South African president says it’s worse than apartheid

by on February 8, 2009 7
0sharesFacebook
0tweetsTwitter
0stumbledStumbleUpon
0sharesReddit
0recommendGoogle

In the Times of India. Brings up the Jews-only settlements. Of course this site said it was worse than apartheid 3 years ago. This comes just a few weeks after the president's deputy foreign minister was woodshedded for saying American support was all about "Zionist money." Maybe use Seymour Hersh's formulation on this? "Jewish money."

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Beyondoweiss, Israel/Palestine, Settlers/Colonists, US Policy in the Middle East

{ 7 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. DICKERSON3870 says:
    February 8, 2009 at 1:08 pm

    FROM CHRIS BEREL: "It may have been in out (sic) national interest to side with Nazi Germany. But most moral nations put aside national interest to do the right thing."

    FROM ME:
    Shamir proposes an alliance with the Nazis
    “As late as 1941, the Zionist group LEHI, one of whose leaders, Yitzhak
    Shamir, was later to become a prime minister of Israel, approached the Nazis, using the name of its parent organization, the Irgun (NMO)…[Their proposal stated:] ‘The establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis and bound by a treaty with the German Reich would be in the interests of strengthening the future German nation of power in the Near East… The NMO in Palestine offers to take an active part in the war on Germany’s side’….The Nazis rejected this proposal for an alliance because, it is reported, they considered LEHI’s military power ‘negligable.’ ” Allan Brownfield, “The Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs”, July/August 1998.

    SOURCE: "The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict" – Third Edition
    (PUBLISHED BY JEWS FOR JUSTICE IN THE MIDDLE EAST)

    PDF DOWNLOAD (40 pages) – link to cactus48.com

    HTML VIEW – link to cactus48.com
    />

  2. LanceThruster says:
    February 8, 2009 at 1:31 pm

    But, but, but…Israel is the Middle East's one true democracy.

    I guess in this "democracy," some are more equal than others.
    ~

  3. chris berel says:
    February 8, 2009 at 1:48 pm

    In all democracies, those who band together as the majority tend to have better lives than the minority.

    I see Dicky is spamming again.

  4. LanceThruster says:
    February 8, 2009 at 5:00 pm

    In all democracies, those who band together as the majority tend to have better lives than the minority.

    —–

    No wonder Israel is afraid of *true* democracy as their better life as a minority would be threatened (much like in South Africa).

  5. chris berel says:
    February 8, 2009 at 5:30 pm

    In South Africa, the tiny white minority lorded over the vast Black Majority. In Israel, there is no vast Arab Majority. In fact, there is no Arab majority. Therefore, there is no aparthied.

  6. LanceThruster says:
    February 8, 2009 at 7:57 pm

    In fact, no one knows where Israel begins and ends as they have not declared borders. If they are so convinced they hold a safe majority, let them have a democracy of "one person, one vote."

    Otherwise, you're again just blowing smoke.
    ~

  7. Thom says:
    February 9, 2009 at 4:22 am

    No country in the world has "one person, one vote". If they did, China and India would have 2 out of five votes in every country. The people in China are people, but they don't get a vote in the U.S. What democratic nations have is "one citizen, one vote".

    Israel has "one citizen, one vote". In fact, Israel's proportional representation makes it more of a pure democracy than any other country. Most places, an evenly spread out group with 10% of the vote would win zero seats (if they voted for a party no one else liked). In Israel they would get 10% of the seats in the Knesset. Incidentally, there have been Arabs in the Knesset for as long as there has been a Knesset.

    The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza don't get a vote in Israeli elections for the same reason that people in Germany and Japan didn't get a vote in U.S. elections when we occupied them after WWII. They weren't citizens.

Leave a Reply