Today the House passed a law removing a stain that the U.S. government had imposed on the African National Congress: those who resisted the South African apartheid policy, often by military means, were terrorists.
“This long-overdue bill is the direct result of a stunning and, frankly, embarrassing story for the United States,” [House Committee on Foreign Affairs chairman Howard] Berman noted. “Despite recognizing two decades ago that America’s place was on the side of those oppressed by Apartheid, Congress has never resolved the inconsistency in our immigration code that treats many of those who actively opposed Apartheid in South Africa as terrorists and criminals.”
For decades the ANC resisted Apartheid and advocated the rights of black South Africans – first through nonviolence and community activism, and then through the actions of its military wing. [emphasis mine] The South African government banned the ANC in 1960, and the United States denied entry to ANC members based on the group’s activities. With the end of Apartheid in 1990, the ANC grew to become the leading political party; it continues to lead South Africa in a multiracial, multiparty democracy.
No comment.
Related posts:
- Are We Waiting for a Palestinian Mandela or an Israeli One?
- U.S. government publishes Goldstone hit that defends… apartheid
- The South Africa lobby
- Avnery: ‘Are we to become irreversibly bestialized in our own eyes, and the eyes of the world?’
- ‘Livni Is De Klerk, But Can Barghouti Be Mandela to a 2-State Solution?’ (Jack Ross)
{ 7 comments }
The day will come when the USA will also say the same about the
Palestinian terrorists. Lantos cum Berman will eventually be called to account for a double standard at the expense of the American people. The American Jews should take a page from the recent history of S Africa & the slow march toward freedom
of the natives. They won't do so until Americans stand up for
freedom and justice. We need more Carters and W & Ms; we need so desperately, campaign finance reform. Since that requires a change in the survival of status quo incumbents, it's not likely.
Rachael Carrie
I live in Berman's district. Sadly. Most of the people in this district, as far as I can tell, are Hispanic, many are illegal.
Before any of you start screaming "racist" let me explain myself: most of the people in Berman's district either can't vote or have no conception of Berman's complete hypocrisy regarding the Israel/ Palestine issue as opposed to South Africa's apartheid.
I would venture to guess that most people in Berman's district, no matter what their ethnicity is, have no conception about U.S. foreign policy. And I say that with all due, with the emphasis on DUE, respect to my neighbors, who are pleasant people for the most part.
Berman is a tool. Any constituents out there, please call his office and let his minions have it about his support of the genocide of the Palestinians and his hypocrisy about S.A. apartheid.
Yes, the problem is foreign policy is not something most Americans care about. The "volunteer Army" digs this willful ignorance much deeper. Our betters can run & play to their heart's content, all over the world.
Have some more freedom fries with that burger.
U.S. foreign "policy" is a joke.
I've wondered how government professors can stand teaching about such an incoherent and often immoral hodge-podge of crap.
Michael Blaine
http://www.rudelystamped.blogspot.com
Just because you support someone's actions doesn't mean they weren't terrorists. Maybe it's wishful thinking to believe "terrorist" could be used in a neutral manner, and if so then I'm a wishful thinker.
The whole point of the word "terrorist" as repeated endlessly by BushCo-AIPAC, and adopted by Hillary, and to a lesser extent, Obama, is to decertify and outlaw instanter.
On the other hand, I'm sure many people in the world listening to Hillary say she'd send Iran to oblivion if it touched Israel had a terrified moment, especially those aware of Israel's history of pretext and preemption, which has been adopted by the US government. To them she's a terrorist, while, of course, she
was in her own mind defending the innocent asleep in their beds–from her counterpart, the feisty little president of Iran.
What about the predominant view from the Middle East? Rami G. Khouri ( director of the Issam Fares Institute at the American University of Beirut and editor-at-large at the Daily Star newspaper, which is published throughout the region), on a radio segment, said: "The American war on terror is perceived in Lebanon and much of the Middle East as a sign of the combination of arrogance and confusion that is driving American policy, not only in the Middle East but I think in much of the world."
What Khouri had to say, few American pundits seem to want to hear: "While there's agreement that terror is a problem that must be fought – and we have suffered from it much more than the United States has, we in this region in the Middle East – there's also a sense that the United States has misdiagnosed the nature of the terror problem, exaggerated its threat, confused hopelessly a whole range of different groups, some of which are terrorists, some of which are doing legitimate resistance to occupation – and basically tried to come up with a new formula that substitutes for the cold war."
Lest there be any misunderstanding, Khouri added: "The United States calls 'terrorists' anybody that it doesn't like or that Israel doesn't like, because people like Hezbollah and Hamas who are fighting a war of resistance against Israeli occupation are labeled as 'terrorists,' while most of the world sees them as legitimate resistance fighters when they're fighting the Israeli army."
Such views are routinely expressed in news media almost everywhere in the world. But in the United States, our media insulation about the "war on terror" is extreme – and dangerously self-deluding.
Comments on this entry are closed.