Zionism Kills

Nelson Mandela, the ANC & Zionism

Posted in Foreign Policy, Israel, Israeli Lobby, Zionism by zionismkills on May 29, 2008

I noticed that Nelson Mandela is often searched on this blog. Let’s tales a journey back in time to the year 1999…

November 20, 1999

In this issue of the Free Arab Voice (FAV) we present:

1) FAV Editorial: There are no Palestinian Rights without Liberation

2) Mandela, the ANC, and the Question of Palestine, by Haidar Eid,
Vista University, Soweto, South Africa. A critique of Mandela’s
visit to “Israel”, with a socio-economic analytical look at
the internal South African scene.

3) Sign the petition to the Government of Mauritania to oppose its
recognition of “Israel”.

4) 4) The Poem of Love and Revolution, by Ziad Shaker El Jishi


1) FAV Editorial: There are no Palestinian Rights without Liberation

Mystification is the art of obscuring the obvious, but among all the
important things that seem to get lost in the hypocritical rhetoric that
pretends to be defending Palestinian rights, the most important one is
perhaps the self-evident truth that there is no ‘right of return’ without

There is no ‘Palestinian independence’ without liberation either, and there
is no liberation without 1) restoring the Arab identity of Palestine, 2)
dismantling Zionism as a settler-invader apartheid structure, and 3)
subverting the co-dependent geo-political role of “Israel” and the Arab
regimes as colonial or neo-colonial bases in the region.

Viewed outside this context, the ‘right of return’ turns into a pragmatic
matter of financial compensation for refugees, and ‘Palestinian
independence’ turns into a cheap abrogation of Arab historical rights and a
free recognition of the legitimacy of “Israel”. The status quo is
preserved. Palestinian demands are thus de-clawed and integrated into the
global schemes of the New World Order as they cease to be part of the
international anti-imperialist program. “Palestinian rights” become then
reactionary demands which mystify and legitimize the relationship of
oppression by emphasizing differences of degree, instead of differences of
kind, with Zionist invaders.

‘Realism’ is frequently invoked to justify this, but realism has come to
signify the total abandonment of principle, and the opportunistic wholesale
of national rights in the political markets of the new slavery in exchange
for a comfortable niche in the system. Yet while engaging in and promoting
such ‘realistic’ practices is not surprising, but rather predictable, for
the mouthpieces of oppressors and for opportunistic reformers of all kinds,
adopting such ‘realism’ is totally inexcusable for revolutionaries and
freedom fighters anywhere. If our objective is to overthrow injustice and
occupation, then our realism entails the ruthless criticism of all things
existing and the identification of successful strategies to upturn, not to
embellish, the status quo.

Nelson Mandella and the African National Congress (ANC) should know better
than that!


2) Mandela, the ANC, and the Question of Palestine, by Haidar Eid, Vista
University, Soweto, South Africa

It has always been believed that South Africa, the people and their
legitimate representatives have always supported the Palestinian
people in their struggle for self-determination and the establishment
of a sovereign independent state. However, the radical distortion of
reality created by the American-controlled media and its induced
euphoria after the signing of the Oslo accords (1993), and the
consequent claim that those accords would lead to a kind of
comprehensive peace in the “Middle East”, have, alas, made the ANC-led
government back and support such claims. By echoing the official American,
Palestinian, and the “Israeli” Labour Party’s positions, the ANC-led South
African government, has decided to take sides with no reference whatsoever
to the extreme damage Oslo accords have created.

The point argued in this short article is that even before the
formation of the ‘hawkish’ “Israeli” government by Netanyahu, and after his
degrading defeat, there has been no sign that the intention of the ‘dovish’
Labour government–led by Barak now- is to have a real comprehensive peace.
Mandela’s visit to “Israel” and the PA areas comes as a slap on the face of
the victims of Zionism and apartheid altogether.

Mandela’s assumption is that the Labour party under Rabin, Peres, and
now under Barak has initiated a kind of “radical” change in the
“Israeli” politics with regard to the Palestinian people by signing the Oslo
Accords. “Mandela is giving his blessing to the peace process and making a
significant gesture towards “Israel”,” said a South African government
official! (The Sunday Independent, October 17 1999) . And Mr Mandela himself
considers Barak as “a man of courage and vision”! (Mail & Guardian Website,
Wednesday 20 1999). Further, Mr Mandela said that ” “Israel” had good
relations with the apartheid system, but has never been involved in the
atrocities committed by that system”!!

In fact, Barak represents a kind of ‘ “Israeli” national consensus’ that
accepts the idea of the establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state,
or rather a Bantustan in most of the Gaze strip and parts of the West Bank.
The programme of his government does not challenge the current status quo,
nor does it allow the Palestinian people to exercise the minimal of their
national and political rights. Barak’s clear platform during the elections,
which he confirmed in his first victory speech included his ‘red line
concessions’: NO return to the borders of 4th of June/1967; NO dismantling
of the Jewish settlements in the Gaza strip and the West Bank; NO return of
Palestinian refugees; No backing down on Jerusalem as ‘the undivided,
eternal capital city of “Israel”; and NO unilateral; declaration of an
independent sovereign Palestinian state that can have a military on the
western bank of the Jordan river. These five ‘NO’s’ have not been an issue
amidst the media euphoria with regard to Bark’s ‘land slide victory’ over
Netanyahu. But they still prove that there are no fundamental differences
between the two big Zionist parties, i.e. Likud and Labour, when it comes to
the national rights of the Palestinian people.

Thus the new ‘dove’–mind you he was a ‘hawk’, i.e. the only minister
in Rabin’s cabinet who voted against the implementation of Oslo II–in his
first interview with an “Israeli” newspaper after his ‘landslide victory’
declared his intention to build a bridge that links the Gaza strip with the
southern part of the West Bank. Barak, in the same interview, made it very
clear that he cannot see how the Jews will ever perceive the Palestinian as
neighbours; thus, he continued, they should not have to meet face to face.
Had Barak been speaking about the South African situation, no such racial
implications would have been tolerated.

The ‘safe passage’ that is supposed to have been established this week
between Gaza and the West Bank is not free of “interference from
“Israeli” authorities,” as mentioned in the Oslo accords. Israel will
issue the new ‘magnetic cards’–South African pass–required by
Palestinians to travel on this ‘passage.’ Besides, “Israel” reserves the
right to arrest any Palestinian ‘suspect’ on this route. Thus, the opening
of the ‘safe passage’ does not change the enforced divisions between the
Gaza Strip and the West Bank–divisions which have been enforced by “Israel”
since 1991.

Further, the ‘dovish’ government of Barak has accelerated settlement
expansion and land seizure in the occupied West bank. For example, it
has awarded tenders for 2,600 settlement units to be constructed in
the Ma’al Adumim settlement in the West Bank. This number exceeds the number
of housing units built during Netanyahu’s entire term,
according to the “Israeli” Peace Now spokesman (Al-Ahram Weekly, 7
October 1999). Hundreds of dunums have been confiscated last week in
Hebron, Tulkarm, Salfit (north of Ramalla).What Barak’s “dovish”
government is fighting for is the preservation of settlements, the
maintenance of control over the Palestinian occupied territories as a part
of the “Land of Israel”, and the dominance of Palestinians
through other Palestinians.

Hence, the Palestinian state that Barak (the dove), and even Ariel
Sharon (the Likud ‘hawk’ who was responsible for the Sabra and
Shattila massacres in 1982), accepts is a Bantustan, a canton, a
demilitarized state that lacks the necessary components of a
sovereign, independent state, that is, a state that has a dependent
economy, that lacks unified territory, one that has no military power.
Alas, this is a state that will be accepted by the official leadership of
the PLO who, by signing the Oslo Accords and the Wye River Memorandum, has
completely surrendered to “Israel”. For this leadership whether Barak
releases Palestinian political prisoners or not, whether he allows refugees
to return or nor, whether he re-deploys (different from withdraw) his
troops or not, and whether he allows the Palestinians to have a genuine self
-determination or not, is no longer an issue as long as he gives the green
light to the creation of a Palestinian state (read Bantustan). In the old
South Africa, people used to call this apartheid whereas now it is being
celebrated, fought for, and considered ‘the peace of the brave’.

Real comprehensive peace was not what was created at Oslo,
Washington, Wye River, and Sharm-El Sheikh; rather what was created was an
American/”Israeli” plan to ‘resolve’ the conflict after the destruction of
Iraq and the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Oslo agreement was stillborn
because it did not guarantee the minimum national and political rights of 6
million Palestinians. Thus the ANC has to reconsider its (misguided!)
position. Of course no one believes that Nelson Mandela supports the idea of
building an apartheid state in Palestine, a ‘Bantustan’ called an
independent state. But, I ask again, is it possible that Mandela, and the
ANC, do not know what is happening in Palestine? How can apartheid victims
accept what they spent their lives fighting against, namely, ‘dispossession,
displacement, and colonial de facto apartheid’?. And the last question is
whether Mr.Mandela could have ever visited the PA areas without an “Israeli”
permit? What many Palestinians would have liked Mandela to do is to
announce that he would not visit Palestine unless it is a sovereign,
independent state, and unless 4 million refugees, living in miserable
conditions, regain the right to return to their homes, and unless apartheid
in Palestine is completely eradicated.

However, Mandela stands for an ideology that goes beyond his
individual charm and aura. He is the representative of the new ANC
with all of its reformist ideology that has ‘replaced’ the
revolutionary mood of the 80s, 70s and 60s. In order to understand
Mandela’s support for the ‘peace process’ in the so-called Middle East, one
needs to recall the praise he had for the previous Zairean-Congolese
dictator Mobutu in his last days: “Mubuto is a great son of Africa’-not to
mention Mandela’s praise for the Indonesian dictator Suhartu. These are two
examples of the radical change that the ANC has gone through in its foreign
policy-a change from revolution to pragmatism in its worse shape, i.e
American neo-pragmatism.

In fact, the inconsistency of the ANC is to be found on the scale of
that of the petty-bourgeoisie. This is why it has shown itself in the
end to be conservative, where the main problems are concerned, like
other traditionally ‘white’ parties, and why it does not give any
thought for land reforms for example, not to mention nationalization.

RISING BLACK MIDDLE CLASS. One here wonders whether there is any fundamental
differences between the reformist programme that has led to the emergence of
a ‘new’ South Africa and the ideological programme that was undertaken by
many white South African investment bankers and capitalists? Fundamentally,
this same programme has been supported , after some superficial rejection,
by the ANC-led government. The difference, then, is not a denial of
‘apartheid’ as such, but rather its blatant way of extracting surplus

The programme of the new government tends to obscure class-relations and
what legitimates them, i.e, the exploitative relations of production that
are still dominant, by moralizing race over class. Thus, the current regime,
with its structure of domination, does not represent a radical change in
terms of class-relations, but rather a modification of social relations of
capital. The racist extraction of surplus value has, in other words, become
‘human’, ‘liberal, and–most importantly–black. This, in its turn, is
reflected in the government’s foreign policy. ‘Since a negotiated settlement
here proved to be effective, it has to work in the Middle East’, the logic
goes. Hence the ANC’s support for an unjust solution to the Palestinian
question represented by Mandela’s (mis)informed statements.

(To read more about peace in the Middle East, please go to
http://www.fav.net/yesWeSupportPeace.htm )

3) A Letter of Protest to the Government of Mauritania

We are circulating the following letter of protest to the Government of
Mauritania for its recognition of “Israel”. If you agree with its content,
please sign and return to:

ziad_s@yahoo.com, watanarabi@hotmail.com

The Petition:
Any normalization with “Israel” is legitimizing colonialism and
racism anywhere in the world and especially in our Arab homeland.

The recognition of the Mauritanian government of the legitimacy of
racist “Israel” is an open aggression against Mauritania itself, the Arab
nation and against our hope to liberate Palestine as well it revokes the
right of the Palestinians to return to their homes in Haifa, Yafa, and to
the rest of their homeland.

We view that “Israel” is a threat to the entire Arab World , to
Africa, and to Mauritania. It is an extension of neo-colonialist occupation
to enslave us and to prevent us from developing politically and

We call upon the Mauritanian people to rise and resurrect a proud and
progressive future for Mauritania that does not allow any penetration
of Zionism into our Arab nation. The Mauritanian people ought to resist the
normalization and to force the government of Nuakshot to reconsider and
annul such recognition. Mauritania should be part of the spearhead for the
liberation of Palestine and not a colony for Zionist ambitions.

We call upon the free people of the Arab nation to join hands in a
united front to resist any normalization with the enemies.

We stand in solidarity with the Mauratanian people against
normalization with the Zionist entity.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: