining that the map “is just dots, smaller than those of the homelands, and that broke my heart.” The “homelands,” also called Bantustans, were territories set aside for blacks in apartheid-era South Africa.
http://www.jpost.com/International/In-solidarity-with-the-Palestinians-South-African-ministers-are-not-visiting-Israel-FM-says-330407

so how is SA's half-assed, alignment with the palestinians working in their favor?

means they should not have made the attempt? How much political power
do you believe they hold vs the US?

please. Do you actually believe that this person cares about any human rights? she's praising iran for its human rights!!!! Praising Iran for human rights while critiquing Israel for the same is like praising India for it's traffic innovations while boycotting NASA for not getting enough stuff built on the moon.
It's just. so. stupid.

Hysterical!

Relations continue to be problematic!? Sigh. Sure, when your foreign minister can criticize Israel for "Palestine" while praising Iran's commitment to Human Rights in the same press conference, you can be sure it has zip to do with anything that's happening in reality.

A day after calling for an end to sanctions against Iran and saying that Tehran respects human rights, South Africa’s Foreign Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane said Friday that South African ministers are not visiting Israel out of solidarity with the Palestinians.

So... the dumbest (or potentially most craven), person in Africa is refusing to send any ministers from her camp in order to court the energy rich Iranians. So, my earlier question is answered.

I'm just saying it's retarded.
Maybe she truly cares about the Palestinians. Oh wait, no one does. You can tell, because the same people who keep paying them lip service are the same ones doing between nothing and slaughter indiscriminately when it comes to real life aid or policies.

What have they not done that you feel they should/could be doing.

What have the palestinian's "allies" historically done to help them? The US and Europe pay for most of the aid to them. The Arab league banned allowing refugees then citizenship anywhere. Let's see... Kuwait actually ethnically cleansed all of them from its country. Jordan, (the only state to give some citizenship) then stripped them of it. Lebanon forces the refugees to live in squalid camps without access to the national health system or the right to work in most professions. Egypt won't open their border with Gaza for trade.

Seriously, they're a slogan. No one actually gives a shit about them beyond their political usefulness.

that is what they want?

the facts




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians_in_Jordan

...from Palestinians since 1988:

http://electronicintifada.net/content/interview-jordan-revoking-citizenship-palestinian-refugees/9241

Of course, propagandists who only use Palestinians as political props to demonize and attack Israel wouldn't know these things since they don't give a shit about Palestinians unless the Jewish state can be blamed.

next.........

Predictable that a so-called pro-Palestinian advocate like yourself wants to whitewash this away, just as you do Lebanese apartheid vs. Palestinians.

Sorry I inconvenienced you with some boring facts.

Mandela's critics are pro-apartheid asshats. True then, true now.

No coincidence that Netanyahu groupies are pushing this crap.

He was anti apartheid.

High costs prompt PM not to attend Mandela funeral

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife Sara will not attend the funeral of Nelson Mandela, apparently because of the high cost of the visit – estimated at around NIS 7 million ($2 million).

The announcement came only three hours after Netanyahu's office announced the contrary, despite fears he would be met by angry pro-Palestinian protesters and hints from South Africa that Israeli President Shimon Peres was their preferred choice.

The Prime Minister's Office also claimed that the short time frame did not allow for the proper security arrangement to be made – despite initially confirming the prime minister's particiaption.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4462993,00.html

Mahmoud Abbas will be attending:-

http://english.wafa.ps/index.php?action=detail&id=23807

and thanks to Ami Kaufman......this is the best post on the subject so far :

The top five most hypocritical Mandela eulogies by Israeli politicians

Israeli politicians have begun updating their Facebook pages with eulogies for the late Nelson Mandela. What do statesmen of the Jewish state – one of the last western countries to support the South African apartheid state and which today practices apartheid-like policies between the river and the sea – have to say about the man who brought racism to its knees? Here’s your definitive list (which may expand – I’ll update as the day goes on)


http://972mag.com/the-top-5-most-hypocritical-mandela-eulogies-by-israeli-politicians/83109/

No win situation for Israeli politicians.

Let's start there first.

And I'm sorry Mandela never gave you the "Israel = Apartheid" sound byte you were looking for.

Truly sorry.

....that goes back to 1948 and guarantees (your words) a Jewish majority?

And if this is law, and it's not because you're lying, then what must Israel do to ensure a jewish majority is maintained? Does Israeli law mandate ethnic cleansing, taking rights away from its Arab citizens, killing them all....?



Your baseless assertion here is so ridiculous, yet here you are reveling in the idiocy of these claims like a child playing in his feces.

Here's how it applies, almost literally, to your argument.

I'll keep it short (or I'll ramble, we'll see how annoyed I get), since I know that the creation of this argument requires a level of prejudice and bigotry that can not be swayed by mere historical facts or even truths that seem intrinsic and obvious to most. You have zeroed in on a single paragraph, uttered as part of a ruling in Israel's Supreme Court as it was, in the late 90s, in reference to a specific interpretation of election law, and are using it as your sole piece of evidence to try and prove something specific, intrinsic and essential about a nation. That you are trying to prove a charge as odious and obvious as apartheid, a crime that requires such reams of additional, systemic machinations adds to the absurdity... That you think you can use a single statement by anyone, no matter how important they might be, as enough evidence to demonstrate ANY TRAIT that you might apply universally, about ANY society, EVER, is far stronger evidence against your flawed methodology than anything you could possibly be quoting is obvious to anyone who has a shred of impartiality to them. It's the kind of thing that we always see the bigoted do... use a small example where they feel they're right, and then apply it to the whole as proof of their prejudice, whether it's how all black people are lazy because someone's neighbor is black and on welfare, or that all Muslims support terrorism because this bit of the Koran said something that could be interpreted in such a way.

But the problem with that argument (which should be obvious to anyone unburdened by a pressing need to prove their bigotry accurate and factual), is that you need to VEEERRRYY carefully cherry pick the right fact that you choose to believe in, while making sure to ignore the MOUNTAINS of data saying otherwise. In your case, it's easy. The statement that you are resting your whole claim on isn't even factually accurate. "At their center stands the right of every Jew to immigrate to the State of Israel?" So the CENTER of this guy's ideology, which you are for some reason (bigotry), understanding as being the pillar upon which all other Israeli law and Zionist ideology rests upon... is not quite true. Every Jew doesn't have the right to immigrate to Israel.

But to make such a specific argument really, is insulting to ALL of the ACTUAL foundational documents that Israeli Law is based on in REAL life! Things like the Declaration of Independence, (which has the benefit of having been written sooner than 15 years ago), but also states time and again how Israel would grant all its people equality under the law, regardless of their religion or nationality. It's also a document written by a committee of Israel's founding fathers, as opposed to a ruling made by a single person. It is also a document whose ideals, such as democracy and equality, have ACTUALLY served as the foundation for Israel's REAL (not imagined), legal system. That's why Israel allows Arab minorities to serve in the Knesset and has seen non-Jews serve at all levels of it's government, which is something you NEVER see in societies practicing apartheid. That's what apartheid is!!! It's oppression that guarantees that a member of the oppressed group doesn't become the president, somehow. Or ever gain the same basic rights as the oppressor group. And I realize I'm beating a dead horse, but I feel like there is a key point that you consistently fail to see.

If the best evidence that Israel is legally practicing apartheid available to you is that single, out of context ruling that you keep bringing up; you know, the one that isn't even TRUE, let alone meaningful in any way that has actually impacted anyone's life, (outside of it's intended arcane electoral instance), then you're just proving the opposite to be true. Actually, since you've chosen such a horrible crime, apartheid, as your charge, to try and buttress it so weakly, with such an abject lack of ANY shred of meaningful evidence you are doing an injustice to those who have actually suffered under ACTUAL oppression, such as blacks in SA under apartheid. Like any human rights crime, with apartheid, there is no scarcity when it comes to evidence. When it actually occurs that is.

Your argument is like that made by holocaust deniers who hold aloft a single study that they have extrapolated to "prove" that zyklon-B wasn't the gas used in camps, which they then (just as in your arguments), further expound upon to mean that the Holocaust never happened at all. But to believe such nonsense you'd have to ignore all the evidence that it did, all the meticulous records kept by the Nazis, all the camps with mass graves and the piles of shoes and well, all the missing fucking people, in favor of a single, flawed document.

Like their document, you grant to this ruling great significance that ultimately, is irrelevant. It really doesn't matter WHAT he ruled, even if he did imply everything you're taking that one ruling to mean. Because he's one guy, and it's not really the foundation of Israeli Law, and he only just said it a few years ago and there exist mountains of evidence contradicting your interpretation anyway. Which is why you don't see anyone talking about it. Ever. Except you, bringing it up here like it means anything.

So goes the weird logic of bigotry. You're holding up the exception, the one thing you could find that sorta alludes to Israel being apartheid, if you look at it in just the right light and don't look at anything else. And sadly, while to you I understand, it's gospel. It's a rosetta stone, you're actually trying to pass it off as some kind of legal guarantee imposing Jewish demographic superiority, but to the rest of us, by which I mean those who aren't so determined to see our own prejudices affirmed that we're unable to learn basic history, or parse the intended meaning from a shocking, but straightforward Benny Morris interview, (I know you love that interview, but I gotta tell you... he really doesn't say what you think he's saying. I'm sorry.) When you do this, you're really holding up is solid evidence of your lack of anything remotely resembling actual evidence.

I realize you're unable to see it though and that no amount of evidence will sway you. All your arguments are like this one. I disassemble them, (one by one I spend the time to tear your arguments apart, so I DO realize the care that has gone into constructing some of them. But sadly I also see the psychosis that must be involved for you to actually believe in them yourself.) But since you're mind was made up before you found your facts, it doesn't matter. You find some shred of a quote and imbue it with mystical powers over the true and essential definition of Zionism, or whatever, ignoring themes written out in dozens of books penned by those who invented the movement. Ignoring decades of history recounting the struggle between countless factions, violence, betrayal, and eventually compromise, ending in a solid consensus that resolutely commits to the opposite of a quote you saw about Zionism that Ben Gurion once wrote, recounting a dream, in a letter, to his son.

And for you, somehow, sadly, it's proof.

...that Israel came into being in 1948 based on some written law that guarantees a Jewish majority. There is no such written law. Barak's ruling isn't Israeli law either.

How can we have an honest debate when you can't acknowledge that you lied?

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/113449131#post8



There is no such guarantee in Israel's founding laws.

That's a fucking lie.

proof positive that apartheid, discrimination grounded in written laws are not mutually exclusive as we are being sold here

So who cares what u think.

nothing desperate about it shira in fact it's quite easy, and I note finding yourself unable to come up with a reasonable reply or denial you resort to attack but do continue selling us that patent snake oil medicine okay?

and I stated what I felt about inside the greenline

At least you're consistent in still maintaining there's apartheid within the green line.

what is apartheid in your mind? wait for it folks Lebanon-squawk- Arabs-squawk

...but don't see it WRT Palestinian refugees in Lebanon.

Ask yourself why Mandela never said Israel was apartheid either within or outside the green line.

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, recognize 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.

http://www.keghart.com/Mandela-Palestine

...who admitted he wrote it himself:

http://electronicintifada.net/content/no-fake-analogy/9624

So once again, why didn't Mandela ever criticize Israel for apartheid within or outside the green line?

here from Mandela himself

However, as my distinguished predecessor and colleague, the late Oliver Tambo, stated in Lusaka in 1989, we ask you, in your relationship with the ANC, to focus on our shared goals in South Africa. As South Africans we should avoid being drawn into conflicts and tensions arising from the agendas of others beyond our shores.

Democracy, respect for democratic norms, the rule of law, and an entrenched bill of rights are the surest guarantee of the security and well-being of the Jewish and every other minority community in South Africa. The demography of our country dictates that democracy inevitably entails a government led by the black majority.

I would like to end my remarks with a special appeal, addressed particularly to those among you who may sometimes feel the waves of despondency engulfing you when you contemplate the fraught transition our country is passing through.

There is much that we have achieved. Five years ago many of my comrades aiid I were in prison with very little prospect of being released.

http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=4096

People still think this is a real thing?

And yet you continue with your very very muddled interpretation of "Baraks ruling"like a dog with a bone.

Can u find anyone at all that has this absurd analysis of "Baraks Ruling" because it's getting tedious .
I never saw anyone on this board besides Shira acknowledge your "theory " LOL

Barracks in my fashion club and cooking class ... I'll ask him next week

LOL

Apartheid has always been defined as a racial MINORITY ruling over and oppressing a state's racial MAJORITY.
So, if that ruling is accurate, and we can be sure it means what you think it mean... then it's great, great NEWS!

It's a guarantee that Israel isn't and will never, ever, even be able to ever hope to become an apartheid state! Not ever!

Good Work! That's awesome!

Shame it happened too late to tell Mandela though. He would have liked this news.

So congratulations! You proved to yourself that Israel can't ever ever ever be an apartheid state. We should have a luao or something.
My work is done.

guess who is going ?

http://972mag.com/why-arent-netanyahu-and-peres-going-to-johannesburg-for-mandelas-memorial/83366/

sorry .... I know Larry Derfner makes you see red ...but hey he almost got it right .

This does not seem the site for that sort of thing generally.

have you ever mentioned this to either shira or Mosby ?

Any time anyone posts from Israel National News I make the same comment.

It's bizarre that it even has to be said.

by Michel Warschawski / December 10th, 2013

Full article: http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/12/how-dare-israeli-leaders-mourn-mandela/

He just keeps repeating it.

The alliance between Israel and racist South Africa was a strategic one: economic and military, but also ideological. Years after the majority of the international community launched boycott of the apartheid regime, Israel continued to keep excellent relations with Pretoria and even to help it to bypass international sanctions. According to the international media, Israel could not continue its nuclear program without the collaboration of apartheid South Africa. Such an alliance was based not only on joint interests, but also on a philosophy of both being white countries in a non-white, hostile environment, of a joint struggle against communism on the one hand and the rise of third world peoples on the other.

He never offers any actual evidence that what he's saying is accurate. And he ignores all of the evidence to the contrary. First of all, Israel isn't a "white country" and to try and simplify the conflict by resorting to inaccurate, and frankly racist ideas about Jews = white, while Arabs = other, pretty much guarantees that you'll fail your mideast polysci course. Most Israelis are either partly or entirely of mideastern heritage. That means that the Moroccan Jews married the European Jews and they had kids and no one cares. There's plenty of classism and racism that exists in Israel, amongst the Jews alone. I'm not denying that. But to see the conflict in racial terms is to fundamentally misunderstand it. Most Israeli Jews are the same race as the Arabs around them. Israel spent a lot of money and political capital to rescue Jews from all areas of the world, not just Europe, which has contributed to Israel being perhaps the most cosmopolitan state in the mid east.

South African ambassador to Israel Major General Fumanekile Gqiba said the following, about his time in Israel:

before I came here. I regarded Jews as whites. Purely whites. But when I came here I discovered that, no, these guys are not purely whites. ...You've got Indian Jews, you've got African Jews, and you've got even Chinese Jews, right? I began to say to our comrades, No, Israel is not a white country... Perhaps we would say there are those who came from Poland, who happened to be white—i.e. Ashkenazi their culture still dominates. It's difficult to say Israel is racist, in a classic sense.

As for Israel being ideologically aligned with SA, yes they both participated in the joint struggle against communism. But that isn't what the author really means by "shared ideology" is it? It's just the example he uses. I'm guessing this implies that the Israelis supported SA because they supported apartheid, because they were at heart, racist white Europeans struggling to hold on to a bit of "brown-land" for years past the time when colonialism made doing so fashionable?

Otherwise, why should Israeli leaders be ashamed to mourn? Why should they, specifically, apologize to Mandela if their support was purely strategic? They shouldn't, they should be apologizing for some mysterious "shared ideology" which seems to hinge on opposing communism, and a lot of unsupported, unspecific issues with the "rise of third world people." Seriously, what could that refer to? In reality, I mean. We know that Israel was threatened by the new-found oil wealth of the communist-allied Arab OPEC states and Iran. But that's not really because of any ideology Israel shared with SA, it's because they were at war with those states. I'm guessing it's just meant to act as a general stand in for "racism" as their shared ideology.

Except Israel was the first state to condemn apartheid at the UN, in 1961. And they recalled their ambassador and cut off ties with SA in protest of that same ideology that they supposedly shared. Up until... Israel needed to ally with them, because until the US broke the oil embargo OPEC would blacklist any state that did business with them, leaving them with few influential allies (France, sorta), until Nixon began military aid during the Yom Kippur War. Point being, there's every indication that Israel's relationship with SA was based on self-interest, not ideology.


I admire Yesh Gvl, but this guy's an asshole.

I suggest you go study up on " this guy " Michel Warschawski ....

He represents anti zionism while we represent post zionism .

read here :

http://www.israeli-occupation.org/2009-10-08/michael-warschawski-yes-to-boycott-divestment-and-sanctions-bds/

Complicated aint it ?

too complicated for shira and King_David that's for sure

It's hard taking u seriously when u say you're for 2 states, telling us how much you loved Rabin and his peace efforts, but then you see as your allies 1-state advocates for war and chaos like Warschawski. Rabin would've never gone rogue for the BDS plan.

Think about the 1-state Warschawski is advocating that would make Jews a vulnerable minority again. It permanently relegates Jews to the same defenseless position they were in during the WW2 era. This wouldn't end well for Jews. BDS doesn't offer Jews protection, it takes it away and exposes them once again to great danger, pogroms, etc. It doesn't offer a better alternative. Even in Western nations, when Jews have gatherings the security required is unreal and not at all necessary for other ethnic groups or minorities.