Hasbara in 1988: ‘despite difficulties, South Africa is a vital, progressive state with much to admire ‘

Israel/Palestine
on 57 Comments
radiorsa
A promo for Radio RSA.

This is the first of an ongoing series of articles I’ll be writing on the use of the apartheid analogy (as opposed to the application of the term “apartheid” under international law).

In this initial piece, we’ll explore some of the themes utilized in propaganda on behalf of South African apartheid. Defenders of Israel seek to stress Israel’s unique situation in order to excuse actions against the Palestinians. Yet if we look at the propaganda employed to defend apartheid in South Africa, we find the same arguments in use.

The lesson is that if supporters of Israel want to distinguish Israel’s oppressive regime against non-Jewish populations from that of South African apartheid, they should consider avoiding the same specious arguments made to defend South African apartheid. And if we want to know what is wrong with arguments made in defense of Israel, we need only consider why the same arguments fail to make the case for apartheid in South Africa.

Here I rely on a study conducted by Philo C. Wasburn of Purdue University (citations at the end).

Radio RSA: The Voice of South Africa

In 1988, Wasburn’s students analyzed five weeks of nightly radio broadcasts from Radio RSA (“The Voice of South Africa”), the South African government’s international radio service, which sought to improve world opinion of the apartheid regime.

Fanus Venter, then head of Radio RSA, referred to its mission as “the ultimate public relations challenge.”

According to Venter, the main objective of the station is to foster understanding of South Africa’s unique situation in the world and to counteract the untruths and the halftruths about the nation which has been spread worldwide. To this end, the [South African Broadcasting Corporation] claims that Radio RSA presents balanced and objective information which enables its audiences to make a more accurate assessment of South African affairs against a background of what it describes as inaccurate and often one-sided coverage given events in South Africa by foreign media.

The study took forty-five hours of Radio RSA broadcasts and categorized the narrative into six interrelated propaganda themes, which I summarize below.

1. Brand South Africa

The most common theme sought to deflect from the apartheid issue and instead focus on “positive” traits shared between South Africa and other Western nations:

Theme 1. South Africa is an unusually complex, modern society with a pro-Western government, a vital capitalist economy, vast natural resources, and a rich cultural life with ties to Western Europe. While the nation faces serious, continuing problems of race, exclusive focus on this single aspect of South African society, by the media of other countries, has produced a highly distorted and misleading international image of the nation.

[…]

[T]he view of South Africa as a modern, productive society with strong cultural links to the West, working to achieve greater participation for all of its citizens in national political and economic life through gradual reform, is introduced in a piecemeal fashion. Nevertheless items depicting day-to-day life in South Africa, music, literature, art, business, science, flora and fauna all carry Radio RSA’s most important message: contrary to the image of South Africa constructed by the international media, and despite admitted difficulties, South Africa is a vital, progressive state with much to admire and is deserving of support from the West.

Wasburn explained how something seemingly innocuous, such as focusing on South Africa’s achievements and rich culture, sought to mask the country’s crimes through an “apolitical” filter:

The accusation that a nation is insensitive to human rights or is militarily adventurous calls for the construction and presentation of a national image inconsistent with the labeling. The distinction between issue-specific and what will be termed thematic counterpropaganda is not hard and fast. However, it does clarify how manifestly nonpolitical material can be employed as a form of counterpropaganda.

Even the most cursory glance at the programming schedules of the major international broadcasting organizations reveals that a substantial amount of broadcast time is devoted to the transmission of materials such as music, sporting events, verbal travelogues, cultural affairs, business, and features purporting to depict daily life in the nation.

Although lacking obvious political content, numerous analysts have contended that such cultural materials can effectively promote particular values and national images that serve political and economic interests. Benevolence–malevolence is a common cognitive dimension of international images attributed to nations. A likely reason for allocating time to materials lacking obvious political intent is that they can cultivate a more benevolent image of a nation. Such materials do not evoke the resistance aroused by assertions that deal explicitly with political events, conditions, policies, principles, or other potentially controversial matters.

The goal of such strategy is to disprove that Country X is a “bad” country by demonstrating that it produces some “good.” If the country does good, then criticism of the country as “bad” cannot be correct. This assists us in parsing the strategy behind campaigns such as pinkwashing. Of course the flaw is that good actions do not offset bad ones, and criticism of a nation’s actions are not offset by positive labels ascribed to the country as a whole. The branding theme seeks to determine whether a country is inherently good or bad, thus deflecting criticisms of what the country’s government is doing.

2. Singling out South Africa

Theme 2. South Africa is wantonly and hypocritically singled out as a nation that oppresses its people. The government of South Africa is committed to democratic development. To this end, it is working to promote economic advancement, literacy, order, and stability, all of which are social preconditions for the maintenance of political liberties. The great threat to continuing social improvement in South Africa comes from revolutionary forces that are committed to violence and attempt to disrupt peace and legal order.

Radio RSA cited an opinion piece by British writer and commentator Simon Jenkins, who at the time had just returned from trips to Israel and South Africa.

Jenkins’s piece, titled “People Who Live In Glass Houses: Before the British Begin to Criticise Other Nations on Human Rights, They Should Go to See Ulsters’ Peace Wall,” was published in the Sunday Times on February 28, 1988.

Radio RSA quoted from the piece two days later:

“The past week saw media attention being paid to the violence in Northern Ireland, Israeli soldiers beating Palestinians, the reporting of uprisings in the Soviet Union as well as the news of the restrictions placed on organizations in South Africa … (I was) shocked by the complexity of the problems in Israel and South Africa, many of which were inherited from British policy decisions. (I was) impressed, however, by the efforts being made to overcome these problems. (I do) not believe that either Tel Aviv or Pretoria takes any more delight in increasing the permanent emergency powers than does the British government in extending its own increasingly permanent emergency powers.”

3. There are prominent and successful blacks in South Africa. Blacks are better off here than elsewhere.

Theme 3. South Africa has undertaken major programs to improve black–white relations—particularly through increasing black participation in the management of the South African economy.

This theme attempted to counter accusations of racism by demonstrating a commitment to improving the situation of blacks in South Africa.

For example, the director of the International Executive Service of South Africa discussed a program to develop small, black-owned businesses in Soweto (March 9, 1988) and the director of South Africa’s Urban Foundation described how the South African business community has tried to respond to the social needs of black South Africans (February 19, 1988).

Moreover, Radio RSA cited studies proving black success in South Africa.

“Contrary to much international criticism that blacks in South Africa lack opportunities, a recent survey shows that increasing numbers of black businessmen are reaching the top in the executive field with local companies.

“(Voice of Trevor Woodburn, head of the Woodburn-Mann consulting organization that conducted the survey) I was absolutely shocked to find that we, in fact, have placed far more blacks at the senior executive levels than most of the consultants around the world—in countries like Britain, Australia, Canada, for example, or even Italy or Germany…”

4. South Africa wants peace and good relations with its neighbors

Theme 4. South Africa maintains a policy of peaceful co-existence and helpfulness toward the other nations of Africa.

Example:

“A spokesman for the South African Department of Foreign Affairs said the positive areas of cooperation between South Africa and Mozambique are often overlooked by the international community. A group of diplomats had been invited so that they could be shown an aspect of the cooperation that existed. The spokesman said it was significant that representations of countries such as Canada and Australia, which have been so vociferous in their criticisms of South Africa, had failed to use the opportunity to see the true state of affairs.” (March 5, 1988)

As well, Radio RSA boasted that South Africa’s “economic strength” and “agricultural and technical know-how” could benefit less-developed countries in Africa:

“South African presence in central Africa has been criticized by the Nigerian government, according to two articles in the Johannesburg press yesterday. But South Africa’s aid to the development of agriculture in Equatorial Guinea will achieve wider acceptance of the fact that South Africa, with its economic strength and depth of agricultural and technical knowhow, is well placed to contribute significantly to development in Africa.” (February 10, 1988)

5. BDS is “counterproductive”

Theme 5. Efforts by foreign states to influence South Africa’s domestic policies through the imposition of negative economic sanctions are both futile and counterproductive. South Africa’s economy is fundamentally sound. A slide backward into recession, unemployment, and falling real income would worsen social problems. The nation’s social-political difficulties are complex and can be solved best by its own people.

Critics of BDS against South Africa often claimed that reforms were under way but could be hindered by negative actions that forced white South Africans to react defensively and “circle the wagons”—often referred to by its Afrikaner term as the “laager” mentality.

Moreover, BDS would hurt the population it sought to help:

“The London branch of the Washington based International Freedom Foundation has issued a publication that questions whether massive disruption of the South African economy is either in the interest of, or supported by, the blacks in South Africa. Entitled Understanding Sanctions, it analyzes opinions held by black South Africans and finds that opposition to sanctions encompasses all sectors, including trade unionists, church and tribal leaders, and the ordinary black population. It say disinvestment hurts no one except those too poor to do anything about it, and that means the vast majority of the black population of South Africa. The publication concluded that for positive reform to accelerate, the West has to take moral courage and positive action in the form of investment in South Africa.” (February 19, 1988)

The International Freedom Foundation, cited above, was a DC-based think-tank covertly funded by the South African government to promote the government’s interests.

6. South Africa resides in a tough neighborhood; South Africa is an asset to the West.

Theme 6. Political and economic instability is widespread across southern Africa. The chief sources of such problems are tribalism, incompetence, crime, corruption, and, most important, foreign interference. South Africa deserves Western support because of its potential as a major stabilizing force on the subcontinent.

With the assertion of this theme, South African national image construction comes full circle. It has moved from the defensive position that criticisms of South Africa’s domestic and foreign policies are based, for the most part, on misunderstanding are hypocrisy, to the offensive position that criticism and negative sanctions should be replaced by various forms of support for South Africa from the West.

To pursue this offensive strategy, it was first necessary to establish that factors, other than the activities of South Africa itself, were responsible for the region’s political and economic problems…[N]umerous items appeared in the top-of-the-hour newscasts that dealt with lack of cooperation, incompetence, and corruption in other African nations and even in Africa’s international organizations…

The position that the Republic of South Africa contributed to such stability as there was in southern Africa, rested on many of the same items presented in support of Theme 4, which expressed South Africa’s helpfulness toward the other nations of the continent. Additional items also were presented that expressed South Africa’s importance to the overall economy of Africa.

Invest, don’t divest

An additional argument stressed in both themes 5 and 6 called for investment, not divestment or sanctions, as a positive and constructive solution for South Africa:

“Investment, not sanctions, is the only way in which Europe (can) contribute towards a peaceful resolution of southern Africa’s problems. South Africa needs assistance in its struggle for stability, not avoidance or neglect.” (March 12, 1988)

And, as previously quoted:

“[D]isinvestment hurts no one except those too poor to do anything about it, and that means the vast majority of the black population of South Africa…[F]or positive reform to accelerate, the West has to take moral courage and positive action in the form of investment in South Africa.” (February 19, 1988)

Conclusion

I have provided only a brief introduction to the themes employed by South Africa in defense of its apartheid regime.

The study cited here had significant limitations. It was an analysis of a one-month period of radio broadcasts, from February 6 to March 5, 1988, constituting forty-five hours of programming. The themes were acknowledged to be both arbitrary and interrelated.

Moreover, the study only concentrated on one medium through which the original apartheid regime disseminated propaganda. There were other methods by which it attempted to get its narrative across and defend itself from criticism.

In future articles, either on Mondoweiss or elsewhere, I will address more specific arguments made in defense of South African apartheid and directly relate them to current arguments in defense of Israel.

I will also be addressing other aspects of the apartheid analogy beyond the arguments made by both South Africa and Israel.

Work cited

Wasburn’s study was published in at least three different sources, cited below.

“The Construction and Defense of National Self-Images: The Case of South Africa,” Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 17:2 (Winter 1989), pp. 203–221.

“The Counter-Propaganda of Radio RSA: The Voice of South Africa,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 33:2 (Spring 1989), pp. 117–138.

Broadcasting Propaganda: International Radio Broadcasting and the Construction of Political Reality, Westport: Praeger, 1992, pp. 117–138.

57 Responses

  1. CigarGod
    April 9, 2012, 12:52 pm

    Great work.
    In yesterdays MW posts, there was again a discussion about media ownership.
    Have you “followed the money” in your South Africa research?

    • Krauss
      April 9, 2012, 11:09 pm

      One thing I noticed right off the bat was the insistence of white rule South Africa to stress the ‘complexity’ of the situation. If we look at the hasbarist #1 in the States, Jeffrey Goldberg, that is also his favourite weapon of choice. Critics must understand the complexity, damn it!

      Of course, Goldberg has a second, potent, weapon which white rule South Africa didn’t. The appeal of minority status in the West. I am talking about the offensive uses of anti-Semitism, as a weapon of choice, to silence critics.

      Third, white rule South Africa didn’t have a strong U.S. domestic lobby to work on it’s behalf.

      Despite all these shortcomings, you are right about the similarities in propaganda effort. And the attempt to stall and smear by the likes of Goldberg should be seen for what they are. Yet, as you have previously pointed out, too many white progressives defer to Jews in these matters. And even among Jews, too many liberal Jews defer to the more right-wing ones(even those with a liberal gloss like Ben Adler at the Nation or the increasingly naked Jeffrey Goldberg).

      The complexity attack is part and parcel of this. But the second attack, that of anti-Semitism, is the one that keeps it in check and prevents too many spineless white progressives from actually doing the hard work like you do and look at the similarities of the propaganda.

      One final thing: I am continually puzzled why the best stories are not put at the top of the frontpage. This should be put as the main story you see as you come and visit. Yet it’s hidden way down among the other stories. It’s a shame. For this long, quality post deserves much more publicity than it gets right now.

  2. Austin Branion
    April 9, 2012, 1:07 pm

    Brilliant! This is such a great idea for an article series, I can’t believe I haven’t seen something like it before. It’s always helpful to counter Zionist talking points using applicable analogies from oppressors in other times and places who’ve already lost the argument. I’m excited for the next installments!

    • David Samel
      April 9, 2012, 6:25 pm

      Austin, I’m trying to figure out how you were able to read my mind so accurately even before I saw Phan’s article. I believe I saw our friend the Hasbara Buster do a brilliant parody a couple of years ago about the similarities between South African and Israeli hasbara but do not have time to look it up now.

      Phan, this is a great and important article, and stands by itself, but the promise of further analysis along these lines is even better. As Austin says, it was an idea waiting to developed, and we’re fortunate it is in such capable hands.

      • Austin Branion
        April 12, 2012, 8:35 am

        What can I say, David? I’m gifted. On that note, I’m currently reading a book called “There Goes My Everything: White Southerners in the Age of Civil Rights, 1945-1975.” The rhetorical similarities and concerns between Zionists and those in favor of the Jim Crow status quo ante–talk of “extremists on both sides,” “outside agitators,” “you can’t really understand unless you’ve been here,” “white southerners may be reasoned with but they’re not going to accept outside pressure or imposed solutions”–is mind blowing. I may steal Phan’s idea and do my own version, “Hasbara in 1954.”

  3. J. Otto Pohl
    April 9, 2012, 1:29 pm

    I remember in college during the 1980s, however, that many of the White people most militantly in support of the most extreme pro-Israeli positions were also prominent in the student anti-apartheid movement. The alliance between South Africa and Israel being a taboo subject among the liberals who hated the first one and loved the second one. The party line then was that there was no comparison between Israel and South Africa because Israel actually was threatened, Jews were a majority in Israel proper, Arabs in Israel proper could vote, and Arabs were an enemy nationality that engaged in terrorism not a race like Black people.

    All of these arguments could have been used to defend South Africa of course. The surrounding African nations were hostile to the apartheid regime and had publicly vowed to liberate its Black population by military force if necessary. Whites were the largest ethnic group according to the divisions established by the South African government which placed the English and Afrikaners in the same group and divided Zulus, Tswana, Xhosa, etc. into different groups. “Coloureds” (mixed race people) and Indians could vote for representatives in powerless bodies. There was political hostility by the ANC, PAC, and others to the White minority regime and much of their armed resistance did not differ from that engaged in by Fatah and other Palestinian groups within Palestine. The racial classification of people in South Africa was done along cultural and ethnic lines rather than genetic and biological grounds and thus was much closer to Israel than to Nazi Germany in its rationale. However, anybody bringing up these points was denounced as an anti-semite and a Nazi. I would like to think it is different today. But, looking on the internet it seems that most liberals still are unconditionally pro-Israel.

    • lysias
      April 9, 2012, 3:09 pm

      When the UN General Assembly passed a resolution declaring Zionism to be racism in 1975, I remember virtually everyone in this country regarded that proposition as self-evidently absurd. I remember being puzzled at the time, because the proposition struck me as pretty clearly true.

  4. HarryLaw
    April 9, 2012, 1:36 pm

    Excellent work Phan, these are the facts which stand a better chance of convincing ordinary people of how wrong Israel/US polices are. Everyone even the least politicised know how utterly wrong Aparthied was in South African and in such recent memory and how similar it is to Palestine today.

  5. Annie Robbins
    April 9, 2012, 1:38 pm

    brilliant as always and very educational. thanks so much.

    does anyone know where the tweet feature dissappeared to?

  6. mudder
    April 9, 2012, 3:14 pm

    From The Montreal Gazette Apr 21, 1964:

    Multi-millionaire industrialist Garfield Weston, defending South Africa’s apartheid policy, said Monday it is ridiculous to give the vote to black Africans.
    “Let’s get this straight. This (South Africa) never was a black country,” said Mr. Weston who has 6,000 employees in South Africa.
    Mr. Weston, recently returned from a three-months trip to South Africa, said it is ridiculous to “try to force South Africa thorough the United Nations to give the vote to millions of colored men whose morals are not ours and whose Christian ethics are completely absent.”
    Speaking at the annual meeting of George Weston Company Limited, Mr. Weston said the word apartheid “simply means that you segregate the blacks into their own areas.”
    Mr. Weston said the South African Government’s housing for black South Africans was as good as any public housing in England “and, believe me, every black piccaninny or black mammy can call on the government for a solution to any social problem.”
    He said the government is raising the living standard of black South Africans by five percent a year and urged Canadians to visit the country for proof that new reports are exaggerated.
    “In our company we’ve got white boys, Bantu boys and Basuto boys all working together and never once did I see a scowl on any one of their faces,” he said.

  7. Emily
    April 9, 2012, 3:21 pm

    I was researching this a year or two ago and found this to be a great source:

    “Apartheid Whitewash: South Africa Propaganda in the United States”

    link to africanactivist.msu.edu

    link to kora.matrix.msu.edu

  8. Blake
    April 9, 2012, 4:03 pm

    Great article. You could add that apartheid South Africa used to claim black people migrated “from the north” quite some time after the first European settlers arrived in the Cape (1652) and that the indigenous Hottentots “had become extinct”.

    • lysias
      April 9, 2012, 5:07 pm

      Wkipedia confirms that the Xhosa, the most southerly group speaking a Bantu language, did not make contact with the Boers (who were themselves migrating north from the Cape) in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

      It is a fact generally accepted by linguists that the Bantu languages spread through the southern half of Africa only in relatively recent times. This is what I learned when I studied linguistics over 40 years ago, and I recently heard John McWhorter confirm it in one of his DVD courses from the Teaching Company.

      • Blake
        April 14, 2012, 9:15 am

        That may be true for the Xhosas and for the Cape but South Africa is a lot more country than just the Cape.

  9. seafoid
    April 9, 2012, 4:11 pm

    link to nybooks.com

    “The book is a history of twentieth-century thought. It begins with his reflections on Jewish idealism

    What is Jewish idealism today? It got swapped for a land fetish and what Judt called ” fanaticism and myopic, exclusivist tunnel vision”
    Where is the idealism? It’s gone
    Can it be resurrected ? Sure it can.
    Post apartheid.

  10. The Hasbara Buster
    April 9, 2012, 4:59 pm

    I first drew attention to the similarities between the Israeli and South African hasbaras here. My article was in jest, but I’m glad you’re now doing a serious, systematic study of the issue.

  11. lysias
    April 9, 2012, 5:14 pm

    Speaking of South Africa in 1988, I recently read Fidel Castro’s autobiography (as told in interviews to the journalist Ignacio Ramonet,) and learned to my surprise that there was a big battle at Cuito Cuanavale in Angola in 1988 in which Castro claims his Cuban forces defeated the South Africans (Wikipedia says both sides claimed victory,) after which South African withdrawal from Namibia, the release of Mandela, and the end of apartheid followed in short order. If I had ever heard of that battle before then, I had completely forgotten about it. And yet it was apparently one of the decisive battles of world history.

  12. stevelaudig
    April 9, 2012, 7:23 pm

    On this anniversary of Lee’s surrender to a person who continues to rise in my esteem the more I learn of him, Grant, the thought, triggered by this analogy, of what “Radio CSA” would have sounded like, arises. After the War to Defend Slavery oops I mean the War for Southern Secession was over, it was repped as never being “about slavery” even though Southern American Apartheid-like practices have continued.

  13. eljay
    April 9, 2012, 7:55 pm

    South Africa:
    – was not a glorious Jewish state; and
    – was not created as a “necessary” evil (“currently not necessary”) in the aftermath of the Holocaust.

    Jewish state: 1
    Anti-semites: 0

    ;-)

  14. mudder
    April 9, 2012, 8:37 pm

    great link, Emily!

  15. Shingo
    April 9, 2012, 9:10 pm

    This is a superb piece of work Phan,

    Thank you for compiling this. It will serve to truly sink the brand Israel initiative, which has to be a good thing.

  16. CloakAndDagger
    April 9, 2012, 9:53 pm

    Holy cow! I had no idea that the parallels that exist between then and now! No wonder Israel was such an ally of South Africa.

    Well done, sir!

  17. CloakAndDagger
    April 9, 2012, 9:59 pm

    I would love to see a table with two columns: the left column containing the facts that Phan has provided, and will provide in the future, and the right column with the Israeli mirror.

    Now that would be a very powerful tool!

  18. stevelaudig
    April 10, 2012, 12:35 am

    South Africa:
    – was not a glorious Jewish state; and
    – was not created as a “necessary” evil (“currently not necessary”) in the aftermath of the Holocaust.

    Jewish state: 1
    Anti-semites: 0

    Afrikaners didn’t claim God had promised them South Africa, or did they?

    Not claiming to talk to God and a God promise: 1
    Jewish State: 0

  19. seafoid
    April 10, 2012, 4:08 am

    Super bit of work on polishing the turd of apartheid.
    South Africa was sunk when the Berlin wall fell.
    What will be the catalyst for Israel?

  20. giladg
    April 10, 2012, 5:49 am

    No True Comparison Should Be Made By Rational Thinking People

    * In SA whites where not indigenous to the country. They arrived on boats from Europe. Jews, on the other hand, have always lived in the land now called Israel and have long standing, legitimate rights.
    * In SA whites are a minority. In Israel Jews are the majority.
    * In SA only whites could vote. In Israel Arabs can vote and have full rights by law.
    * In SA, blacks could only work in specified areas. In Israel, Arabs can work where they please.
    * In SA, blacks had separate hospitals. In Israel all hospitals are shared
    * In SA, blacks had separate schools. In Israel, Arabs and Jews share the same schools and universities.
    * In SA, blacks had separate toilets. Not In Israel.

    * In SA, there were no regional wars threatening the existence of the white population and there was no mass support amongst blacks for violence against whites. In Israel, multiple wars have been waged by Arab armies bent on destroying the Jewish state. Palestinians have always supported the Arab armies in this quest and have taken part in the attacks. Many Israeli Arabs have supported suicide bombers and have taken up this practice themselves. In SA this never happened.

    The Arab world has hijacked the term “Apartheid” to unjustly de-legitimize Israel, the only true democracy in the Middle East. Those who understand Apartheid and who have not been brainwashed by the Palestinian and anti-Semitic propaganda machines, will be able to determine for themselves that what is going on in Israel has nothing to do with Apartheid.

    If Israel affords full rights to Israeli Arabs, there is no reason, other than real security concerns, that should block allowing Arabs in the “West Bank” and Gaza the same levels of freedom. Only that the Arabs have been responsible for much of the violence and havoc in the region, but somehow the “rational” thinking liberals let them off the hook. No demands on the Palestinians, what-so-ever, and no expectations either.

    • Woody Tanaka
      April 10, 2012, 9:09 am

      Yawn. Anyone want to waste the time on this clown? Or is it too easy to rebut his hasbara that it’s not even worth the effort?

      • CigarGod
        April 10, 2012, 11:28 am

        I think he should get credit for his memorization skills…unless he is just hitting the “play” button on his programing…

    • Shingo
      April 10, 2012, 9:21 am

      No True Comparison Should Be Made By Rational Thinking People

      Because according to Gilad, Nelson Mandella, Desmond Tutu, or Hendrik Verwoerd (prime minister of South Africa in 1961 and the architect of South Africa’s apartheid policies) are not rational people, but he is.

      In SA whites where not indigenous to the country.

      Most Jews indigenous to Palestine. They arrived on boats from Europe or from other Middle Eastern contries.

      * In SA whites are a minority. In Israel Jews are the majority.

      Israel Jews only became a majority by ethnic cleansing and are a minorty in Palestine.

      In SA only whites could vote

      In Israel Arabs can vote but do not have full rights by law.

      In SA, blacks could only work in specified areas.

      In Israel, Arabs are excluded from certain high paying jobs.

      In SA, blacks had separate hospitals. In Israel all hospitals are shared

      Some are shared, but most are not. As the participant from Big Brother explained, Jews and Arabs only come across one another in 2 cities and are almost entirely segregated.

      In SA, blacks had separate schools

      In Israel, Jews and Arabs attend schools. In fact, even Haredi Jews are segregated from Serpahrdic Jews.

      In SA, there were no regional wars threatening the existence of the white population

      In Israel, there were no regional wars threatening the existence of the Jewish population. There is no mass support amongst Palestinians for violence against Jews. But like Palestinians, there were blakc resistance groups that carried out what were considered terrorist attacks. The ANC was considered a terrorist group in the US and Britain.

      The Arab world has hijacked the term “Apartheid” to unjustly de-legitimize Israel

      Israel has adopted aparthid pracices and de-legitimized itself. Aerial Sharon even fell in love with the idea of Bantustans to solver the Palestinian problem.

      Thanks for illustrating that Israel is indeed an apartheid state.

      As Desmond Tutu said, it’s actually a lot worse than apartheid.

    • seafoid
      April 10, 2012, 11:27 am

      * In SA, blacks had separate schools. In Israel, Arabs and Jews share the same schools and universities.

      “Arabs” don’t get to go to university in Israel, gilad. Show the university participation numbers for Israeli Jews and Israeli Palestinians to all the nice people.

      • giladg
        April 10, 2012, 1:48 pm

        The medical school in Haifa has a majority of Arab students. Fifty five percent to be precise. Do you want more examples? And you might be interested to know that Christians in Israel, on average, are better educated that Israeli Jews, and on average, earn more. You also might be interested to know that Arabs own a majority of privately owned land in Israel.

      • mig
        April 10, 2012, 2:52 pm

        giladg :

        You also might be interested to know that Arabs own a majority of privately owned land in Israel.

        And rest of the land own by who ?

      • seafoid
        April 10, 2012, 3:43 pm

        Giladg

        Show me the overall numbers for Israel. And the medical school in Haifa represents what percentage of all university places in Israel? In what sense is it representative?

        How many christians are there in Israel? Again, give me a percentage.
        Show me the link to the data.

        “Arabs own a majority of private land in Israel”. 93% of the land is not private. It’s “owned” by the state. It really belongs to the Palestinians of course. Because it was stolen!

        You can polish that turd but you can’t mask the smell of Zionism.

      • mig
        April 10, 2012, 3:49 pm

        giladg :

        The medical school in Haifa has a majority of Arab students. Fifty five percent to be precise.

        And someones say that there is something smelling in that medical school :

        link to technionteams.com

        By the way, from which country those arabs are… ?

    • andrew r
      April 10, 2012, 1:57 pm

      * In SA whites where not indigenous to the country. They arrived on boats from Europe. Jews, on the other hand, have always lived in the land now called Israel and have long standing, legitimate rights.

      This might’ve had a speck of merit except the Zionist colonies made distinctions between Oriental Jews and Ashkenazim. Even among Jews the colonial pattern of reserving the most menial and least-paying jobs for the natives (and paying them less for the same work for that matter!) while settlers were in more comfortable positions replicated itself. This is a section from ‘Land, Labor’ by Gershon Shafir (p. 105) to get an idea of how segregated the moshavim were.

      Upon their arrival, Yemenite Jewish immigrants could “choose” to live in either cow-sheds or stables, under the open sky, to erect wooden huts or, if they were lucky, to move into temporary shelters such as cellars, depots, etc. Between 1912 and 1914, the JNF, in cooperation with the PO, financed the construction of more durable homes. These consisted, according to Druyan’s painstaking research, of either tiny single-dwelling houses, some in fact built by the immigrants themselves, or of long wooden barracks, that contained eight to ten rooms. All of these accomodations, Druyan sums up, sufficed for no more than 30% of the Yemenite immigrants in the colonies. The houses were built in separate quarters, at some distance from the existing moshavot: Shaarayim near Rechovot, Machane Yehuda near Petach Tikvah, Nachliel near Hadera, Nachlat Yehuda near Rishon Letzion. (63) These quarters, or shall we call them slums, were built either from the donations of various philanthropic bodies, or with the monies of a special drive for the construction of the Jemenitenhauser. Some of the money collected for the express purpose of building homes for the Yemenite Jewish workers, was diverted to other purposes for both YJ and Ashkenazi workers though, occasionally, Ruppin also spent money on construction prior to its authorization from Cologne. The YJ residents were forced to pay either monthly or yearly rents. (64) When the dimensions of the housing shortage were revealed, the heads of the WZO in Germany refused to spend much of the very limited budgets of their, at the time, objectively poor movement on philanthropic aid. They were willing to spend money on the YJ only commensurate with their “value” for the overall colonization goal of the Zionist movement.

      And of course the Kibbutzim were created for the express purpose of barring Mideasterners, even if they were Jewish, from competing with the Ashkenazi workers.

      • lysias
        April 10, 2012, 2:37 pm

        Tony Judt confirms in Thinking the Twentieth Century that there were no Arabs working on the kibbutzim where he lived in the 1960’s.

    • Matt Giwer
      April 11, 2012, 5:07 pm

      Do you really think this stuff has not been refuted a thousand times over? You should learn the subject before you post such transparent nonsense.

      * In SA whites where not indigenous to the country. They arrived on boats from Europe. Jews, on the other hand, have always lived in the land now called Israel and have long standing, legitimate rights.

      Judeans did liver there at one time. They left of their own free will. The world does not recognize any claims based upon ancestry.

      * In SA whites are a minority. In Israel Jews are the majority.

      By virtue of criminal murder and expulsion of the native population. Murder, expulsion and theft are crimes. They cannot be rewarded.

      * In SA only whites could vote. In Israel Arabs can vote and have full rights by law.

      They do not have equal rights as everyone knows. They cannot bring their relatives or even spouses to Israel for automatic citizenship. There are many other examples.

      * In SA, blacks could only work in specified areas. In Israel, Arabs can work where they please.

      Were there not such rampant and criminal discrimination and segregation in Israel that might have meaning. But they can’t get hired save in menial jobs. They are denied decent educations. They are largely forced to live in ghettos. Almost all of Israel’s housing laws and policies are criminal in the US. The list is much longer if you were in the least interested.

      * In SA, blacks had separate hospitals. In Israel all hospitals are shared

      And if there were any near the non-Jewish ghetto towns that might mean something.

      * In SA, blacks had separate schools. In Israel, Arabs and Jews share the same schools and universities.

      That is a blatant lie. Israeli schools are segregated. I agree there are a few token non-Jews in the universities. Don’t come back until the representation every place is in proportion to the population. Please do not tell us the darkies aren’t as interested in learning.

      * In SA, blacks had separate toilets. Not In Israel.

      Got me there. Israel has equal access to toilets. But until they have equal access to buildings it is sort of meaningless.

      * In SA, there were no regional wars threatening the existence of the white population and there was no mass support amongst blacks for violence against whites. In Israel, multiple wars have been waged by Arab armies bent on destroying the Jewish state. Palestinians have always supported the Arab armies in this quest and have taken part in the attacks. Many Israeli Arabs have supported suicide bombers and have taken up this practice themselves. In SA this never happened.

      Listen up. Jews wiped Palestine off the map. No one misses it. No one will miss Israel if the favor is returned.

      The Palestinians who avoided death and expulsion in 1948 were driven from their land and lived until a military dictatorship until 1966. They were forced off their land and into ghettos. In 1950 they were declared “present absent” and their land was stolen under color of law. Not all Jews are Zionists but all Zionists are thieves and murderers. They put it in writing and then did it. Read their literature and confirm this is true.

    • Dex
      April 13, 2012, 7:29 pm

      Ashkenazi Jews are NOT indigenous to Palestine you brainiac! How difficult is that for you to understand?!

  21. mig
    April 10, 2012, 10:34 am

    giladg :

    * In SA only whites could vote. In Israel Arabs can vote and have full rights by law.

    vs.

    If Israel affords full rights to Israeli Arabs, there is no reason, other than real security concerns

    So which one is it ? Two contradicting arguments. First there is full rights, and then you take it little back.

    • giladg
      April 10, 2012, 1:53 pm

      mig, if you are active on the streets and/or on websites like this, then you need to learn about what is really going on in the region. Israel does not differentiate between Arab and Arab. Israel differentiates in those who are peaceful and those who are not. Those who pose a threat to the existence of Israel and those who are willing to live with Israel. The Arabs in the “West Bank” and Gaza voted over 70% for Hamas in the elections they held. Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel and is working toward that goal. If someone wants to wipe you off the map, are you going to help them?

      • Woody Tanaka
        April 10, 2012, 2:47 pm

        “Israel does not differentiate between Arab and Arab. Israel differentiates in those who are peaceful and those who are not.”

        Oh, I see, so a totally peaceful Arab from Hebron has complete freedom to visit “Tel-Aviv” the greater Jaffa area at will? And a totally peaceful Arab man from Galilee, aged 18, can visit al-Aqsa mosque in al-Quds for Friday prayers during Ramadan without any interference from the ruling “Israelis” Palestinian Jews?

      • giladg
        April 10, 2012, 4:27 pm

        A Muslim from Egypt traveling to Mecca in Saudi Arabia, needs to get a visa and take his passport. He cannot just turn up in Mecca at will.
        And you might want to consider the following regarding al-Aqsa mosque. There are about 1.5 million Israeli Arabs. There are about the same amount of Arabs in the “west bank” and Gaza. Whatever arrangement is reached at the end of process, assuming that Israel still exists, either Muslims from Israel will need to take passports to enter al-Aksa, or Muslims from the ‘west bank” and Gaza will need to take their passports. Why is this hard to understand? One of these parties is going to be upset. There are things called borders and security.

      • giladg
        April 10, 2012, 5:20 pm

        The Temple Mount, which was originally build for the First and Second Jewish Temples on top of which al-Aksa has now been built, is the holiest site for Jews and is the third holiest site for Muslims. On the one side we have Israeli Jews + Israeli Muslims, both of which can access the Temple Mount freely. On the other side we have the Palestinian Muslims from the “west bank” and Gaza. Jordan is also 70% Palestinian.
        The Temple Mount cannot be in two countries at the same time where the public from both countries can access at will. Whatever the deal, there will be Muslims who on one side or another, who have to request access from the other. And this tells you a lot about the actual plans of the Arabs who want to destroy the State of Israel. So the Jews who are supporting the Palestinian cause have no idea what they are doing.
        Getting back to traveling from one area/country to another. The same principle applies to someone in Hebron who wants to visit Jaffa. For those who remember the situation before the first intifada and before Oslo, Arabs from Hebron could visit Jaffa and the rest of the country. It was the Palestinian move to extreme violence that brought on the self defense measures by Israel. The Palestinians are to blame for this.

      • Woody Tanaka
        April 11, 2012, 9:18 am

        “A Muslim from Egypt traveling to Mecca in Saudi Arabia, needs to get a visa and take his passport. He cannot just turn up in Mecca at will.”

        What does this have to do with anything? IsraelThe Jews occupying Palestine regularly prevent the free exercise of non-Jewish religions, both Christian and Muslim. That is the point.

        “There are about 1.5 million Israeli Arabs. There are about the same amount of Arabs in the “west bank” and Gaza.”

        False. While the number of Arabs in Israel the Zionist Entity, there are about 3,750,000 Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza.

        “arrangement is reached at the end of process, assuming that Israel still exists, either Muslims from Israel will need to take passports to enter al-Aksa, or Muslims from the ‘west bank” and Gaza will need to take their passports. Why is this hard to understand?”

        It’s not. The Jews occupying Palestine do more than merely require a passport to enter the Zionist Entity. They limit the free exercise of religion, even among those people who pose no threat to the Zionist Entity. So you were simply wrong that that is the only criteria being applied to the evil occupiers. That is the point.

      • Woody Tanaka
        April 11, 2012, 9:25 am

        “On the one side we have Israeli Jews + Israeli Muslims, both of which can access the Temple Mount freely.”

        Wrong. The Zionist Entity’s gunmen regularly refuse Muslims, even Palestinan citizens of the Zionist Entity, free access to al-Aqsa on al-Haram al-Sharif in al-Quds.

        “The Temple Mount cannot be in two countries at the same time where the public from both countries can access at will. Whatever the deal, there will be Muslims who on one side or another, who have to request access from the other.”

        That isn’t the issue. The issue is your claim that the Zionist Entity “differentiates in those who are peaceful and those who are not.” This is a lie.

        When al-Haram al-Sharif is properly under Palestinian soverignty, then no doubt there will be proper mechanisms in place for Jews who are peaceful to access the so-called “Temple Mount,” too.

        “It was the Palestinian move to extreme violence that brought on the self defense measures by Israel. The Palestinians are to blame for this.”

        And I’ll bet you blame rape victims for fighting back, too, don’t you?

      • Matt Giwer
        April 11, 2012, 5:22 pm

        “A Muslim from Egypt traveling to Mecca in Saudi Arabia, needs to get a visa and take his passport. He cannot just turn up in Mecca at will.”

        Straw man. No one has said Israel is any better than Saudi.

      • Matt Giwer
        April 11, 2012, 5:26 pm

        “The Temple Mount, which was originally build for the First and Second Jewish Temples on top of which al-Aksa has now been built, is the holiest site for Jews and is the third holiest site for Muslims. ”

        The myth that there Herodian temple, the only one known to have existed, was on that hill first appeared in history in the mid 19th c. AD. That was about a decade before the jewish sacrament of Bar Mitzvah was invented based upon the bible story of the young Jesus in the temple.

        You don’t know a thing about jewish history do you?

      • Chu
        April 10, 2012, 3:33 pm

        giladg:
        You failed to respond to mig’s question. In the least, you could have acknowledged the blatant contradiction.

        But you seem to be saying Israel affords rights to the good Arabs and not the bad ones that vote for Hamas. But Arabs inside Israel cannot vote for Hamas, so what are you saying?

      • ErsatzYisrael
        April 10, 2012, 4:34 pm

        giladg says:

        “If someone wants to wipe you off the map, are you going to help them?”

        Giladog, the last time I checked Jews were (amongst other things): a nation, a people, a girl group, an ethnic group, a religious group, a tribe, secular, Israelis, a state, an ethnoreligious group, the Canaanites, a country, Arabs, a very special people indeed, Muslims, the chosen people, Israel, a culture, the Hebrews, a Semitic people, a nation state, a race, a nationality, the Israelites, culture vultures, Christians, Nazis, the neo-Hebrews, boy geniuses, Zionists, cake addicts who just can’t get enough of the stuff.

        AFAIK, however, not a single Jew has claimed to be (as of yet): made of paper, an ink creation, formed from pixels of light.

        So, please try not to worry too much should someone ever threaten “to wipe you off the map”.

      • CigarGod
        April 10, 2012, 5:36 pm

        You might have missed the article where the IDF went to arrest a 2 year old boy they thought had a slingshot.

      • Bumblebye
        April 10, 2012, 6:46 pm

        Well, CG, 2 year olds are notorious for throwing things! Maybe a tossed teddy bounced off an IOF helmet, humiliating the wearer. A little bit of exageration later, this poor old ted becomes a slingshot, and 2 year olds must be arrested. He must be deterred from throwing things ever again, or his aim would improve, and he might chose to throw lethal pebbles by the time he’s 4 years old!

      • CigarGod
        April 10, 2012, 10:37 pm

        Yep…and they do wander off easily…probably to plant…..

        Except that we own just about all the Arab/Muslim leaders/dictators/monarchs in the world…the people of these countries could get toether and have an effective counter-propaganda campaign and showcase brilliant military moves like that.

      • Matt Giwer
        April 11, 2012, 5:20 pm

        “Israel does not differentiate between Arab and Arab.”

        Is that supposed to be clever? Israel discriminates between Jew and non-Jew. It is right there in their basic laws. The discrimination is worse than in old Selma Alabama. Israel builds segregated housing.

        Whether or not you like the folks in the occupied territories, how can that excuse the tyrannical, malevolent, jewish, military dictatorship imposed upon them? Why the gratuitous, sadistic tyranny?

        The oppressed have an absolute right to kill off even benevolent dictators. If they must imitate the Jewish destruction of Palestine and wiping it off the map, that is as it should be to tyrants. Tyrants have no right to life. Tyrants have no excuses or defense for being tyrants even if they are jewish tyrants.

        End the malevolent dictatorship now.

  22. mig
    April 10, 2012, 2:49 pm

    giladg :

    Those who pose a threat to the existence of Israel and those who are willing to live with Israel.

    Existential threat my bum. Go and tell this someone else…

    The Arabs in the “West Bank” and Gaza voted over 70% for Hamas in the elections they held.

    And you poor thing dont even know why they voted Hamas to power after all….my my…

    If someone wants to wipe you off the map, are you going to help them?

    You just cant quit that nonsense, dont ya’ ?

  23. eljay
    April 10, 2012, 2:50 pm

    >> … you need to learn about what is really going on in the region.

    You appear to have missed an important memo about what is really going on in the region. It includes the following facts:
    – Israel is a religion-supremacist Jewish state born of terrorism and ethnic cleansing.
    – This religion-supremacist state remains engaged in a 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder.
    – This religion-supremacist state has the power to halt its campaign immediately and completely, but it refuses to do so.
    – This religion-supremacist state also refuses to enter into sincere negotiations for a just and mutually-beneficial peace.

  24. andrew r
    April 10, 2012, 3:04 pm

    “Israel differentiates in those who are peaceful and those who are not.”

    Oh man, this is just not worth the effort. It can be refuted by reading most of the articles here.

  25. lysias
    April 10, 2012, 7:16 pm

    Interesting paragraph from Jennifer Nelson, The Role the Dutch Reformed Church Played in the Rise and Fall of Apartheid:

    The history of the Dutch settlers (later to become the Afrikaners), bound to their strong Calvinistic beliefs, became the cornerstone of white South African history in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The Great Trek (the emigration from the Eastern Cape Colony into the interior of Southern Africa by some 12,000 to 14,000 Dutch-speaking farmers between 1834 and the early 1840s) is regarded by Afrikaners as a central event of their history and the origin of their nationhood. It was during The Great Trek that the Afrikaans language and their unique culture developed. It was during this period that the Afrikaners’ attitude toward the British hardened and the Afrikaner philosophy of apartheid (separateness) was formulated. It was during The Great Trek that the Afrikaners came to believe that they were a “chosen race” and that it was their “manifest destiny” to populate the areas north of the Orange River.

Leave a Reply