July 1, 2013
"Stop Pinkwashing Israeli Apartheid"

"Stop Pinkwashing Israeli Apartheid"

June 29, 2013
SOUTH AFRICA. Hamanskraal. 1978. Colonel S.J. MALAN, Director of the Police School for Black people, with trainees. by Abbas

SOUTH AFRICA. Hamanskraal. 1978. Colonel S.J. MALAN, Director of the Police School for Black people, with trainees. by Abbas

June 28, 2013
fuckyeahmarxismleninism:

Pretoria, South Africa: Workers and students protest the visit of U.S. President Barack Obama, June 28, 2013. One said he viewed Obama as a “disappointment” and thought Nelson Mandela would too.
Great, great signs!

fuckyeahmarxismleninism:

Pretoria, South Africa: Workers and students protest the visit of U.S. President Barack Obama, June 28, 2013. One said he viewed Obama as a “disappointment” and thought Nelson Mandela would too.

Great, great signs!

June 28, 2013
Bal d’hypocrites pour Mandela : quand l’Occident soutenait Pretoria | Rue89
Par Pierre Haski
27 juin 2013
L’avalanche d’hommages déjà prêts à Nelson Mandela est certes méritée par la personnalité, le sacrifice, et la vie du grand leader sud-africain. Mais elle pourrait laisser croire que tout le monde l’a toujours adoré, et qu’il n’aurait donc été victime que d’une poignée d’extrémistes blancs isolés au bout de l’Afrique.
La réalité est bien différente. Pour l’essentiel de sa vie politique, Nelson Mandela a été considéré comme un homme dangereux par le monde occidental, y compris par certains des signataires des communiqués enflammés prêts dans toutes les capitales.
La polémique autour de l’attitude de Jean-Marie Le Pen, provoquée par la réécriture de l’histoire par sa fille sur France Inter, pourrait là aussi laisser penser qu’il était seul dans ce cas. Il n’était que le plus franc, y compris quand le qualificatif de « terroriste » n’était plus de mise pour le futur prix Nobel de la paix…
Du coté de l’apartheid
L’histoire est pourtant cruelle. L’ensemble du monde occidental a été du côté du pouvoir blanc sud-africain pendant plusieurs décennies, jusqu’à ce que le soulèvement de la jeunesse noire, à Soweto en juin 1976, ne finisse par lézarder ce consensus, qui ne prendra véritablement fin qu’à la fin de la guerre froide, en 1989.
La condamnation morale de l’apartheid, et même l’exclusion de l’Afrique du Sud du Commonwealth après le massacre de Sharpeville en 1960, prélude à l’emprisonnement de Nelson Mandela en 1962, aura finalement pesé moins lourd que les considérations géopolitiques. Pas surprenant, mais peut-être faut-il quand même le rappeler, au lieu de s’abriter derrière un consensus très récent.
Dans les années 60 et 70, l’Afrique du Sud était considérée par les stratèges de l’Otan comme un pion essentiel à la fois pour le contrôle de la route maritime du Cap empruntée par les supertankers de l’époque, et comme source de certains minerais vitaux pour l’industrie de défense.
L’appartenance à l’Otan du Portugal de la dictature Salazar, engagée dès les années 60 dans des guerres interminables dans ses colonies d’Angola et du Mozambique, renforçait cette appartenance officieuse du pouvoir minoritaire blanc de Pretoria au « front anticommuniste ».
A Silvermine, dans la péninsule du Cap, l’armée sud-africaine avait installé dans un bunker une station d’écoute et de surveillance des mers du sud, dont les informations étaient transmises aux services de renseignement occidentaux. Les informations allaient dans les deux sens, et c’est sur un tuyau de la CIA que Nelson Mandela aurait été arrêté une première fois.
Complicités françaises
La France a elle aussi collaboré étroitement avec le régime de l’apartheid. Elle a vendu à l’Afrique du Sud sa première centrale nucléaire dans les années 70, au risque de contribuer à la prolifération militaire à laquelle Pretoria a officiellement mis un terme à la fin de la domination blanche.
En 1976, alors que j’étais correspondant de l’AFP à Johannesburg, l’ambassade de France n’ayant aucun contact à Soweto et craignant de déplaire au gouvernement de Pretoria, me demandait si j’acceptais d’organiser un dîner chez moi pour qu’un émissaire du Quai d’Orsay puisse rencontrer le docteur Ntatho Motlana, représentant personnel de Winnie Mandela, l’épouse du leader emprisonné.
Le Congrès national africain (ANC) dont les principaux dirigeants croupissaient en prison à Robben Island, était bien isolé… Dans les années 70, lorsque des délégations du mouvement de libération, conduites par son responsable international, le futur président Thabo Mbeki, passait par Paris, il habitait dans la chambre de bonnes d’un ami marocain, et était royalement ignoré par le gouvernement.
Chirac et la « troisième voie »
Plus tard, au début des années 80, lorsque la situation à l’intérieur de l’Afrique du Sud est devenue quasi insurrectionnelle, la droite française a participé au stratagème de Pretoria de favoriser une « troisième voie » en la personne du chef zoulou Gatsha Buthelezi, un Noir « présentable ».
Alors que ses miliciens s’en prenaient aux partisans de l’ANC à coups de machettes, Buthelezi était officiellement reçu par Ronald Reagan et Margaret Thatcher, et, en France, par Jacques Chirac alors maire de Paris (les photos sont exposées dans le salon de Buthelezi au Kwazulu-Natal).
Au même moment, Laurent Fabius, alors Premier ministre, imposait les premières vraies sanctions françaises et retirait l’ambassadeur de France à Pretoria.
Il faudra la révolte des Noirs d’Afrique du Sud, la chute du mur de Berlin et un puissant mouvement d’opinion dans le monde entier, pour que les dirigeants occidentaux changent d’attitude, et poussent le régime de l’apartheid à libérer Mandela et à négocier.
Le consensus d’aujourd’hui autour de Nelson Mandela ne doit pas faire oublier les errements criminels d’hier qui ont contribué à le laisser plus d’un quart de siècle en prison, et à prolonger la durée de vie du système inique de l’apartheid.
Il est plus facile de faire croire qu’on a toujours été du côté du « bien » contre le « mal » que de s’interroger sur les raisonnements fallacieux qui ont poussé la « patrie des droits de l’homme » et les autres défenseurs de la démocratie à rester aussi longtemps complices d’un système basé sur un déni d’humanité.
La disparition d’un géant de l’histoire devrait pourtant être le moment de regarder objectivement le passé.
Copyright © 2013 Rue89.
[Photo : Nelson Mandela et sa femme Winnie le jour de sa libération, le 11 février 1990. (© ALEXANDER JOE / FILES / AFP)]
[Voir aussi : L’Evangile selon Mandela, par Alain Gresh | Le Monde diplomatique (juillet 2010)]

Bal d’hypocrites pour Mandela : quand l’Occident soutenait Pretoria | Rue89

Par Pierre Haski

27 juin 2013

L’avalanche d’hommages déjà prêts à Nelson Mandela est certes méritée par la personnalité, le sacrifice, et la vie du grand leader sud-africain. Mais elle pourrait laisser croire que tout le monde l’a toujours adoré, et qu’il n’aurait donc été victime que d’une poignée d’extrémistes blancs isolés au bout de l’Afrique.

La réalité est bien différente. Pour l’essentiel de sa vie politique, Nelson Mandela a été considéré comme un homme dangereux par le monde occidental, y compris par certains des signataires des communiqués enflammés prêts dans toutes les capitales.

La polémique autour de l’attitude de Jean-Marie Le Pen, provoquée par la réécriture de l’histoire par sa fille sur France Inter, pourrait là aussi laisser penser qu’il était seul dans ce cas. Il n’était que le plus franc, y compris quand le qualificatif de « terroriste » n’était plus de mise pour le futur prix Nobel de la paix…

Du coté de l’apartheid

L’histoire est pourtant cruelle. L’ensemble du monde occidental a été du côté du pouvoir blanc sud-africain pendant plusieurs décennies, jusqu’à ce que le soulèvement de la jeunesse noire, à Soweto en juin 1976, ne finisse par lézarder ce consensus, qui ne prendra véritablement fin qu’à la fin de la guerre froide, en 1989.

La condamnation morale de l’apartheid, et même l’exclusion de l’Afrique du Sud du Commonwealth après le massacre de Sharpeville en 1960, prélude à l’emprisonnement de Nelson Mandela en 1962, aura finalement pesé moins lourd que les considérations géopolitiques. Pas surprenant, mais peut-être faut-il quand même le rappeler, au lieu de s’abriter derrière un consensus très récent.

Dans les années 60 et 70, l’Afrique du Sud était considérée par les stratèges de l’Otan comme un pion essentiel à la fois pour le contrôle de la route maritime du Cap empruntée par les supertankers de l’époque, et comme source de certains minerais vitaux pour l’industrie de défense.

L’appartenance à l’Otan du Portugal de la dictature Salazar, engagée dès les années 60 dans des guerres interminables dans ses colonies d’Angola et du Mozambique, renforçait cette appartenance officieuse du pouvoir minoritaire blanc de Pretoria au « front anticommuniste ».

A Silvermine, dans la péninsule du Cap, l’armée sud-africaine avait installé dans un bunker une station d’écoute et de surveillance des mers du sud, dont les informations étaient transmises aux services de renseignement occidentaux. Les informations allaient dans les deux sens, et c’est sur un tuyau de la CIA que Nelson Mandela aurait été arrêté une première fois.

Complicités françaises

La France a elle aussi collaboré étroitement avec le régime de l’apartheid. Elle a vendu à l’Afrique du Sud sa première centrale nucléaire dans les années 70, au risque de contribuer à la prolifération militaire à laquelle Pretoria a officiellement mis un terme à la fin de la domination blanche.

En 1976, alors que j’étais correspondant de l’AFP à Johannesburg, l’ambassade de France n’ayant aucun contact à Soweto et craignant de déplaire au gouvernement de Pretoria, me demandait si j’acceptais d’organiser un dîner chez moi pour qu’un émissaire du Quai d’Orsay puisse rencontrer le docteur Ntatho Motlana, représentant personnel de Winnie Mandela, l’épouse du leader emprisonné.

Le Congrès national africain (ANC) dont les principaux dirigeants croupissaient en prison à Robben Island, était bien isolé… Dans les années 70, lorsque des délégations du mouvement de libération, conduites par son responsable international, le futur président Thabo Mbeki, passait par Paris, il habitait dans la chambre de bonnes d’un ami marocain, et était royalement ignoré par le gouvernement.

Chirac et la « troisième voie »

Plus tard, au début des années 80, lorsque la situation à l’intérieur de l’Afrique du Sud est devenue quasi insurrectionnelle, la droite française a participé au stratagème de Pretoria de favoriser une « troisième voie » en la personne du chef zoulou Gatsha Buthelezi, un Noir « présentable ».

Alors que ses miliciens s’en prenaient aux partisans de l’ANC à coups de machettes, Buthelezi était officiellement reçu par Ronald Reagan et Margaret Thatcher, et, en France, par Jacques Chirac alors maire de Paris (les photos sont exposées dans le salon de Buthelezi au Kwazulu-Natal).

Au même moment, Laurent Fabius, alors Premier ministre, imposait les premières vraies sanctions françaises et retirait l’ambassadeur de France à Pretoria.

Il faudra la révolte des Noirs d’Afrique du Sud, la chute du mur de Berlin et un puissant mouvement d’opinion dans le monde entier, pour que les dirigeants occidentaux changent d’attitude, et poussent le régime de l’apartheid à libérer Mandela et à négocier.

Le consensus d’aujourd’hui autour de Nelson Mandela ne doit pas faire oublier les errements criminels d’hier qui ont contribué à le laisser plus d’un quart de siècle en prison, et à prolonger la durée de vie du système inique de l’apartheid.

Il est plus facile de faire croire qu’on a toujours été du côté du « bien » contre le « mal » que de s’interroger sur les raisonnements fallacieux qui ont poussé la « patrie des droits de l’homme » et les autres défenseurs de la démocratie à rester aussi longtemps complices d’un système basé sur un déni d’humanité.

La disparition d’un géant de l’histoire devrait pourtant être le moment de regarder objectivement le passé.

Copyright © 2013 Rue89.

[Photo : Nelson Mandela et sa femme Winnie le jour de sa libération, le 11 février 1990. (© ALEXANDER JOE / FILES / AFP)]

[Voir aussi : L’Evangile selon Mandela, par Alain Gresh | Le Monde diplomatique (juillet 2010)]

March 21, 2013

(Source: fuckyeahmarxismleninism)

March 19, 2013
Boycotting Israel is the “way to go,” says Pink Floyd legend Roger Waters | The Electronic Intifada
By David CroninThe Electronic Intifada
March 18, 2013
Roger Waters is the most famous rock star to have publicly supported the campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel.
A founder of Pink Floyd — a British rock group which has sold more than 250 million albums — Waters decided to become active in the international Palestinian solidarity movement following a trip to the West Bank in 2006. Shocked by the oppression that he witnessed, Waters spray-painted the words “we don’t need no thought control” — a line from one of his biggest hits — on Israel’s wall.
More recently, Waters has served as a juror on the Russell Tribunal for Palestine, an initiative aimed at drawing attention to how Western governments and companies aid Israel’s violations of international law. In that capacity, he addressed the United Nations during November last year.
Visiting Brussels for the tribunal’s final session, Waters said he would explore the idea of releasing a single urging musicians not to perform in Israel. He intends to discuss this project with Steven Van Zandt, the guitarist in Bruce Springsteen’s E Street Band, who assembled many well-known musicians to record Sun City, a protest song against apartheid in South Africa during the 1980s.
Waters spoke to The Electronic Intifada’s David Cronin.
David Cronin: Do you think the campaign for a cultural boycott of Israel is having an impact?
Roger Waters: I’d like to think that it was.
My experience when I speak to people to and say “don’t go” is either they reply “that sounds good” or they say “don’t you think it’s better to go there?”
Well, no, I fucking don’t.
I think that the kind of boycott that was implemented against the apartheid regime in South Africa back in the day is probably the most effective way to go because the situation is that the Israeli government runs an apartheid regime in Israel, the occupied territories and everywhere else it decides. Let us not forget that they laid waste to most of Lebanon around the time I started getting involved in this issue. They destroyed airports, hospitals, any public buildings they could.
They are running riot and it seems unlikely that running over there and playing the violin will have any lasting effect.
DC: Have you personally asked any fellow musicians to boycott Israel?
RW: Yeah, I have.
DC: Would you prepared to say who those musicians were?
RW: No, I wouldn’t be. It was entirely private between me and them.
All I would say is that part of my involvement here in the Russell Tribunal today and tomorrow is that I am about to publish an open letter written to all my colleagues in the music industry, asking them to join me in the BDS movement. This is not just to colleagues in the UK or US but around the world.
What caused me to write this public letter was an affair where Stevie Wonder was hired to play a gala dinner for the Israeli Defense Forces on 6 December last year. I wrote a letter to him saying that this would be like playing a police ball in Johannesburg the day after the Sharpeville massacre in 1960. It wouldn’t be a great thing to do, particularly as he was meant to be a UN ambassador for peace. It wasn’t just me. Desmond Tutu also wrote a letter.
To his eternal credit, Stevie Wonder called them [the gala’s organizers] up and said “I didn’t quite get it” [and canceled the performance]. This happened one week after I made a speech to the UN. Neither of these events were reported anywhere in the mainstream media in the United States of America.
Both events were almost as important as [TV personality] Kim Kardashian’s bra size. The way they are not being reported means the media must be under instructions from somewhere not to report these things to the American public, on what grounds I cannot guess.
DC: How do you feel about the support for Israel offered by David Cameron’s government in your native Britain?
RW: Cameron has absolutely adopted Tony Blair’s wolf’s clothing that he [Blair] adopted so eagerly and happily when he went to war in Iraq on George Bush’s coat-tails.
Cameron is entirely content for Great Britain to be a satellite nation of the US. None of us can quite understand why.
There is a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. The EU’s diplomatic emissaries [in the West Bank] joined together [recently]. They protested the settlements and asked for sanctions. This is almost unprecedented. But the governments of these emissaries have done nothing and continue to do nothing.
I have been very disillusioned with UK foreign policy really since [Harold] Wilson [a Labor Party prime minister during the 1960s and 1970s]. It was such a political turnabout from [Labor leaders] Keir Hardie and [Clement] Attlee and the principles of British socialism. It was a precursor for taking over the country with the appalling monetarist strategies of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. I’m quite ashamed of the way we have behaved. The UK has been royally fucking the world over for centuries — not least you bog Irish.
DC: One of your fellow jurors on the Russell Tribunal, Stéphane Hessel, died recently. Did you know him well?
RW: I knew him very little. What a brave, eloquent, good-hearted, brilliant man.
DC: As a musician, have you had a chance to check out the vibrant Palestinian hip-hop scene?
RW: I haven’t. But if it thrives, I can’t find anything negative about that, so long as it’s not about bling and booty and wearing a baseball cap sideways. So long as it’s about protest and realism, rather than the flight from realism that hip-hop is in the US.
DC: In your speech to the UN, you paid tribute to Rachel Corrie. Is there anything you would like to say about Rachel Corrie, given that it’s the tenth anniversary of her murder?
RW: Her parents attended the [Russell Tribunal] session in New York [last year]. It was very moving.
DC: Do you support the hunger strikes being undertaken by a number of Palestinian prisoners?
RW: The thing about political prisoners is: it doesn’t matter if you are in the Maze [in Northern Ireland] or in a prison somewhere in Israel, your options are very limited. Hunger strikes or dirty protests are some of the very few options to bring attention to your specific predicament.
I respect the brave men and women who go to those lengths. As we know, hunger-striking is not like going on a diet. It is real, dangerous and painful. You don’t do it without compelling reasons.
David Cronin is a contributing editor with The Electronic Intifada. His book Europe’s Alliance With Israel: Aiding the Occupation is published by Pluto Press.
Copyright © 2013 ElectronicIntifada.net.
[Photo: Roger Waters, British rock legend and co-founder of the group Pink Floyd, visits Israel’s wall surrounding the West Bank town of Bethlehem, 21 June 2006. (© MaanImages/Magnus Johansson)]

Boycotting Israel is the “way to go,” says Pink Floyd legend Roger Waters | The Electronic Intifada

By David Cronin
The Electronic Intifada

March 18, 2013

Roger Waters is the most famous rock star to have publicly supported the campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel.

A founder of Pink Floyd — a British rock group which has sold more than 250 million albums — Waters decided to become active in the international Palestinian solidarity movement following a trip to the West Bank in 2006. Shocked by the oppression that he witnessed, Waters spray-painted the words “we don’t need no thought control” — a line from one of his biggest hits — on Israel’s wall.

More recently, Waters has served as a juror on the Russell Tribunal for Palestine, an initiative aimed at drawing attention to how Western governments and companies aid Israel’s violations of international law. In that capacity, he addressed the United Nations during November last year.

Visiting Brussels for the tribunal’s final session, Waters said he would explore the idea of releasing a single urging musicians not to perform in Israel. He intends to discuss this project with Steven Van Zandt, the guitarist in Bruce Springsteen’s E Street Band, who assembled many well-known musicians to record Sun City, a protest song against apartheid in South Africa during the 1980s.

Waters spoke to The Electronic Intifada’s David Cronin.

David Cronin: Do you think the campaign for a cultural boycott of Israel is having an impact?

Roger Waters: I’d like to think that it was.

My experience when I speak to people to and say “don’t go” is either they reply “that sounds good” or they say “don’t you think it’s better to go there?”

Well, no, I fucking don’t.

I think that the kind of boycott that was implemented against the apartheid regime in South Africa back in the day is probably the most effective way to go because the situation is that the Israeli government runs an apartheid regime in Israel, the occupied territories and everywhere else it decides. Let us not forget that they laid waste to most of Lebanon around the time I started getting involved in this issue. They destroyed airports, hospitals, any public buildings they could.

They are running riot and it seems unlikely that running over there and playing the violin will have any lasting effect.

DC: Have you personally asked any fellow musicians to boycott Israel?

RW: Yeah, I have.

DC: Would you prepared to say who those musicians were?

RW: No, I wouldn’t be. It was entirely private between me and them.

All I would say is that part of my involvement here in the Russell Tribunal today and tomorrow is that I am about to publish an open letter written to all my colleagues in the music industry, asking them to join me in the BDS movement. This is not just to colleagues in the UK or US but around the world.

What caused me to write this public letter was an affair where Stevie Wonder was hired to play a gala dinner for the Israeli Defense Forces on 6 December last year. I wrote a letter to him saying that this would be like playing a police ball in Johannesburg the day after the Sharpeville massacre in 1960. It wouldn’t be a great thing to do, particularly as he was meant to be a UN ambassador for peace. It wasn’t just me. Desmond Tutu also wrote a letter.

To his eternal credit, Stevie Wonder called them [the gala’s organizers] up and said “I didn’t quite get it” [and canceled the performance]. This happened one week after I made a speech to the UN. Neither of these events were reported anywhere in the mainstream media in the United States of America.

Both events were almost as important as [TV personality] Kim Kardashian’s bra size. The way they are not being reported means the media must be under instructions from somewhere not to report these things to the American public, on what grounds I cannot guess.

DC: How do you feel about the support for Israel offered by David Cameron’s government in your native Britain?

RW: Cameron has absolutely adopted Tony Blair’s wolf’s clothing that he [Blair] adopted so eagerly and happily when he went to war in Iraq on George Bush’s coat-tails.

Cameron is entirely content for Great Britain to be a satellite nation of the US. None of us can quite understand why.

There is a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. The EU’s diplomatic emissaries [in the West Bank] joined together [recently]. They protested the settlements and asked for sanctions. This is almost unprecedented. But the governments of these emissaries have done nothing and continue to do nothing.

I have been very disillusioned with UK foreign policy really since [Harold] Wilson [a Labor Party prime minister during the 1960s and 1970s]. It was such a political turnabout from [Labor leaders] Keir Hardie and [Clement] Attlee and the principles of British socialism. It was a precursor for taking over the country with the appalling monetarist strategies of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. I’m quite ashamed of the way we have behaved. The UK has been royally fucking the world over for centuries — not least you bog Irish.

DC: One of your fellow jurors on the Russell Tribunal, Stéphane Hessel, died recently. Did you know him well?

RW: I knew him very little. What a brave, eloquent, good-hearted, brilliant man.

DC: As a musician, have you had a chance to check out the vibrant Palestinian hip-hop scene?

RW: I haven’t. But if it thrives, I can’t find anything negative about that, so long as it’s not about bling and booty and wearing a baseball cap sideways. So long as it’s about protest and realism, rather than the flight from realism that hip-hop is in the US.

DC: In your speech to the UN, you paid tribute to Rachel Corrie. Is there anything you would like to say about Rachel Corrie, given that it’s the tenth anniversary of her murder?

RW: Her parents attended the [Russell Tribunal] session in New York [last year]. It was very moving.

DC: Do you support the hunger strikes being undertaken by a number of Palestinian prisoners?

RW: The thing about political prisoners is: it doesn’t matter if you are in the Maze [in Northern Ireland] or in a prison somewhere in Israel, your options are very limited. Hunger strikes or dirty protests are some of the very few options to bring attention to your specific predicament.

I respect the brave men and women who go to those lengths. As we know, hunger-striking is not like going on a diet. It is real, dangerous and painful. You don’t do it without compelling reasons.

David Cronin is a contributing editor with The Electronic Intifada. His book Europe’s Alliance With Israel: Aiding the Occupation is published by Pluto Press.

Copyright © 2013 ElectronicIntifada.net.

[Photo: Roger Waters, British rock legend and co-founder of the group Pink Floyd, visits Israel’s wall surrounding the West Bank town of Bethlehem, 21 June 2006. (© MaanImages/Magnus Johansson)]

March 11, 2013

March 10, 2013

March 3, 2013

February 25, 2013
In Eyes of the World, Palestinians are “subhuman” | Al Akhbar English
By Haidar Eid
February 24, 2013
Article one of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” It does not, however, say “with the exception of Palestinians.”
But we, 11 million Palestinians, know very well that we are the exception to that rule. Whether we are “Israeli Arabs,” “Arabs of the occupied territories,” or diasporic Arabs, we cannot have the same rights as “all human beings.” Others have the right to life, work, security, health, movement, democracy, education, electricity, water, medicine, food, love, marriage. We don’t.
Any attempt to understand the rationale behind these blatant human rights violations – what Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu, John Dugard, and many others call apartheid – is faced with accusations of anti-Semitism, a weapon used to silence voices calling for justice in the Middle East. Take, for example, the accusations hurled at the organizers of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) event at the Brooklyn College. Of course, no American president wants to be at the receiving end of such accusations
As Ben White wrote: “The abuse of the charge of anti-Semitism to shield systematic human rights abuses and to smear activists, while tired and transparent to many, is still a favorite tactic.”
The possibility of peace with justice at this moment is far from realization. The impossibility of the realization of the national dream of one third of the Palestinian people has brought forward the embarrassing question of the rights of the remaining two thirds, namely the dispossessed refugees living in miserable camps.
What is the Palestinian cause if not the right of return of the refugees both inside and outside Palestine? Is there a slight possibility of having ‘peace’ in the Middle East without resolving this question? If, as some Israeli leaders claim, there is a way of finding a ‘just solution’ that does not include their return, does that guarantee a just comprehensive peace?
The whites of apartheid South Africa defined the institutions of the country as democratic – albeit white democracy, i.e. by and for whites only. Native Africans never recognized the ‘white nature’ of that country. The idea of defining the country as exclusively white and democratic at the same time was never accepted by the international community. It was considered blatant racism. Unlike Palestinians, black Africans are considered human beings, and therefore, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to them.
That is precisely what the call for the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state means. Forget about 6 million refugees scattered all over the world as a result of the process of ethnic cleansing that accompanied the establishment of Israel.
According to this formula, the Palestinians are only those who live in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. ‘The Middle East conflict,’ in case you didn’t know, will be resolved if the latter are given a flag and three to four truncated bantustans with a chief that we can call a president.
US President Barack Obama’s expected talks in Ramallah and Tel Aviv next month are not going to allude to the refugees’ issues. Obama also won’t utter a word about the civil rights of 1.2 million Palestinian citizens inside the state of Israel. One thing he will not forget to say again and again: The US is committed to the security of the state of Israel! Hendrik Verwoerd and P. W Botha, the architects of Apartheid, would have been vindicated.
Haidar Eid is an assistant professor at al-Aqsa University in Gaza.
Copyright © 2013 Al Akhbar English.
[Photo: Palestinians aid a wounded protester following clashes with Israeli settlers in the West Bank village of Qusra near Nablus on 23 February 2013. (© AFP - Jaafar Ashtiyeh)]

In Eyes of the World, Palestinians are “subhuman” | Al Akhbar English

By Haidar Eid

February 24, 2013

Article one of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” It does not, however, say “with the exception of Palestinians.”

But we, 11 million Palestinians, know very well that we are the exception to that rule. Whether we are “Israeli Arabs,” “Arabs of the occupied territories,” or diasporic Arabs, we cannot have the same rights as “all human beings.” Others have the right to life, work, security, health, movement, democracy, education, electricity, water, medicine, food, love, marriage. We don’t.

Any attempt to understand the rationale behind these blatant human rights violations – what Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu, John Dugard, and many others call apartheid – is faced with accusations of anti-Semitism, a weapon used to silence voices calling for justice in the Middle East. Take, for example, the accusations hurled at the organizers of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) event at the Brooklyn College. Of course, no American president wants to be at the receiving end of such accusations

As Ben White wrote: “The abuse of the charge of anti-Semitism to shield systematic human rights abuses and to smear activists, while tired and transparent to many, is still a favorite tactic.”

The possibility of peace with justice at this moment is far from realization. The impossibility of the realization of the national dream of one third of the Palestinian people has brought forward the embarrassing question of the rights of the remaining two thirds, namely the dispossessed refugees living in miserable camps.

What is the Palestinian cause if not the right of return of the refugees both inside and outside Palestine? Is there a slight possibility of having ‘peace’ in the Middle East without resolving this question? If, as some Israeli leaders claim, there is a way of finding a ‘just solution’ that does not include their return, does that guarantee a just comprehensive peace?

The whites of apartheid South Africa defined the institutions of the country as democratic – albeit white democracy, i.e. by and for whites only. Native Africans never recognized the ‘white nature’ of that country. The idea of defining the country as exclusively white and democratic at the same time was never accepted by the international community. It was considered blatant racism. Unlike Palestinians, black Africans are considered human beings, and therefore, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to them.

That is precisely what the call for the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state means. Forget about 6 million refugees scattered all over the world as a result of the process of ethnic cleansing that accompanied the establishment of Israel.

According to this formula, the Palestinians are only those who live in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. ‘The Middle East conflict,’ in case you didn’t know, will be resolved if the latter are given a flag and three to four truncated bantustans with a chief that we can call a president.

US President Barack Obama’s expected talks in Ramallah and Tel Aviv next month are not going to allude to the refugees’ issues. Obama also won’t utter a word about the civil rights of 1.2 million Palestinian citizens inside the state of Israel. One thing he will not forget to say again and again: The US is committed to the security of the state of Israel! Hendrik Verwoerd and P. W Botha, the architects of Apartheid, would have been vindicated.

Haidar Eid is an assistant professor at al-Aqsa University in Gaza.

Copyright © 2013 Al Akhbar English.

[Photo: Palestinians aid a wounded protester following clashes with Israeli settlers in the West Bank village of Qusra near Nablus on 23 February 2013. (© AFP - Jaafar Ashtiyeh)]