Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods
noir wrote:He probably didn't say so.
October 25, 1990
SYDNEY, Australia (Oct. 24)
Nelson Mandela’s harsh attack on Israel at the start of his three-day visit to Australia has angered and alienated Australian Jewry.
The deputy president of the African National Congress likened Israel to a “terrorist state” and reiterated his often expressed solidarity with the Palestine Liberation Organization at a news conference on his arrival in Canberra on Tuesday.
“We identify with them because we do not believe it is right for the Israeli government to suppress basic human rights in the conquered territories.” Mandela declared.
He accused Israel of “slaughtering defenseless, innocent Arabs.”
In response, the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies withdrew from an ecumenical service at which Mandela will be honored.
The Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the umbrella body of Australian Jewish organizations, announced it had no plans to participate in any functions honoring the anti-apartheid leader.
Mandela’s remarks seemed likely to shatter the delicate truce he reached with the American Jewish leaders he met in Geneva on June 10, shortly before his visit to the United States.
On that occasion, Mandela said he was sorry if any of his past statements on Israel had offended Jews. He said he hoped to visit Israel soon and looked froward to good relations between Israel and the new democratic state that would soon emerge in South Africa.
The Geneva meeting, described as “warm, friendly and cordial,” was credited with averting protest demonstrations against Mandela by American Jewish groups during his U.S. tour.
Yet in the United States, Mandela dismayed Jews sympathetic to his anti-apartheid cause by public references to PLO leader Yasir Arafat as a “comrade in arms.”
He told the Australian news media, “We agree with the United Nations that international disputes should be settled by peaceful means. The belligerent attitude which is adopted by the Israeli government is to us unacceptable.”
Mandela said the ANC does not consider the PLO a terrorist group, adding: “If one has to refer to any of the parties as a terrorist state, one might refer to the Israeli government, because they are the people who are slaughtering defenseless and innocent Arabs in the occupied territories, and we don’t regard that as acceptable.”
His comments were denounced by Gerry Levy, president of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies.
“His claim that Israel slaughters the defenseless and innocent is not only unacceptable and offensive, but totally untrue,” said Levy.
Leslie Caplan, president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, said his own struggle against apartheid, which began 30 years ago, would not diminish. But he did not equate the cause of the ANC with the cause of the blacks of South Africa, Caplan said.
Mandela meanwhile said he “unreservedly” supported Zionism insofar as it meant a Jewish state within secure borders. But he opposed Zionism “when it meant deprivation of human rights in the occupied territories.”
JohnRawls wrote:@skinster
We have talked about this ad neusium already Skinsterina.
Better question what do you find an acceptable solution? 1948 borders ? If yes then how can you guarantee that Israel will not get attacked by Hamas/any other militant group for the matter? How can you guarantee that other Arab states will recognise Israel? How can you guarantee Iran won't support external forces against Israel or any other country for that matter?
noir wrote:The quote is from 1943, before the Palestinians invented themselves as progressive cause. At that time they were on the fascist camp.
Ter wrote:Of course people can repeat the mantra "Apartheid" as often as they like, that does not change anything.
Bertrand Russell, “Zionism and the Peace Settlement”, The New Palestine, (New York), vol.xxxiii, no.15, 11 June 1943, p.5; Bertrand Russell, “Zionism and the Peace Settlement”, Palestine - A Jewish Commonwealth in Our Time, op.cit., pp.19-20
We have debated things but you continue to not understand the situation at all and regurgitate zionist spin that's easily demolished. To assume this is a fight between equals is mostly where you go wrong, it's the equivalent of stating a rapist and his victim are equals.
There's the colonizer and the colonized. There's the aggressor and the victim. One side ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of the other since it invaded the land 7 decades ago, to create a state on top of the other. One side continues to occupying the other. One side denies basic human rights to the other while imprisoning close to 2 million of the other in what amounts to a modern day concentration camp, etc. etc. etc.
For you to then cry victim for the aggressor makes you appear like an ignorant dolt of the highest order. I put full stops in my first paragraph in an attempt to help that information sink in to you, though at this stage you're probably too far gone to ever accept the facts of this so-called conflict.
An acceptable solution for the time being would be for Israel to stop occupying and blockading Palestinians and giving them the same rights Israelis enjoy. Hamas became an organization decades after Israel was occupying Gaza, so that might give you an inkling into why that resistance organization became a thing. Who cares if the Arab states do or don't recognize Israel, it's already recognized and propped up by world powers and even shares an alliance with Saudi Arabia these days, mostly because of their shared values.
layman wrote:Israel is the only pragmatic side to be on. Palestinians should be given resettlement money and deported.
Problem solved.
JohnRawls wrote:@skinster
Your view of the situation is rather simplistic as i mentioned before. Yes, from the side of palestenians it is colonizer vs colonized while from the side of Israel it is rightful owners of the land vs terrorist organisations. You might find this contradictory but it is not in this case. Both of the sides have their own subjective opinions the same way you and i do. The weird part is that both sides are correct.
Chomsky in the book he co-wrote with Ilan Pappe, On Palestine wrote:The last paradox is that the tale of Palestine from the beginning until today is a simple story of colonialism and dispossession, yet the world treats it as a multifaceted and complex story - hard to understand and even harder to solve. Indeed, the story of Palestine has been told before: European settlers coming to a foreign land, settling there, and either committing genocide against or expelling the indigenous people. The Zionists have not invented anything new in this respect. But Israel succeeded nonetheless, with the help of its allies everywhere, in building a multilayered explanation that is so complex that only Israel can understand it. Any interference from the outside world is immediately castigated as naive at best or anti-Semitic at worst.
My view is not simplistic because I haven't fallen for the aforementioned spin, it's a very basic case of colonization and to suggest the colonizers have just as much as right as those who were colonized makes you sound like a liar at best and batshit insane otherwise, but that's typical of zionsts so...
- By ingliz
@FiveofSwords Also, don't get too hung up on g[…]
- By Dr House
This post was made on the 16th April two years ag[…]
- By JohnRawls
https://twitter.com/hermit_hwarang/status/1779130[…]
- By JohnRawls
All foreign politics are an extension of domestic[…]
