Pulse Media


South Africa and Israel

Nelson Mandela is the perfect example of why hypocrisy awaits the militant-turned-statesman. He fought and went to prison, saying he would willingly die for the cause. This cause, as laid down in the Freedom Charter speaks of equality for all in one land: South Africa. It promises to, in the last paragraph, respect the rights and sovereignty of all nations and to strive to settle all disputes peacefully.
So, where has Madiba been since he regained his freedom regarding the occupation of Palestine? Not only was he silent (at least he didn't make it into the media to say anything on the question, which for a man of his status is surprising) on the recent slaughter in Gaza, but there is little if anything to be found uttered by the man revered by so many as the symbol (if not the leader) of the struggle against apartheid. Several of his fellow resistants, including Jews and at least one Israeli have been courageous enough to speak their mind on the oppression and struggle of the Palestinians. That is, they have stood up to denounce Israel's Apartheid-like regime.

Mandela once said he had forgiven many in South Africa, and was ready to work with Israel, although Israel had supported the Apartheid regime. Yet, he still repeated the same old tired cliches about the 'conflict'.

One has to wonder: did Mandela ever call F W De Klerk a 'man of vision'? Did he ever believe, that non-whites in South Africa should get their freedom in exchange for 'recognition' of Apartheid South Africa and 'peace' with it? And what should we make of his equation of those Jews he fought with and Israel? Those Jews who fought with him and oppose israeli Apartheid surely have reason to disagree. Perhaps we should be more understanding of those Palestinians who cosied up to Hitler during the war. After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Or so some would have us believe.

And why be so surprised at the comparison of Israel with Apartheid South Africa? Of course, there is the collaboration of Israel with Apartheid South Africa. But then, one might say (and one would be right), so did the UK, the US and countless others.
Zionists (secularists?) say the land was promised to the Jews. As did early and Apartheid Afrikaners. The Zionists (of whom the pre-independence leaders also did some Nazi-cosying of their own) claim the Jewish state is well deserved considering the persecution the Jews underwent. And what of the Boers?

Realpolitik determines how the people think. It determines why Mandela is a hero, yet any Palestinian resistance fighter can be demonised and turned into a vulgar terrorist (incidentally Mandela was a 'terrorist' in Apartheid South Africa and the ANC was on the US list of terrorist organisations until well after the fall of Apartheid). Realpolitik determines why, while the 'great democracies' were doing business with Apartheid South Africa, it was politically correct to denounce - even from within the ranks of politics - the racist regime, whereas to denounce the racist regime in Israel, one has to brace oneself for the most heinous accusations of antisemitism or self-hatred (if one is a Jew). Realpolitik determines why boycott worked to bring down Apartheid in South Africa, yet calls to boycott Israel are ridiculed and attacked (see previous sentence) and likely doomed to failure (though, in my eyes, utterly justified).

Here is a link to another commentary distrubingly similar to mine
(I discovered it while writing this text).


Nine Principles of Policing by Consent

Magna Carta Plus


4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives. 7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. 9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.