Conference taveng::bagels

Mandela spends a quarter of a century in jail, and when he gets out, what
happens?  People start whining because his view of the world doesn't show much
more insight than that of the average political leader.  What do you expect
from him, anyhow?


> Question: Do you think Mandela is an Anti-Semite?

No more so than the average person.


> Does he really care about Israel at all?

Yeah, about as much as the average Israeli cares about South Africa, or the
average American cares about Burma, or the average Peruvian cares about
Rumania, or ...


A better question is, why do *we* care so much about what Mandela thinks of us?
Let's face it, gang, at this point he has a lot of more immediate concerns on
his mind.

    re: .1
    
    He said it all.
    
    --David

    Mandela served 27 years for being a terrorist, now he's a free
    terrorist who is in the same rank as his heroes, Gadhafi, Arafat,
    and Castro.  To call these people vermine is to give rats a bad
    name.  
    
    What kind of message is the US government giving the world's 
    impressionable youth with this red carpet treatment?  It's a 
    cockeyed, @&!#*ing world!  None are so blind as those who refuse
    to see.
    
    Bernice

.3>    Mandela served 27 years for being a terrorist ...

Wrong.  He was convicted specifically for activities against the South African
state.  That may constitute treason, but not terrorism.


.3>    None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

Yup.

    Re. .4
    
    And what was that activity?  
    He planted bombs in parliament.
                                   
    Bernice

re .1:

>> Question: Do you think Mandela is an Anti-Semite?
>
>No more so than the average person.
>
>> Does he really care about Israel at all?
>
>Yeah, about as much as the average Israeli cares about South Africa, or the
>average American cares about Burma, or the average Peruvian cares about
>Rumania, or ...

my point exactly!!!

what does this say about our "jewish leaders" who seem to have nothing better 
to do than run around seeking approval from every goy they can get their hands
on (from the Pope on down...) ?????

.5>    He planted bombs in parliament.

Not everyone would consider attacking governmental institutions to be an act of
terrorism.  This is especially so when that government provides no legal means
of political expression for a majority of its population.

Also, I wonder what the attendance record of South African MPs is like.  I know
that if a bomb were to go off in the chambers of the United States Congress or
Israeli Knesset, it'd probably cause only property damage.  :-)



.6> what does this say about our "jewish leaders" who seem to have nothing
.6> better to do than run around seeking approval from every goy they can get
.6> their hands on (from the Pope on down...) ?????

It's a hangover from the galut mentality of the past.  They figure that if they
make friends with the goyim in positions of power, that'll protect them from
the anti-Semitism of the mob.  It worked sometimes in the Middle Ages, so they
hope it'll still work now.

    I just read all of note 952 (7 previous replies), and I noted that
    the issue [ is Nelson Mandela a terrorist? ] was with one exception
    danced around, like the respondants were politicians.
    
    As a jew I am outraged that a convicted felon, who publically supports
    and endorses all of Israel's enemies, as well as America's enemies
    has had an audience with the president, as well as congress.
    
    Wake up guys.  Looking for consolation as to the potential that
    NM is not an anti-semite, is parallel to the German Jews discounting
    the words in 1938 of the then fledgling Nazi party.
    
    shalom,
            Ron

re .1:


> A better question is, why do *we* care so much about what Mandela thinks of us?


One reason to pay attention is that the black community in this country has 
turned him into a prophet and a hero.  If his words are interpreted as being
anti-Israel/anti-semetic, it does not do much for Black/Jewish relations right
here in our own backyards.

    Frankly .3 and a few other replies in this note make me feel quite
    disappointed in some of the present BAGELS community.  A man spends 27
    years in a South African prison on trumped-up allegations, and because
    he came out and embraced Arafat, and didn't mouthed the words that we
    wanted to him to say about the Middle East than you equate him with
    Hitler, real intelligent.
    
    How should Mandela react to Israel, who after all has had a strange and
    intertwined relationship with the RSA?  If you want to call anybody a
    terrorist in SA than talk about the government in the same breath.
    
    Yes, if I were designing the life of Nelson Mandela now I'd have him
    fly straight to Lod, embrace Shamir, not Arafat, and heap praises on
    our state.  But reality is different.
    
    Why should Israel pay closer attention to Mandela and the ANC?  For the
    same reasons that it maintains relations with the RSA.
    
    --David

    Re. .10
    
    No comparison has been made here to Hitler, he's in a league all 
    his own.  Mandela's MO is more in line with the scum previously
    mentioned.  Trumped-up allegations huh, his crime was never appealed,
    he's proud of it, he's saying out loud he wants to do it again and
    asks for assistance.  A very difficult situation in SA is only 
    exacerbated by threats of violence and makes a good case for a police 
    state.  Strategy for resolution to the inequalities that exist in SA is
    a huge subject for another topic.  
    
    When Mandela embraces those who would love nothing more than for Israel 
    and the Jews to become extinct then "I'm disappointed".  In this country 
    of hero worshipers and blind faith, "I'm disappointed" that this hoodlum 
    is getting the royal treatment to impress those who would be impressed.  
    Yoshki himself wouldn't be treated any better.  I would suggest to you 
    that you get your "disappointment" priorities in order.   
    
    Bernice                  

Re: .10

>    How should Mandela react to Israel, who after all has had a strange and
>    intertwined relationship with the RSA? 

Please. Israel's dealings with SA amounts to .4% of that country's foreign
trade. 100% of SA's fuel comes from Arab countries. Israel's "trade" is
just another "Jewish conspiracy" dreamed up by anti-Semites (no, I'm not
calling you an anti-Semite) and others who will know no rest until Eretz 
Israel is finally relieved of its sinister Zionist regime. Let's try to
live up to our hallowed (if not hollow) title, "People of the Book", and
not be taken in by the propoganda machines of our enemies. 

I'm rather curious as to why we hear so much about SA, and so very little
about various genocide campaigns carried out by black African dictatorships.
"Necklacing." What a lovely euphemism. 

Jem

    re .12> 100% of SA's fuel comes from Arab countries.
    
    Well, maybe if you mean "100% of the imported oil".  I haven't
    seen a breakdown of oil imports into South Africa, but I'd guess
    that while some small fraction might be non-Arab, the bulk
    would be from the Middle East, as the African producers might
    restrict direct exports to South Africa.  Indirect exports are
    probably another story altogether!
    
    South Africa has essentially no oil of its own, but it has lots
    of coal, and has continued to use coal where other countries use
    oil (trains, for example), and to gasify coal where a liquid fuel
    is required.  This means that if imports are cut off altogether,
    the country does not stop--it is largely self-sufficient in energy,
    and if you mean "100% of all the energy used", then you are wrong.
    
    			-John Bishop

    The numbers that I read (sorry, I do not remember the source now) were
    that the dollar volume of oil alone imported from Arab countries exceeds 
    all the trade between Israel and South Africa.  Another Jewish
    conspiracy.
    
    Leo

Yes, Mandela definitely is buddy-buddy with a lot of scummy people.  That does
*not* mean that he is a terrorist; it means that some of his friends are
terrorists.

No, I don't like Mandela publicly embracing Yasir Arafat in front of the
photographers.  But is it morally different from the US State Department
quietly meeting Arafat's people behind closed doors?  Should we condemn Mandela
for being more open than James Baker?

Also, don't forget that many of Mandela's political ideas are based on
ideologies that were widely followed before he entered prison, but have been
largely discredited since then.  He was released only a few months ago, and men
in their seventies are not known for quickly adapting to changing
circumstances.  One can hope that Mandela will learn not to try to apply an
early-1960's view of the world to the early 1990's, but one shouldn't expect an
instantaneous transformation.


.8>                                         ... the German Jews discounting
.8>    the words in 1938 of the then fledgling Nazi party.

I don't see how ignorance of history will help us fight anti-Semitism.  In
1938, the Nazi party had been running the German government for 5 years.  It
was in that year that the leaders of this "fledgling" party led the German army
into Austria and Czechoslovakia.


.9> One reason to pay attention is that the black community in this country has 
.9> turned him into a prophet and a hero.

The American black community is about as sophisticated in its choice of heroes
as is the American white community.  Nelson Mandela is neither Martin Luther
King nor Louis Farrakhan, but he certainly has the capability to be a lot
closer to the former than the latter.

I guess that I braced for more of a torrent of replies...

First of all let me point out that I did mention the trade issue of other 
countries trading more heavily with SA than Israel, etc.  So what?  I use that 
argument too, but after a while it rings a bit hollow.  

Nelson Mandela might be buddies with enemies of our state, but he was looking
after his interest, and isn't that how Israel's arms trade with a few 
unsavoury countries/dictators is justified?  Wasn't it a contradiction when we
saw Israeli support in Paraguay, a country that knowingly hid Nazi war
criminals?

If we want to continue to be "people of the book", then we have to oppose
racism and fascism, wherever.  Temporary alliances have long-term
ramifications.

--David

<.16>(CHERSON)

>I did mention the trade issue of other countries trading more heavily with SA
>than Israel, etc.  So what?  I use that argument too, but after a while it
>rings a bit hollow. 

Can you explain why a pefectly legitimite point "rings hollow" after a while?
Does truth get moldy with age?  I'm not so much concerned with this particular
point, as with the phenomemon in general.  We are embarassed to trot out the
same points Israel has been using for years because they may sound trite.
For example:

	- Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.
	- Israel is a tiny country surrounded by over a hundred million Arabs,
	  most of whom want to destroy her.

These are only a couple of examples of things Israel's more "sophisticated"
friends never say anymore, because it's all been said before, and everyone's
tired of hearing it.  Aren't you a little embarassed even reading it?

So why is it that Israel's enemies can repeat the same lies over and over
again, and nobody gets tired of saying them and repeating them?

Sid

Article 15663 of soc.culture.jewish:
Path: shlump.nac.dec.com!bacchus.pa.dec.com!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!samsung!crackers!cpoint!martillo
From: [email protected] (Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo)
Newsgroups: soc.rights.human,soc.culture.african,soc.culture.african.american,soc.culture.jewish,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Mandela in Perspective
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 22 Jun 90 13:20:04 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.african.american
Organization: Clearpoint Research Corp.
Lines: 191
Xref: shlump.nac.dec.com soc.rights.human:3165 soc.culture.african:1891 soc.culture.african.american:492 soc.culture.jewish:15663 talk.politics.misc:40387 talk.politics.mideast:12466

As the U.S. media and the blood and violence groupies of the left go
gaga over the Magical Mandela Tour, we should put the events and
personalities in perspective.  Releasing Mandela if it represents the
beginning of dismantling apartheid was an excellent act, but the
ideology which Mandela represents is sort of a turd on the world
political scene.  

The Wall Street Journal on page A20, Tuesday, June 19, 1990 has
a useful analysis of "Mr. Mandela's Friends.

Nelso Mandela survived 27 years in a South African prison.  It
remains to be seen whether he can survive a two-week visit with the
American media.  Mr. Mandela's visit to the United States is
scheduled to receive staturation TV coverage, and by its end, there's
little doubt that Mr. Mandela will sit in the eyes of many millions
of Americans as a man of courage and moral stature.  We're more than
a little worried, however, that the bright lights are going to wash
out most of the complex political issues that swirl around this man
and his country.

Mr. Mandela arrives in the U.S. tomorrow and will address a joint
session of Congress next week.  While most such events will focus on
Mr. Mandela as a symbol of determined resistance to apartheid, he is
in fact the leader of an organization, the African National Congress,
that is itself divided over the means appropriate to dismantle
apartheid. 

Back in South Africa, militant blacks accuse the ANC's leaders of
"selling out" by pursuing negotiations with the de Klerk government.
Mr. Mandela can speak for himself, but often his statements and
actions suggest a man either unwilling to disown the violent
terrorist tactics of many in his party or unable to disengage from
their authority.

For instance, he will visit the U.S. fresh from trips on which he
repeatedly praised Moammar Gadhafi, Fidel Castro and Yasser Arafat.
This Thursday, Mr. Mandela is scheduled to share a platform in New
York with the three Puerto Rican nationalists who spent 25 years in
prison for the 1954 shooting of five Members of Congress inside the
House Chamber.  Organizer Jaime Estades says this "shouldn't alarm
anybody.  Mandela is an ex-political prisoner who is meeting with
other political prisoners."  Having been invited to address a joint
session of Congress, why does Mr. Mandela feel obliged to show
solidarity with people who shot up Congress more than 30 years ago?

When Mr. Mandela was released in February, we expressed the hope that
he would realize that a free South Africa can be won without
continuing the "armed struggle" that has killed many innocent
civilians.  Zambia's President Kenneth Kaunda, host for the ANC's
main bases, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu have called on the ANC to
suspend its guerrilla actions.  But Mr. Mandela insists that the ANC
won't renounce violence as part of power-sharing talks.

Mr.  Mandela has met the PLO's Yasser Arafat three times, more than
with any other foreign leader.  Mr. Mandela says, "We are in the same
trench struggling against the same enemy:  the twin Tel Aviv and
Pretoria regimes, apartheid, racism, colonialism and neocolonialism."


Visiting Angola in April, Mr. Mandela singled out Fidel Castro's Cuba
as an "inspiration" and praised "its love for human rights and
liberty." 

Last month, Mr. Mandela went to Libya, where he said dictator Moammar
Gadhafi and he were "comrades in arms."  Mr. Mandela condemned the
1986 U.S. raid on Libya.

Whele Mr. Mandela is able to spend time and praise on Messrs. Castro,
Arafat and Gadhafi, he canceled a scheduled meeting in his own
country with Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, at which the tow men were to
discuss the bloody warfare between their followers.  Three days
before the meeting, the ANC leadership reportedly persuaded him not
to meet with the pro-Western head of seven million Zulus.

Mr. Buthelezi is a nephew of the ANC's founder, and was a loyal ANC
member until the mid-1970s when he broke with the group over its
bombing of civilian targets.  When asked about Mr. Buthelezi in Rome
last week, Mr. Mandela said the mere mention of his name was
"unfortunate."  Mr. Buthelezi is "totally isolated."

On the ground in South Africa, the ANC is a different entity than the
one often praised in the West.  The ANC is particularly hostile to
objective coverage in the black media of its actions.  Thami Mazwai,
an editor of the country's largest black newspaper, the Sowetan,
recently told of how black newspapers had been threatened by the ANC
and other groups unhappy with coverage of "necklace" murders and
classroom boycotts.  He and a Sowetan photographer were recently
cornered by activists intent, he said, on murdering the two.
Bystanders intervened.  A regional president of the ANC recently told
reporters that the group "expects most, if not all, members of the
media to become card-carrying members of the ANC."

Mr. Mandelal leads a group that may soon hold responsibility for the
fate of millions of South Africans.  If he is serious about bringing
peace to the country, someone should ask him how it is in the best
interests of his fellow South Africans for him to visit Colonel
Gadhafi as a comrade while refusing even to talk to Mr. Buthelezi,
the leader of his country's largest tribe.

------

The Wall Street Journal in this editorial did not deal with Mandela's
economic ideology which to me seems closest to the state centralism
of Nasser.  Nasser's economic policy basically took a poor
subsistence economy and and "elevated" to Indian-styqle mendicancy
though of course Nasser and his elite did extremely well.  We can
safely predict that the situation of the vast majority of blacks
would decline under the rule of Mandela and the ANC.

In the Globe, today, June 22, 1990, on page 20, we find Mandela's
mental and verbal diarrhea continuing.

ANC leader defens his praise of Arafat, Castro and Khadafy

A poised and confident Nelson Mandela last night defended the praise
he has given recently to Yasser Arafat, Moammar Khadafy and Fidel
Castro on the issue of human rights.

Mandela, speaking at a nationally broadcast town meeting at the City
College of New York, refused to back down from his support of three
men condemned by some for their apparent penchant for violence and
records on human rights [JCSMA:  Is the Globe a newspaper or a
propaganda rag?]

Arafat, Khadafy and Castro "support our struggle to the hilt.  There
is no reason whatsoever why we should have any hesitation hailing
their committment to human rights... Our attitude is based soley on
the fact that they fully support" the antiapartheid struggle, Mandela
said.

"We are an independent organization with our own policy.  And our
attitude toward any country is determined by the attitude of that
country toward our struggle,"  Mandela said.

Mandela also said, "one of the mistakes which some political analysts
make is to think that their enemies should be our enemies."

Mandela also said Israel should return territories, such as the Gaza
Strip and the West Bank, to the Arabs from whom the lands were seized
during the Six-Day War.

But the leader of the antiapartheid movement in South Africa said his
organization, the African National Congress, has never doubted the
right of Israel to exist.

"We have stood quite openly and firmly for the right of that state to
exist within secure borders,"  Mandela said.

Henry Siegman, executive director of the American Jewish Congress,
said he was disappointed in Mandela's support for Arafat, Khadafy and
Castro.  Siegman said Mandela's remarks "suggested a degree of
amorality."

To that, Mandela said the ANC is involved in a major struggle against
"one of the worst racial tyrannies the world has seen.  [JCSMA:
Clearly, Mandela is loosing it.  Nazi Germany was orders of magnitude
worse.  Burundi today is much worse than RSA, and the laws on the
books in Malaysia are much worse than anything which has even been
contemplated by the most radical Afrikaner right.  In general de jure
dhimma is and was worse than apartheid and of course the de facto
second class status which non-Muslims have in most Muslim countries
is much worse than apartheid.] We have no time to be looking into the
internal affairs of other countries."

Mandela noted that an earlier questioner wanted him to comment on
racism in the US and he refused to discuss it.

"Why should Mr. Siegman accept my refusal to be drawn into the
internal affairs of the USA and at the same time want me to be
involved in the internal affairs of Libya and Cuba.  I refuse to do
that," Mandela said.  [JCSMA: a political statement about Libya or
Cuba gives a big hint about the political orientation Mandela would
pursued in RSA while a statement on the social situation in the USA
might give us little or no clue about Mandela's goals in RSA.
Siegman should not have let Mandela get away with such a comment.]


As for Arafat, Mandela said he explained to Siegman at a previous
meeting that the ANC identifies with the Palestine Liberation
Organization "because they are fighting for the right of
self-determination," just like blacks in South Africa.

[JCSMA: The issues of blacks and Palestinian Muslims are not comparable. 
Muslims are historical oppressors of Jews and other non-Muslims in
accord with the morally bankrupt principles of sharia.  Unless Arafat
and the PLO take a strong stand against Sharia, we must assume that the
Palestinian cause represents the attempt of former oppressors to become
current oppressors.]


Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami

    RE: .19
    
    The Wall Street Journal has had quite a few news and op-ed pieces on
    RSA recently; they represent a range of views of which this is just
    one.
    
    The WSJ author ignores some key aspects of RSA history, such as the
    fact that the ANC had a policy of non-violence for decades, until the
    RSA government systematically shut down all legitimate avenues of
    peaceful protest.  Once people reach the point that they feel they have
    no other choice, the dynamic of the situation changes.  (BTW,
    restrictions on Blacks did not start with the Nationalist regime of
    1948, although they took discrimination to a new level.)  Much of what
    is happening today is a direct result of the policies of the white
    government, which forced the ANC to seek help wherever they could find
    it (not unlike Israel's situation).  Unfortunately for both Israel and
    the ANC, I think that their common interests are closer to each other
    than to some of the "friends" upon whom they have been forced to make.
    
    As for JCSMA's statement about sharia, it assumes, among other things,
    a monolithic attitude within the Islamic world.  That seems to me to be
    about as valid as expecting all Jews to share a common interpretation
    of Halacha.
    
    					Aaron

    Re:.19; Quoting Yakim Martillo here is definitely not looking to an
    unbiased source!
    
    Mandela was arrested for the crime of opposing the apartheid regime,
    which had completely closed off any "normal" channels to the nonwhite
    communities.  He was turned over to them by the CIA; after that
    happened, enough people in McLean made a stink about it that the CIA
    stopped shilling for the RSA police.
    
    While Mandela was in jail, the SA Govt. engaged in barbaric violence
    against the population.  Mandela received assitance from many sources
    that were not friendly towards the SA Govt; the US, on the other hand,
    had long viewed apartheid as a "bullwark against Communism".  The
    Israeli govt. was not exactly helpful to Mandela's cause.
    
    Mr. Mandela has stated that the enemies of his friends need not be his
    enemies.
    
    Mr. Mandela is the most popular political figure in the most powerful
    country in southern Africa.  He is a world-class moral leader.  We may
    not like his friends, but that doesn't make him our enemy.  Only we can
    make him our enemy.

    Re: -.1	
    
    >Quoting Yakim Martillo here is definitely not looking to an
    >unbiased source!
    
    Good attack at the messenger.  Where is the message?  Op-Ed's can have 
    many opinions, but how about discussing this particular one?
    
    
    And, re: a few others...
    
    I think some people completely lost the point.  This one is one of
    them:  Mr. Mandela says that enemies of his enemies are not necesserily
    his enemies (or something of the sort).  He "did not want to interfere
    in other countries affairs".  True.  He wants the US, both the
    people and the government, to make a *moral* judgement that the aparteheid
    is wrong.  And in the same breath he praises Castro for valuing human 
    liberties.  The US does talk to the PLO as it did with the USSR at the
    time of Evil Empire, or other guys of the same category.  The US even
    helped Stalin during WWII.  Did the US call them "best friend"?
    
    Double standards have always been the way of life.  Befriending the guy
    who for years directed operations against Jews for some people looks
    okay.  But then they should not expect Jews embrace Mandela's request
    for his moral support.  The arguments can "ring hollow" with time, but
    have Arab oil tankers in South African ports started ringing hollow?  
    Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.  
    
    Leo

    Re. .21
    
    >Mandela was arrested for the crime of opposing the apartheid regime<
    
    Get real, he was caught with explosives and plans to blow up the
    parliament building, he never denied it and asks for help to do it
    again.  They were brave to let him out.
    
    Bernice  

    re: .23
    
    You ought to get real and stop believing the crap that the RSA puts out
    for propaganda.  
    
    The RSA is a racist and fascist government that has no more legitimacy
    than would a "secular/democratic" government formed in "Palestine" by
    the PLO have.  The only reason that the world deals with it is that
    they possess all of the world's precious metals and other sundry items
    that are necessary to many countries.  As Jews we should be bound to 
    oppose racism and fascism wherever it occurs, or else we're just traitors 
    to our heritage.  This has absolutely no connection to left, right, up
    or down politics.
    
    --David 

    re .24

    	Right on, David.  

    	The argument, that it's not so bad to deal with RSA a little
    because the Arabs (the ones with oil, anyway) deal with it a lot, is
    highly distasteful, since what it's saying is that it's OK to be a
    stinker because your enemy is even more of a stinker.  Israel may have
    been wishing to protect the safety of Jews in RSA (who, incidentally,
    have always been predominantly anti-apartheid), but it shouldn't need
    to use the "But everybody does it!" defense that we should all have
    left in the schoolyard.

    -----

    	On the general discussion, of course Mandela is saying
    contradictory and sometimes stupid things.  He was in jail since 1964,
    remember?  Since then the "liberation" philosophy and the economic
    system he embraced at that time have been thoroughly discredited, and
    his practical approach is thus at best quaint and at worst nasty,
    anti-Semitic, and counter-productive.  

    	But to have survived his imprisonment at all, let alone to emerge
    with a positive outlook and approach, is what he is currently to be
    admired for.  Sure, he needs to learn that Gandhi and King achieved far
    more with non-violence than all the Castros, Khaddafis, Ortegas
    (remember them??), and Arafats ever have.  But it will take a new
    generation to achieve that change in approach.  

    	By the way, I'm not sure that the Nazis were "orders of magnitude"
    worse than the RSA.  The hard right in RSA have a lot of old Nazis and
    admirers in their midst; the only reason they haven't murdered more
    people is that they prefer to use them for near-slave labor instead.

    		David

    Re. .24
    
    It's not RSA's propaganda if it's coming from the "horse's mouth",
    as it were.  Do you deny that he has said repeatedly that he would
    use violence?  
    
    I don't support a racist and fascist government and would do all
    the boycotting and whatever it would take within the law to influence
    them toward human rights but I abhor violence and the terrorists who
    practice it.  As it was said earlier more eloquent than I, if you
    do not condemn terrorism then you are condoning it.  And for Israel,
    how could any Jew support her enemies?
    
    Bernice

Re: .18

> We are embarassed to trot out the
>same points Israel has been using for years because they may sound trite.
.
.
>So why is it that Israel's enemies can repeat the same lies over and over
>again, and nobody gets tired of saying them and repeating them?

Excellent point, Sid. And in truth, the bigger the lie, the more the
Jews respond. The American media are bursting at the seams with anti-
Israel stories, and yet the anti-Semites never stop talking about the
"Jewish-controlled" media. The reason they continue to do so is that
it works. After being bombarded with such attacks, any journalist who happens
to be Jewish feels a need, subliminally or otherwise, to write more
"evenhanded" articles. The UN condemns Zionism, and suddenly Jews are
squeamish about identifying themselves as such. *They* talk about Jewish
conspiracies, and Jews wonder if perhaps they should spend a little less
time supporting specifically Jewish causes.

Elie Weisel wrote a powerful article several years back along these lines,
regarding anti-Semitism in Europe. Here's the gist: they accuse us of 
(secretly) ritually killing Christian children, while they openly slaughter 
us; they accuse us of being miserly, while they loot our homes and possessions.

But the blind Jew responds to the propaganda; he jumps through hoops to
avoid falling into one of the stereotypes. He changes his name, has a
nose-job, gives $50 million to the NAACP, marries his son off to a Collins
or Hamilton. But strangely, the accusations never seem to disappear. The 
accusers never let up. Why should they? They're getting exactly what they
hoped for.

Personal politics aside, there are fundamental lessons in Mandela's over-
whelming success. He is a hit because he says what he means, without apologies.
He is called amoral, and responds, "so what?" People thirst for such honesty,
and the cause is all but irrelevant. 

The Jewish masses, following their "leaders" respond like lost sheep, not 
knowing which way to turn. "The face of the generation is as the face
of a dog," (San. 97a) - a dog appears to be leading its master as it
runs in front of him, but when it reaches the corner it turns around for
the next signal. Such are the leaders in our generation.
  
May I offer a tired, trite explanation? With anti-Semitism on the rise in
the Soviet Union, desecrations of cemeteries in France, Farrakhan and 
Sharpton gaining new adherents daily, the "Palestinians" becoming the
Liberal _cause_celebre_, while the Republicans are rather tired of the
"handouts" to Israel. Of course Jews don't know what to do! 

	I will bring such insecurity upon those of you who survive in
	your enemies' land, that the sound of a rustling leaf will make
	them flee as if from the sword. They will fall even with no one 
	chasing them. Stumbling over one another as if to escape a weapon, 
	while no one is after them - so helpless will you be to take a 
	stand against your enemies. (Lev. 26:36,37)

The antidote? 

	But when the time finally comes that their stubborn spirit is
	humbled, I will forgive their sin. I will remember My covenant
	with Jacob... The sin they had committed by denigrating My laws
	and growing *tired* of My decrees, will also have been expiated.

There is one Leader to Whom we can turn when all others fail us.

Jem

.27> He changes his name, has a nose-job, gives $50 million to the NAACP, 
.27> marries his son off to a Collins or Hamilton.

	I have a friend named Collins, and she's throughly Jewish--in fact, her
father is a Holocaust survivor.  She's already married, but her sister isn't, so
in case anybody's looking to make a match, let me know.

	Now, back to our program...

		David

re: a few back

I posted the note from SCJ as a public service to:
  a) bring in another opinion (not necessarily my own) and
  b) I didn't have time to comment on it the other day.

so here goes...

Mandela got a (deserved or not) hero's welcome here in the USA, esp. here in 
NY.  Because he has such a mythical stature, it seems that people are blind
to the truth about him - good or bad.  Those who ask meaningful questions are
labeled racist.

An example: On Ted Koppel's "Town Meeting" show, a black businesswoman asked 
Mandela about his socialist/communist economic theories.  Mandela tried to 
dance around the point.  When the woman pressed the issue, you (or at least I)
got the impression that many in the audience were angry at her - not because she
was attacking or critisizing Mandela (she wasn't really) but because she had 
the gall to ask a tough question. 

In South Africa, dissent within the black community is met with violence.  The
ANC is not, contrary to myth, the only organization opposed to apartied in SA,
but they act as if they are, to borrow a phrase, "the sole legitimate 
respresentatives" of the black majority.  There are other groups, some aligned
with the ANC, like the Congress of South African Trade Unions, and some
(violently) opposed, like the Inkatha, the KwaZulu group headed by Buthelezi.
Note the fighting in the Natal provence - black against black, ANC against the
Zulus.  The ANC has enemies within the black as well as the white communites.

Back to my point:  given that Mandela's own retoric is not in agreement with
(what in my opinion) Jewish or Zionist interests, why are our jewish "leaders"
running to him to seek his approval and blessing.  If Mandela believes what he
says (about Kadafy, Arafat et al), we obviosly must disagree with him.  Why
can't they leave it at that - We support the fight (i don't like the word
struggle - it has too many conotaions) againt apartied but we cannot support
all the positions of Mandela or the ANC.  

Unfortunatly, not seeing everything as clear cut good vs. evil usually labels 
you as not having sufficient zeal.  Asking questions amounts to treason.

on a lighter note:

Lets start a poll: How do you spell the name of that Colonel Muamar whats-his-
name in Lybia?? Kadafy? Khadaffi? Qadafi?

what's your opinion? we'd like to know... :-)

			Louuuuuuuuuuuuu

	Just to add a brushstroke to the picture - Mandela has now called for
the British Government to talk to the IRA without preconditions. In the parlance
of the NI conflict, he has taken a position - and not on London's side. I think
he is interfering in their internal affairs - giving lie to his own stated 
reasons for sticking up for the "helpful-to-ANC" butchers. I must say, he
certainly talks up a sweet line, but his actions are more like those of a typical
"liberation" leader. I have started out with a lot of respect and faith in him,
but lately he has been indistinguishable from the rest of the scum. I bet he
is sorry that Honnecker is no longer there to kiss and support...

DG

    It is important to make some not-so-subtle distinctions:
    
    There is a difference between disagreeing with Mandela on specific
    issues and considering him generally an enemy.
    
    There is a difference between trying to take account of the impact of
    external factors on Jews and abandoning Judaism.
    
    We have to live in a world in which we are a tiny minority, and we
    have to take that into account. (Even the Talmud admonishes us not to
    rely on miracles.)
    
    First of all, it is important to understand the context in which the
    ANC has had to operate in the RSA; non-violent opposition to apartheid
    --which the ANC tried for years--proved to be a non-starter in RSA. 
    Martin Luther King's approach worked in the U.S. because it mobilized
    the majority of the white population to support constitutional
    guarantees of equal rights.  In the RSA, non-violent protesters were
    not merely doused with water cannon, they were shot.
    
    Black Africans were left with no legal way to protest.  No vote.  No
    right to speak.  The only surprise is that it took as long as it did
    for them to resort to armed resistance.  Mandela (speaking for the ANC)
    says that they will not renounce the use of force at this time and I
    don't blame him; Africans still do not have the right to vote.  If they
    did, then there would be justification for demanding that the ANC
    change its position.  I would argue that it would be wiser to suspend
    armed attacks at this time, but if I were in Mandela's position I would
    make a point of reserving the option of resuming them.
    
    (By analogy, I have advocated in other notes, talking with Arabs
    --including the PLO--to search for ways to achieve peace in the Middle
    East, but that until (and probably even after) we find a satisfactory
    solution, Israel needs to be militarily strong.)
    
    Second, it is important to consider the consequences of the positions
    we take.  It does not make sense to go out of our way to invite
    censure.  It is all very well to make a big thing of heroic defiance,
    but keep in mind that it was the "collaborationists" at Yavneh, not the
    Zealots at Matsada that were critical to Jewish survival.
    
    RE: 952.29
    
    Lou, I hope that you notice that I took issue with the content of the
    posting, not with you for posting it.  I do have a couple of comments
    on your comments, however:
    
>                                       Those who ask meaningful questions are
>labeled racist.
    
    That depends on how the questions are put.  When people raise questions
    about Israel, I find myself asking whether they are legitimate or
    merely a screen for expressing anti-Semitism.  It does not surprise me
    that Blacks respond in a similar manner.
    
>                                                 why are our jewish "leaders"
>running to him to seek his approval and blessing.
    
    I don't think they are.  The purpose of the meeting in Geneva was to
    see if they could reach a modus vivendi with him in order to avoid a
    serious clash between Blacks and Jews in the U.S., especially in major
    cities, such as New York.
    
>                                                                        Why
>can't they leave it at that - We support the fight (i don't like the word
>struggle - it has too many conotaions) againt apartied but we cannot support
>all the positions of Mandela or the ANC.
    
    And the obvious question from the other side might be: "We support
    Israel's right to exist, but we cannot support all the positions of the
    Israeli government; why can't they leave it at that?"
    
>Unfortunatly, not seeing everything as clear cut good vs. evil usually labels 
>you as not having sufficient zeal.  Asking questions amounts to treason.
    
    Well put.  There are an awful lot of subtle shadings out there and
    only a few primary colors; we need to call attention to the subtleties,
    and that means spending some time studying them ourselves.
    
    					Aaron

>	Just to add a brushstroke to the picture - Mandela has now called for
>the British Government to talk to the IRA without preconditions. In the parlance
>of the NI conflict, he has taken a position - and not on London's side. 
    
    Coming from England I was quite glad to hear this. 
    It shows that Mandela is being consistent in his approach,
    unlike that of the Western nations who proclaim that they 
    won't talk to terrorists, and then do just that when it is 
    the PLO or some other organisation that happends to hold 
    a few hostages.
    
    Following Mandela's approach Israel should invite Arafat 
    to Jerusalem for talks on condition that there are NO preconditions.
    
    Do you think he would come? 
    
    Malcolm

	Well, I too agree that Mandela's support for the "liberation wars",
Stalinists like Castro and crazies with money like Khaddafi - all this support
is consistently displayed. That's exactly what I find so troubling... As far as
inviting Arafat to Jerusalem - I am not qualified to judge this idea. I do know
that Assad and King Hussein and Mubarak have all been invited - do you think 
they'll come? A broader question is: would a government be obliged to "talk
unconditionally" to any organization that decides to plant some bombs and shoot
some soft and hard targets? If a Mandela-led government were to come to power in
RSA, and the white extremists were to start blowing up ANC officials - would he
invite them to hold unconditional talks?

DG

    re: .26
    
    Just because I support the ANC and Mandela doesn't imply that I support
    Israel's enemies, how could I given where I spent a good number of my
    years?  The world doesn't reduce down to black vs. white, there is a
    hell of a lot of grey out there.  If the third world is antagonistic to
    Israel it may not be a simple case of anti-semitism and/or Arab
    influence.  Let's take Columbia as an example, what business is it of
    ours to sell arms to and train the Medillin Cartel's rural�s?  How do
    you expect the government of Columbia to react to Israel?  Are they
    Anti-Semitic?
    
    --David  

    I think my paranoia regarding escalating and ever pervasive
    anti semitism is not unfounded in fact.  Gadhafi and Arafat
    have a mission and that as we all know is the destruction of
    Israel and the Jews.  Mandela says his heroes are Gadhafi and 
    Arafat.  Goodwill towards Israel doesn't appear to me to be
    ensconced in his reverence.   The reason for this open support 
    of our enemies might be that he'll take any military help he 
    can get and he's trying to win friends and influence people.  
    But, for those not fully cognizant (and who is?) of his reasoning, 
    might another message not be derived?   

    State of the art audio/visual equipment has given a clear image 
    to the world of the staged version of a media and US government's 
    idolization of this person.  His words would have a great 
    significance to many as a result ...perpetuation of anti semitism 
    to the greatest magnitude.
    
    Bernice

re: .35

Just because Mandela uttered supportive statements of Ghadagi, et.al.does 
not make him an anti-semite.  I find this a ridiculous and outlandish 
analogy.  

The history of the relationship of Israel and the third world is quite long 
and complex.  Yes, Israel did lend assistance to the newly emerging states 
in Africa during the '60's, and Golda Meir danced the hora with African 
leaders, etc....  However it's involvement in the third world during the '70's
and '80's seems to have strayed from installing irrigation systems to 
supplying dictatorships with the latest weaponry.

You can talk about the role of the Arabs in influencing the third world in the
UN and elsewhere, but this is no excuse for flawed policies.  

--David

David,

> However [Israel's] involvement in the third world during the '70's
> and '80's seems to have strayed from installing irrigation systems to 
> supplying dictatorships with the latest weaponry.
> You can talk about the role of the Arabs in influencing the third world in the
> UN and elsewhere, but this is no excuse for flawed policies.  

    Would you like to elaborate? For example, can you tell us why had
    Israel stopped installing the aforementioned irrigation systems, and
    what and whose flawed policies lead to that?
    
    Alex

    Selling weaponry to third-world dictators and other questionable
    governments had been justified on the basis of obtaining much needed
    foreign currency, of which there is never enough in the Bank of Israel.
    Expediency can only be justified in the short-term.  Someone in the
    foreign ministry should have the long range vision to see that those
    governments that Israel has been selling arms to will not last, and the
    oppositions will replace them ala Eastern Europe.  I presume and know that 
    there are such talents in the ministry.  
    
    (I haven't been able to read notes often due to a heavier work load and
    duties at DECworld, otherwise I would have answered this note sooner.)
    
    --David

    re .38
    
    David, I know what you are referring to very well, but this does not
    answer my question in .37 in any way.
    
    Alex
    
    PS What DECworld booth are you manning? My last "tour of duty"
       there is tomorrow (Friday).

    RE: .39
    
    Alex,
    
    Is that really a question, or is it a disingenuous attempt to fish for
    a particular answer?  At first I took .37 as a rhetorical question,
    since it was posed in a way that (I thought) implied most people would
    know the answer.
    
    Aaron

>re .38
    
    David, I know what you are referring to very well, but this does not
    answer my question in .37 in any way.
>

What are you asking for in specific?

d.c.

    David,
    
    You have implied that Israel's agricultural cooperation with African
    countries was terminated by Israel apparently because it was more
    profitable to sell arms sales to certain regimes.
    
    You have suggested that (presumably) Israel's (or its leaders')
    "flawed policies" were to blame.
    
    Have I understood you correctly? If I haven't, please clarify. If I have,
    then I am not of the same opinion. I could be wrong, of course, so
    please educate me and elaborate what and whose policies are to blame.

    Alex
    

>You have implied that Israel's agricultural cooperation with African
>countries was terminated by Israel apparently because it was more
>profitable to sell arms sales to certain regimes.

Wrong assumption.  I have not implied that it was any sort of planned policy
change to supply arms instead of agricultural cooperation.  Part of the
blame for the end of cooperation falls upon the third world countries who 
broke off relations with Israel after 1967.  Most of the blame belongs to the
Arab countries who pressured those countries to break off relations.  If you
were a poor state in West Africa, and your country's day-to-day existence 
depended on oil, what would you do?

However this does not excuse past and present Israeli governments from the 
"policy of expedience", i.e. let's sell our weaponry to Paraguay, Somoza, etc.


--David 

    David,
    
    Thanks for disambiguating.
    
    Alex