Nelson Mandela sings kill Whitey

The hero of the anti-apartheid struggle was not the saint we want him to be.

(The Back Bencher) The image of Nelson Mandela as a selfless, humble, freedom fighter turned cheerful, kindly old man, is well established in the West. If there is any international leader on whom we can universally heap praise it is surely he. But get past the halo we’ve placed on him without his permission, and Nelson Mandela had more than a few flaws which deserve attention.

He signed off on the deaths of innocent people, lots of them

Nelson Mandela was the head of UmKhonto we Sizwe, (MK), the terrorist wing of the ANC and South African Communist Party. At his trial, he had pleaded guilty to 156 acts of public violence including mobilising terrorist bombing campaigns, which planted bombs in public places, including the Johannesburg railway station. Many innocent people, including women and children, were killed by Nelson Mandela’s MK terrorists. Here are some highlights

-Church Street West, Pretoria, on the 20 May 1983

-Amanzimtoti Shopping complex KZN, 23 December 1985

-Krugersdorp Magistrate’s Court, 17 March 1988

-Durban Pick ‘n Pay shopping complex, 1 September 1986

-Pretoria Sterland movie complex 16 April 1988 – limpet mine killed ANC terrorist M O Maponya instead

-Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court, 20 May 1987

-Roodepoort Standard Bank 3 June, 1988

Tellingly, not only did Mandela refuse to renounce violence, Amnesty refused to take his case stating“[the] movement recorded that it could not give the name of ‘Prisoner of Conscience’ to anyone associated with violence, even though as in ‘conventional warfare’ a degree of restraint may be exercised.”

 As President he bought a lot of military hardware

Inheriting a country with criminally deep socio-ecnomic problems, one might expect resources to be poured into redressing the imbalances of apartheid. Yet once in office, even Mandela’s government slipped into the custom of putting national corporatism, power and prestige above its people. Deputy Minister of Defence Ronnie Kasrils said in 1995 that the government’s planned cuts in defence spending could also result in the loss of as many as 90,000 jobs in defence-related industries.

Mandela’s government announced in November 1998 that it intended to purchase 28 BAE/SAAB JAS 39 Gripen fighter aircraft from Sweden at a cost of R10.875 billion, i.e. R388 million (about US$65 million) per plane. Clearly, the all-powerful air armadas of Botswana weighed heavily on the minds of South African leaders…

Not content with jets, in 1999 a US$4.8 billion (R30 billion in 1999 rands) purchase of weaponry was finalised, which has been subject to allegations of corruption. The South African Department of Defence’s Strategic Defence Acquisition purchased a slew of shiny new weapons, including frigates, submarines, corvettes, light utility helicopters, fighter jet trainers and advanced light fighter aircraft.

Below are some of the purchases made, presumably to keep the expansionist intentions of Madagascar at bay…

Description	Original Qty	Illustrative total cost
Corvettes	4	R4 billion
Maritime helicopter for corvettes	5	R1 billion
New submarines to replace Daphne	4	R5,5 billion
Alouette helicopter replacement	60	R2 billion
Advanced light fighter	48	R6-9 billion
Main Battle Tank replacement of Olifant	154	R6 billion
Total cost in 1998 Rand		R25-38 billion

Mandela was friendly with dictators

Despite being synonymous with freedom and democracy, Mandela was never afraid to glad hand the thugs and tyrants of the international arena.

General Sani Abacha seized power in Nigeria in a military coup in November 1993. From the start of his presidency, in May 1994, Nelson Mandela refrained from publicly condemning Abacha’s actions. Up until the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in November 1995 the ANC government vigorously opposed the imposition of sanctions against Nigeria. Shortly before the meeting Mandela’s spokesman, Parks Mankahlana, said that “quiet persuasion” would yield better results than coercion. Even after the Nigerian government announced the death sentences against Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni activists, during the summit, Mandela refused to condemn the Abacha regime or countenance the imposition of sanctions.

Two of the ANC’s biggest donors, in the 1990s, were Colonel Muammar Gaddafi of Libya and President Suharto of Indonesia . Not only did Mandela refrain from criticising their lamentable human rights records but he interceded diplomatically on their behalf, and awarded them South Africa ‘s highest honour. Suharto was awarded a state visit, a 21-gun salute, and The Order of Good Hope (gold class).

In April 1999 Mandela acknowledged to an audience in Johannesburg that Suharto had given the ANC a total of 60 million dollars. An initial donation of 50 million dollars had been followed up by a further 10 million. The Telegraph ( London ) reported that Gaddafi was known to have given the ANC well over ten million dollars. 

The apartheid regime was a crime against humanity; as illogical as it was cruel.  It is tempting, therefore, to simplify the subject by declaring that all who opposed it were wholly and unswervingly good. It’s important to remember, however, that Mandela has been the first to hold his hands up to his shortcomings and mistakes. In books and speeches, he goes to great length to admit his errors. The real tragedy is that too many in the West can’t bring themselves to see what the great man himself has said all along; that he’s just as flawed as the rest of us, and should not be put on a pedestal.

South Africa’s ANC makes support for Israel boycott its official policy

Full BDS South Africa Press release

MEDIA RELEASE : S. Africa’s ruling party, the ANC, reaffirms boycott of Israel resolution
South Africa’s ruling party, the African National Congress (ANC), at its 53rd National Conference, reaffirmed a resolution supporting the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel campaign.
In October 2012, the ANC’s International Solidarity Conference (ISC) declared its full support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel campaign ( ISC Declaration, page 2, point 10 ).
Today, Lindiwe Zulu (member of the ANC’s International Relations Sub-Committee and special advisor to President Jacob Zuma) announced at the ANC’s 53rd National Conference plenary session, the ANC’s official endorsement, as captured in Resolution 39 (b), of the ANC’s October International Solidarity Conference (ISC) and all its resolutions, which includes a resolution on BDS. Giving muscle to resolution 39 (b), the ANC has committed to set up a steering committee to implement these ISC resolutions.
In addition, the ANC adopted resolution 35 (g) that specifically called for “all South Africans to support the programmes and campaigns of the Palestinian civil society which seek to put pressure on Israel to engage with the Palestinian people to reach a just solution.” In 2005 Palestinian civil society issued a call to the international community for a program and campaign of  boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) to be applied against Israel as a way to pressure Israel to end its violations of international law, respect Palestinian human rights and engage in fair negotiations for a just peace.
Mbuyiseni Ndlozi of BDS South Africa welcomed today’s decision: “This reaffirmation by the ANC’s National Conference, its highest decision making body, is by far the most authoritative endorsement of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel campaign. The ANC has now taken its international conference resolutions, and officially made it the policy of the ANC. We look forward to working with the ANC and specifically the ISC steering committee to expedite its implementation.”
Another hard-hitting decision on Israel that was adopted by the ANC was resolution 35 (j): “The ANC abhors the recent Israeli state-sponsored xenophobic attacks and deportation of Africans and request that this matter should be escalated to the African Union”. In June this year Israeli anti-African protests turned into full-fledged race riots. Israeli racism and xenophobia against Africans is shared and even encouraged by Israeli politicians including the Israeli Prime Minster, Benjamin Netanyahu, who has said: “If we don’t stop their [African immigrants’] entry, the problem that currently stands at 60,000 could grow to 600,000, and that threatens our existence…and threatens the social fabric of society.” Israel’s Minister of Interior, Eli Yishai, has said that African immigrants “think the country doesn’t belong to us, the white man.” And the Israeli parliamentarian, Miri Regev, has publicly compared Sudanese people to “a cancer”.
Finally, in a blow to the Israeli lobby, the ANC also adopted resolution 35 (c) stating: “The ANC is unequivocal in its support for the Palestinian people in their struggle for self-determination, and unapologetic in its view that the Palestinians are the victims and the oppressed in the conflict with Israel.” In the build up to the ANC’s National Conference the Israeli lobby, including the South African Jewish Board of Deputies, demanded a “balanced” and “nonpartisan” rather than a decisive and solidarity role by the ANC in the Palestinian-Israeli issue.
ISSUED BY MBUYISENI NDLOZI FOR BDS SOUTH AFRICA

via electronicintifada.net

Nelson Mandela Proven to be Senior Member of South African Communist Party

In news that should come as a surprise to no one, except the people who really believed the denials, Nelson Mandela really was a Communist and his movement was a Communist campaign. But look on the bright side, maybe 40 years from now there will be a mainstream accepted book that will show Barack Obama really was a Marxist and President Saddam Hussein Osama, the future 49th President of the United States really did deliberately detonate nuclear weapons in every major American city.
For decades, it was one of the enduring disputes of South Africa’s anti-apartheid struggle. Was Nelson Mandela, the leader of the African National Congress, really a secret Communist, as the white-only government of the time alleged? Or, as he claimed during the infamous 1963 trial that saw him jailed for life, was it simply a smear to discredit him in a world riven by Cold War tensions?

But research by a British historian, Professor Stephen Ellis, has unearthed fresh evidence that during his early years as an activist, Mr Mandela did hold senior rank in the South African Communist Party, or SACP.

His book also provides fresh detail on how the ANC’s military wing had bomb-making lessons from the IRA, and intelligence training from the East German Stasi, which it used to carry out brutal interrogations of suspected “spies” at secret prison camps.
But at least the good guys won and South Africa is exactly the sort of wonderful place that you would expect it to be after the Communist terrorists took it over. And by wonderful place, I mean the sort of place that Rwandans and Somalis run away from.

Although Mr Mandela appears to have joined the SACP more for their political connections than their ideas, his membership could have damaged his standing in the West had it been disclosed while he was still fighting to dismantle apartheid.

It was disclosed, but the political leadership in the West chose to stuff their fingers in their ears up to the wrist and lionize him as a saint. The saint of the rubber necklace.

“I think most people who supported the anti-apartheid movement just didn’t want to know that much about his background. Apartheid was seen as a moral issue and that was that. But if real proof had been produced at the time, some might have thought differently.”

In other news that Western elites didn’t want to know about, Stalin had his own death camps, Fidel Castro was a butcher and Che had all the morals of a sewer rat. And Mandela was a fitting member of their company and alliance.

Addressing the court, Mr Mandela declared that he had “never been a member of the Communist Party,” and that he disagreed with the movement’s contempt for Western-style parliamentary democracy.

And once his party took over South Africa, they have shown the same contempt for parliamentary democracy and the rule of law that you would expect from… Communists. The difference between Zuma and Mugabe is in the spelling. And the timing of their calls for genocide.

 Mr Mandela joined the ANC in 1944, when its leadership still opposed armed struggle against the apartheid state. However, by the early 1950s he become personally convinced that a guerrilla war was inevitable, a view confirmed by the Sharpeville Massacre in March 1960, when police in a Transvaal township opened fire on black demonstrators, killing 69 people.
But while other ANC leaders also came round to his way of thinking after Sharpeville, the group still had no access to weaponry or financial support. Instead, says Prof Ellis, Mr Mandela looked for help from the Communists, with whom he already had close contacts due to their shared opposition to apartheid.

So reading between the whitewashing, a senior Communist in South Africa turned the ANC into an armed terrorist group. How shockingly unpredictable.

“He knew and trusted many Communist activists anyway, so it appears he was co-opted straight to the central committee with no probation required,” said Prof Ellis. “But it’s fair to say he wasn’t a real convert, it was just an opportunist thing.”

Hogwash. Communist parties are dogmatic organizations. They never move anyone up to the central committee unless they know them to be die hard Communists. If Mandela was in the central committee, then he was a longtime member in good standing who had proven himself.

In the months after Sharpeville, Communist party members secretly visited Beijing and Moscow, where they got assurances of support for their own guerrilla campaign. In conjunction with a number of leading ANC members, they set up a new, nominally independent military organisation, known as Umkhonto we Sizwe or Spear of the Nation. With Mr Mandela as its commander, Umkhonto we Sizwe launched its first attacks on 16 December 1961.

Remember, the good guys won in South Africa. Just like they did in Russia, China and Cuba.

Angola was also the base for “Quatro”, a notorious ANC detention centre, where dozens of the movement’s own supporters were tortured and sometimes killed as suspected spies by agents from their internal security service, some of whom were “barely teenagers”. East German trainers taught the internal security agents that anyone who challenged official ANC dogma should be viewed as a potential spy or traitor.

The good guys. Overseen by a Nobel Prize winner and living saint. And Central Committee member of the South African Communist Party.

via frontpagemag.com

Another Upcoming South African Attack on Israel

(my right word) Following the labeling move of agricultural produce and manufactured goods from Yesha, South Africa moves yet to another front in the Cognitive Combat Campaign:

Call for Papers: Jews, Colonialism and Postcolonialism

University of Cape Town, 2-4 January 2013

This international and interdisciplinary Conference is jointly organised by the Isaac and Jessie Kaplan Centre for Jewish Studies and Research (University of Cape Town), the Parkes Institute for the Study of Jewish/non-Jewish Relations (University of Southampton), and the Department of Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish Studies (University of Sydney).

The conference seeks to explore the connections and intersections between Jews, colonialism, and postcolonialism. The existing scholarly literature, mainly following the work of Paul Gilroy, has begun to recognise this conjunction in a variety of ways whether in relation to ‘multidirectional memory’ (Michael Rothberg), ‘the crisis of postcolonial culture’ (Aamir Mufti), or the exclusions of ‘disciplinary thinking’ (Bryan Cheyette). But there is still a need to bring together these sometimes contradictory approaches and to begin to constitute this topic as a new field of comparative studies.

Proposals are welcome from those who want to promote theoretical engagement between Jewish and postcolonial studies as well as those providing more detailed case studies - including from all periods and all places - relating to the history, sociology, and anthropology of Jews (as both ‘white’ and ‘not quite’) in relation to colonialism and postcolonialism. This conference is part of a growing attempt to explore the substantial ways in which these fields inform each other. We welcome papers – theoretical and case studies - covering all chronologies and locations, including discussions of Jews in imperial contexts from antiquity to the present day. Papers are also welcome on how these tensions and intersections have been articulated in the cultural sphere, including, for example, art, film, literature, museums, music and television.

We have been warned

S.Africa's Malema loses appeal, suspended from ANC

(jpost.com) JOHANNESBURG - A ruling South African ANC appeals panel on Saturday upheld a decision to expel its firebrand youth leader Julius Malema for bringing the movement into disrepute, sending into the political wilderness one of the leading voices for nationalizing mines. The decision will likely derail the career of Malema, one of the country's best known politicians whose calls for radical transformation of Africa's largest economy unnerved investors and drew harsh criticism from some African National Congress leaders.The appeals panel upheld his conviction but turned back for further deliberation a decision on how long the suspension will be. Malema cannot escape suspension under ANC rules. Malema was found guilty in November by a separate disciplinary committee and sentenced to a five-year suspension. That committee will hear in 14 days testimony for mitigation of its sentence.

Noam Chomsky Attacks Israel's 'Expansion Over Security' at UCLA Lecture on 'Palestine in Crisis'

Chomsky concluded the question and answer session by arguing that Osama Bin Laden was assassinated,
"murdered," so that the U.S. could avoid putting Bin Laden on trial,
because "they have no evidence against him.
"That final jab at the U.S. went over extremely well with the crowd of anti-Americans
 and Arafat-styled student-cum-terrorists.

...this clip captures more of Chomsky's comments on U.S. policy than his remarks on Israeli expansionism. Here he argues that from Washington's perspective democracy and freedom in the Middle East are antithetical to American interests. The U.S. and Israel allegedly fear the Arab Spring because the revolutions threaten American hegemony in the region. Chomsky spouts a lot of disinformation, which is his trademark. He says at 40 seconds that "about 90 percent of Egyptians view the United States as the main enemy" and that "about 80 percent in the region wanted to be sure Iran had nuclear weapons":

Chomsky changes his mind on WMDS in Iraq?

Actually, public opinion in Egypt is much more complicated than that, and while there's obviously variation across individual polls and over time, there's no support for Chomky's claim of "80 percent" across the region supporting Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. In fact, according to a Pew Global Attitudes survey in April 2010, "a majority of respondents in Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon as well as Israel said the spread of nuclear weapons was a major threat" (the number was 41 percent in Egypt).

Pushing 'Islamophobia' at UCLA?

UCLA Palestine Awareness Week.

...Muslim Student Association Pledge of Allegiance:
Jihad is my spirit, I will die to establish Islam

But these are only quick examples of the kind of propaganda one hears at a Noam Chomsky lecture. Indeed, what's even more fascinating than hearing Chomsky's America-bashing is observing the rock star status he's afforded by the huge crowd of collegiate wannabe bohemians, diehard pro-terror communists, and the campus Islamist jihadis who thronged the event. I'll post pictures later. Chomsky was swarmed by extremist acolytes upon entering the lecture hall. Upon speaking, it was as if his attacks on "American imperialism" and "corporate dominance" were like throwing bags of candy to children. I arrived at UCLA at 5:00pm, and the event was scheduled from 6:00 to 8:00pm.

Without citing a single piece of evidence—
At the conclusion of the event, Chomsky responded to questions and went off on his familiar rant about how those who proclaim themselves pro-Israel are actually working feverishly for its moral degeneration and ultimate destruction. Chomsky then returned of the comparison of Israel to apartheid South Africa, and while he admitted key differences, he argued that in one key similarity the time will come when Israel's crisis of legitimation becomes overwhelming, and forces upon it a reckoning for the survival of the Jewish state.

I hope Chomsky starts listening before he dies

Read the Rest via americanpowerblog.blogspot.com

African stamps honor Jews who fought apartheid

Jews made up just 2 percent of the white population of apartheid-era South Africa, but they constituted at least half of the country’s white anti-apartheid activists, Gochin said.

Signing up for the fight against apartheid was an easy way to make life in South Africa very difficult. “We always knew that our house was under surveillance,” Lubner said. “We always knew that our phone was tapped.”
Lubner was 8 years old in 1956 when her father was accused of treason, along with 155 other eminent anti-apartheid activists. “South Africa was such a police state at that point that people were afraid of being associated with us,” Lubner said. “Very few of our relatives would have anything to do with us.”
Hymie Barsel was held for three years before the apartheid-era government dropped the treason charges. While in jail, he was brutally tortured. “They were very clever,” Lubner said of her father’s captors. “They would inflict damage on the spleen, which apparently is very difficult to detect.”
Esther Barsel, who was not tried in 1956, went to prison for her part in the anti-apartheid struggle in 1964. She spent four years in jail, followed by five years of house arrest. She had to get police permission to attend her daughter’s wedding in 1968. Lubner got married in a Johannesburg synagogue 10 minutes from her childhood home. “She [Esther Barsel] had to be home by 10 o’clock that night,” Lubner recalled.
Hymie Barsel died in 1987 without seeing the fruits of his activism. Esther Barsel, however, lived to see the end of the apartheid system, which began to be dismantled in 1990. South Africa has since honored her memory in various ways — the cell where she was incarcerated has been turned into a memorial installation, and when she died in 2008, Nelson Mandela publicly mourned her passing.

Legendary Heroes of Africa stamp sheet from Liberia featuring, from left, Helen Suzman, Eli Weinberg, Hymie Barsel, Esther Barsel (with Nelson Mandela).

In the age of e-mail, just what does putting someone’s face on a stamp really mean?

via jewishjournal.com

it means that these Activists died for nothing because the Black Leadership were also genocidal killers who hate Zionism. Looking back on a situation like this... there could of been greater freedom if they had kept people in separate nations. This can still happen. I'm proud of these Jews for standing up for what appeared to be right... when certainly there was so much violence coming from White South Africa at the time, it was impossible to see that their Black equivalents would be worse. Freedom is not a theory. Freedom is when people are secure of their enemies... who can live separately if they can not get along.

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Tutu Ass denies Porgy and Bess to Israel. Gershwin not available to comment because he is dead

Retired South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu is campaigning for South Africa to have a cultural and academic boycott of Israel. Here Tutu delivers a speech in London on Feb. 8, 2010.(Carl De Souza/AFP/Getty Images)

via globalpost.com

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa — Desmond Tutu may have officially retired from public life, but he hasn’t gone far from the spotlight.
The former archbishop of Cape Town and Nobel Prize laureate began his retirement in early October saying he would watch cricket and sip tea with his wife. But he has sparked new controversy by stepping up his boycott campaign against Israel.
Last week Tutu called on the Cape Town Opera to cancel an upcoming trip to Israel. He said it would be “unconscionable” for the group to perform "Porgy and Bess," the groundbreaking Gershwin opera about black life in Charleston, S.C., in the 1920s, “until both Israeli and Palestinian opera lovers of the region have equal opportunity and unfettered access to attend performances.”
“Only the thickest-skinned South Africans would be comfortable performing before an audience that excluded residents living, for example, in an occupied West Bank village 30 minutes from Tel Aviv, who would not be allowed to travel to Tel Aviv,” Tutu said in a statement.
He said it would be as inappropriate for the opera company to perform in Israel as it had been for artists to perform in apartheid South Africa, “in a society founded on discriminatory laws and racial exclusivity.”
Tutu's campaign is not limited to the Cape Town opera. Last month, Tutu joined a campaign urging the University of Johannesburg to sever its links with Israel’s Ben-Gurion University, a move that was supported by a number of high-profile South African writers and academics.
The two universities have been collaborating on biotechnology and water purification research. But now the University of Johannesburg has said it will terminate its relationship with Ben-Gurion University in six months unless certain conditions are met, such as the Israeli university working with Palestinian universities on research projects.
The Cape Town Opera responded gently but firmly to Tutu, saying that that while it “respects the views held by retired Archbishop Tutu,” its performances at the Tel Aviv Opera House next month will not be canceled.
“We are … first and foremost an arts company that believes in promoting universally held human values through the medium of opera,” managing director Michael Williams said in a statement. “Cape Town Opera welcomes the opportunity to perform within Palestine as well.”
The Israeli Embassy in South Africa hit back at Tutu, saying that his “call for a cultural boycott of the State of Israel is yet another phase in the biased campaign, waged by him and those who share his sentiments, that distorts and demonizes Israel, while singling it out.”
Tutu's call to the opera company was also opposed by the South African Jewish Board of Deputies, which called for “constructive and positive engagements between Israel, South Africa and the Palestinian regions,” citing the use of music as a form of interchange and dialogue.
Boycotts, the group said, “serve only to harden attitudes on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide.”
South Africa has a significant Jewish population, numbering about 70,000 people, and many Jews played important roles in the struggle against apartheid.
Tutu, who retired on Oct. 7 — his 79th birthday — earned a Nobel Peace Prize for his peaceful struggle against apartheid and has been described as the “moral conscience” of South Africa. He is known for brash public statements on a range of issues, including human rights abuses in Zimbabwe and corruption among South Africa’s political elite.
When Tutu announced his plan to retire, he said he would “shut up,” but added that “sometimes I might find I can't resist. Mostly I’m going to be shutting up, so bye-bye.”
He said he would remain a member of The Elders, a group of retired world leaders that includes Nelson Mandela, Jimmy Carter and Kofi Annan, who work together on major global issues.
Tutu has long been an outspoken critic of Israel, including its ties with South Africa during apartheid times. Israel officially opposed apartheid, although its connections with South Africa’s apartheid government were close.
It emerged earlier this year that in 1975, Israel offered to sell South Africa nuclear warheads, according to documents uncovered by American academic Sasha Polakow-Suransky. However, the deal did not go ahead, in part due to the high cost.

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

U.N. - India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia propose Internet NWO in wake of Wikileaks. BAD IDEA!

In light of the Wikileaks disclosures, a group of countries, led by Brazil, is pushing for the United Nations to regulate the internet (Hat Tip: Instapundit).

At a meeting in New York on Wednesday, representatives from Brazil called for an international body made up of Government representatives that would attempt to create global standards for policing the internet - specifically in reaction to challenges such as WikiLeaks.
The Brazilian delegate stressed, however, that this should not be seen as a call for a "takeover" of the internet.
India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia appeared to favour a new possible over-arching inter-government body.

What could go wrong?

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

The United Nations is considering whether to set up an inter-governmental working group to harmonise global efforts by policy makers to regulate the internet.
Establishment of such a group has the backing of several countries, spearheaded by Brazil.
At a meeting in New York on Wednesday, representatives from Brazil called for an international body made up of Government representatives that would attempt to create global standards for policing the internet - specifically in reaction to challenges such as WikiLeaks.
The Brazilian delegate stressed, however, that this should not be seen as a call for a "takeover" of the internet.
India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia appeared to favour a new possible over-arching inter-government body.
However, Australia, US, UK, Belgium and Canada and attending business and community representatives argued there were risks in forming yet another working group that might isolate itself from the industry, community users and the general public.
"My concern is that if we were to make a move to form a governmental-only body then that would send a very strong signal to civil society that their valuable contribution was not required or was not being looked for," an un-named Australian representative told the meeting.
Debate on the creation of a new inter-governmental body stemmed from a UN Economic and Social Council resolution 2010/2 of 19 July.
The resolution invited the UN Secretary-General "to convene open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States and all other stakeholders with a view to assisting the process towards enhanced cooperation in order to enable Governments on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet but not of the day-to-day technical and operational matters that do not impact upon those issues."
Much debate concerned the meaning of "enhanced cooperation" and whether a new inter-governmental body was required. Participants also debated the roles of existing organisations - such as the Internet Governance Forum, ICANN and the ITU.
The IGF - an organisation that informs the UN but makes no decisions - is running close to the end of a five-year mandate, due to expire at the end of the year.
The likes of ISOC, ICANN and more recently the World Information Technology and Services Alliance (WITSA) have recently expressed concerns [PDF] that a working panel to decide on the future of the IGF has been limited to representatives from member-states.
"Australia is a very strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum," the unidentified Australian UN representative said at the New York meeting this week. "That is very much due to the multi-stake-holder approach of the IGF. It is an inclusive process."
Australia's Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy said that Australian Government welcomed the resolution of the Second Committee of the United Nation General Assembly (UNGA) to extend the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) for a further five years.
The DBCDE said it would like to see the organisation retain an open and participatory membership.
"Australia has always supported the participation of civil society and the private sector in the IGF and regards their participation as being integral to the IGF's success," a spokesman told iTnews.

via itnews.com.au

Flickr’d
On the first full day of Julian Assange’s release from imprisonment, we now learn that some members of the United Nations want to introduce some sort of worldwide Internet regulation. That’s nice. But don’t worry: this isn’t a “takeover,” or anything scary like that. It’s simply to ensure that we never see something like Wikileaks ever again. A bit late for that, no?
All of this went down on Wednesday, with Brazil’s UN delegation proposing “global standards” that would, in effect, regulate the Internet.
The proposal in the obtuse verbiage of the UN would:

convene open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States and all other stakeholders with a view to assisting the process towards enhanced cooperation in order to enable Governments on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet but not of the day-to-day technical and operational matters that do not impact upon those issues.

I seem to recall Brazil throwing up another Internet-related stink a few years ago vis-à-vis the .xxx top-level domain. A sort of, “We can’t have a dot x x x because that will encourage the proliferation of pornography.”
As if the Internet isn’t already swarming with pornography.

via crunchgear.com

encouraging cooperation between nations should be the job of the UN. this stuff about taking over is what scares me

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Jewish Experience In South Africa

ON A per capita basis, South Africa’s Jewish community was more active in the struggle against apartheid than any other nonblack group. This fact has not won the community any gratitude or friendship from the government, however. In part due to the ANC’s close ties to the PLO, the post-apartheid government has favored the country’s large Muslim community and distanced itself from the Jews. Muslims hold most of the senior positions in the civil service.
The vast majority of South African Jewry resides in crime-ridden Johannesburg. The physical insecurity of the community is palpable at all times. The Jews live behind walls and electric fences. It seems that everyone has either been the victim of a violent crime or knows someone who has. Even inside of Jewish neighborhoods, it is too dangerous for children to play in the streets.
Partly because the state schools are horrible, partly because of community cohesion and religious commitment, 80 percent of Jewish children in South Africa study in Jewish schools. With the children in Jewish schools, community involvement is higher than in most Diaspora communities.
But the schools are at risk. Some years ago Jewish school buses were stoned. The community responded by unmarking the buses. Everyone entering or leaving Jewish campuses must pass through security posts.
Community security is handled by the Community Security Organization. The day I arrived in Johannesburg, the community’s radio station received a bomb threat and the group’s representatives arrived on the scene within moments. Guards from the organization are present at all community events.
The future of the CSO is an open question. The government just passed a strict gun control law that will make it difficult for its guards to bear arms. Without guns, it is hard to see how the CSO will be able to provide protection.
Crime levels are much lower in Cape Town, and it is safe to wander around the city. But Cape Town’s Jews face other challenges, not the least of which is that whereas there are some 15,000 Jews in Cape Town, the city is home to 750,000 Muslims.
Ignoring the Jewish community’s deep involvement in the anti-apartheid struggle, the ANC berates it for Israel’s economic and military ties to the apartheid regime. The fact that the Arabs – and particularly Saudi Arabia – had much stronger and longer economic and military ties to the apartheid regime than Israel is never mentioned.
The ANC is one of the most anti-Israel governments in the world today. After the Mavi Marmara incident, aside from Turkey, South Africa was the only country to recall its ambassador from Israel. But on the issue of Israel, the ANC and the South African media see eye to eye. As Beverley Goldman from the South African Zionist Federation explained at a Zionist conference in Cape Town two weeks ago, the anti-Israel bias of the South African media is overwhelming.
The boycott, divest and sanction Israel campaign was arguably born in South Africa at the UN’s anti- Semitic hate fest in Durban in August 2001. It enjoys the support of South African notables like retired Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who just called for the Cape Town Opera to cancel its visit to Israel.
Last month the University of Johannesburg narrowly defeated a motion to cancel its water desalination research agreement with Ben-Gurion University. However, the motion will likely be passed in the future, because while rejecting the motion, the university demanded that BGU end ties with the IDF.
A movement to ban Israeli products from the shelves of South African stores is gaining steam.
A Jewish-owned grocery store chain was recently picketed.
Last month a firm that produces logo briefcases refused a contract with the South African Zionist Federation to produce briefcases for the Federation’s upcoming conference.
THE JEWISH community’s responses to the challenges it faces are varied. Emigration rates are high and rising. Australia is the preferred destination, but aliya rates are also relatively high and rising. The Jewish Agency’s representatives are energetic and committed. It would be helpful if Bnei Akiva sent more representatives to South Africa in light of the religiousness of many members of the community.
Most Jews leaving South Africa are young. Israel must adopt measures to help older Jews come here.
On the other side of the spectrum, the number of Jews who have joined the anti-Israel chorus is growing. Jews were among the founders of an anti-Zionist, pro-boycott group called Open Shuhada Street.
The option of turning on Israel and their community is an attractive one for many young Jews. Since the end of apartheid, with the rise in influence of the Muslim community and the ANC’s hostility toward Israel, the only way Jews can achieve sure notoriety is by joining forces with Israel’s enemies.
For its part, the organized Jewish leadership struggles to remain relevant. It excels at its primary task of caring for the welfare needs of an aging community. But defending Israel and Zionism in the face of a vocal Jewish anti-Israel minority is becoming increasingly difficult. Cultivating good ties with a government hostile to Israel and committed to economic policies that hurt most members of the community is also growing more challenging.
Sadly, it seems that despite the best efforts of many committed Jewish leaders, the organized community is breaking under the burden of these Sisyphean tasks. For instance, rather than attacking anti-Semites like Tutu, who among other things claims that Israel uses the Holocaust to justify its oppression of Arabs, South African Jews have honored him by making him a patron of their Holocaust foundation. Richard Goldstone is also a patron.
In the hopes of bringing blacks to the Holocaust museum in Cape Town, the museum’s exhibition begins with a remembrance of apartheid. By doing so, the museum equates the discrimination against blacks with the genocide of Jewry.
The community’s fear of Jewish turncoats has prevented it from discrediting them. For example, at last month’s Zionist Federation conference in Cape Town, the organizers invited a self-proclaimed non-Zionist attorney named Hayley Galgut to participate in a panel titled “South African Zionism Today.” Galgut used her time to explain why she is not a Zionist, and why the audience should abandon Zionism.
Organizers defended their decision to invite her by noting Galgut’s plan to move to Israel. But the fact that she wishes to move to the front line of the war against Israel does not make hers a legitimate voice. Galgut’s presence on the panel was evidence of the community leadership’s unwillingness to take measures to maintain a coherent Zionist message.
The physical beauty of South Africa is arresting, particularly along the coast. And the material standard of living that South African Jews enjoy is impressive. It is easy to see why many Jews find it hard to leave.
But it is also clear that Jewish life in South Africa will only get worse. The ANC is unlikely to improve its general governance or its policies toward Israel. It can only be hoped that the Jews of South Africa will make their way to Israel before the ANC fails them even more spectacularly than it already has.
caroline@carolineglick.com

via jpost.com

h/t Henri le Riche

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Desmond Tutu Retires from Church to Attack Israel Full Time

Desmond Tutu may have retired earlier this month as an Anglican Archbishop, but he has not given up on his obsession with demonising the Jewish state. Yesterday he was at it again with an appeal to the Cape Town Opera to cancel a planned trip next month to Israel and thus join the international boycott movement.

He said the decision to go would advance “Israel’s fallacious claim to being a ‘civilized democracy.’” He added that, like apartheid South Africa, Israel was “a society founded on discriminatory laws and racial exclusivity.”

via calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com

Compiled by Mort Klein

Do you remember Tutu saying:
* "Israel is like Hitler and apartheid" "I've been deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa ... I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about... "I say why are our memories so short? Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon? ... The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust. Injustice and oppression will never prevail."


* "The Jewish lobby is very powerful": "People are scared in this country [the U.S.], to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful--very powerful."

"Critics of Israel are being smeared": "You know as well as I do that, somehow, the Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the U.S.] and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic, as if Palestinians were not Semitic."

"Jewish Arrogance" Tutu accused Jews of exhibiting "an arrogance--the arrogance of power because Jews are a powerful lobby in this land and all kinds of people woo their support,"(Jewish Telegraphic Agency Daily News Bulletin, Nov. 29, 1984)

"Jewish Monopoly of the Holocaust Tutu complained about the Jewish monopoly of the Holocaust." (Jerusalem Post, July 26, 1985)

"Forgive the Nazis" During his 1989 visit to Israel, Tutu "urged Israelis to forgive the Nazis for the Holocaust" (Jerusalem Post, Dec. 31, 1989), a statement which the Simon Wiesenthal Center called "a gratuitous insult to Jews and victims of Nazism everywhere." During the visit, Tutu remarked "If I'm accused of being antisemitic, tough luck," and in response to questions about his anti-Jewish bias, Tutu replied, "My dentist's name is Dr. Cohen." (Simon Wiesenthal Center's Response magazine, January 1990)

"Zionism Is Racism" Tutu has claimed that Zionism has "very many parallels with racism." (American Jewish Year Book 1988, p.50)

"Jews Thought They Had a Monopoly on God" Speaking in a Connecticut church in 1984, Tutu said that "the Jews thought they had a monopoly on God; Jesus was angry that they could shut out other human beings." In the same speech, he compared the features of the ancient Holy Temple in Jerusalem to the features of the apartheid system in South Africa. (Hartford Courant, Oct. 29, 1984)

"Palestine, Not Israel": In conversations during the 1980s with the Israeli ambassador to South Africa, Eliahu Lankin, Tutu"refused to call Israel by its name, he kept referring to it as Palestine." (Simon Wiesenthal Center's Response magazine, January 1990)

"Jews Cause Refugees": Asked about the Zionism-is-racism resolution, Tutu complained that "the Jewish people with their traditions, religion and long history of persecution sometimes appear to have caused a refugee problem among others." (South African Zionist Record, July 26, 1985)

via docstalk.blogspot.com

noahdavidsimon's posterous

YidwithLid and calevbenyefuneh who found this information might thank him for fighting "Apartheid", but the Africans of South Africa are a violent tribal people who are now on a genocidal rage right now.  More should of been done to set up Republics for the people of this land instead of the Leftist Socialism that forced everyone together.  The reason borders are necessary is because some people's just don't like each other... and while I don't like that if I do not recognize this then I'm a dead man.

South Africa's Nuclear Weapons Program

Some folks on Seesmic Video asked for a background on this.  This was shared with me by Charles W. Schowalter and is an overview from MIT

South Africa's Nuclear Weapons Program

David Albright, President
Institute for Science and International Security March 14, 2001

South Africa is the only country to voluntarily give up its nuclear weapons. Many other states, such as South Korea, Taiwan, Argentina, and Brazil, abandoned their nuclear programs before they developed a weapon capability. However, South Africa's abandonment of its twenty- to thirty-year-old nuclear weapons program remains unique.
South Africa's first device was completed in 1979. A decade of weapons development followed, leading to plans to mate nuclear warheads with ballistic missiles. In 1990, President F. W. de Klerk terminated the program and in 1991 South Africa signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The IAEA then conducted an unprecedented verification of nuclear rollback. Although the IAEA was traditionally concerned only with the accuracy of a nation's declaration, after the agency's failure to detect Iraq's nuclear program the IAEA shifted its focus also to verifying the completeness of a nation's declaration of nuclear activities and facilities.
The official history of South Africa's nuclear weapons program as stated by South African government officials sidesteps some issues and is misleading on others. ISIS has interviewed South African nuclear scientists and government officials and collected material from South Africa and the IAEA to develop a more complete history of this program. The case of South Africa provides the only example of verification of nuclear rollback and highlights the extreme difficulty of verifying nuclear disarmament.
South Africa's nuclear program began during World War II with the discovery of major uranium deposits in the country. South Africa's first large-scale nuclear research and development project was initiated in 1959 under the auspices of the Atomic Energy Board (AEB). Although members of the former apartheid government claim that this project was not weapons-related, the African National Congress (ANC) believes that the ultimate goal of this early project was a nuclear weapon. The heart of the program was an indigenous nuclear power reactor fueled with natural uranium. Research on uranium enrichment was also commenced. A nuclear research center, including a US-provided research reactor, was established at Pelindaba. In 1967, South Africa abandoned the indigenous power reactor program while moving uranium enrichment to the pilot plant stage.
In 1967, South Africa combined its experience gained with the power reactor and uranium enrichment programs to launch a program to build peaceful nuclear explosives (PNEs). In 1970, South Africa announced the construction of a uranium enrichment plant, called the Y-Plant, at Valindaba, next to Pelindaba. Realizing that the large facility could not be hidden from outsiders, South Africa publicly announced the existence of the plant but kept secret the uranium enrichment technology and its plans to produce weapons-grade uranium. South Africa had tremendous problems getting the plant to work properly and the net effect was that output was only half as much as expected. Despite these problems, by the end of the 1980s, the plant had produced roughly 500 kilograms of uranium enriched to at least 80%.
In 1970, a committee within the AEB recommended that the government develop several types of PNEs including those based on gun-type and implosion-type designs (Type A) as well as boosted fission (Type A*) and thermonuclear designs (Type B). In 1971, the Minister of Mines approved development of the Type A devices. In 1973, theoretical work on Type B devices was approved and two years later approval was granted for the construction of facilities to produce the material needed for thermonuclear devices.
The AEB scientists chose to focus on the gun-type design and had completed theoretical work on such a design by 1973. In 1976, the first full scale test of the device, using natural uranium instead of enriched uranium, was conducted successfully. The next year, South Africa completed its first full-scale device (minus the highly enriched uranium). The huge device, 4.5 meters long and 3400 kilograms in weight, was suitable only for a static test. South Africa began its search for a test site in 1973 and by 1977 had completed two shafts in the Kalahari Desert. Preparations for a cold test were detected in August 1977 by the United States and Soviet Union forcing South Africa to halt its test preparation activities. Following this episode, AEB scientists miniaturized the design of the device so that it was only 2 meters long, weighed 750 kilograms and would be ready for testing at short notice.
By 1977, AEB also established nuclear weapon research and development and production facilities at Pelindaba. Around this time, South Africa's security environment had deteriorated with the introduction of Cuban forces into Angola and the imposition of a military embargo by the United Nations. In 1978, P.W. Botha became prime minister of South Africa and a nuclear strategy was developed. While the AEB felt that an underground test would be a sufficient deterrent, the military believed that a fully weaponized nuclear capability was needed to provide a credible deterrent. As a result, responsibility for the weaponization program was transferred to Armscor, South Africa's primary weapon development agency. By 1982, Armscor had built its first device, a relatively simple bomb. Subsequently it made extensive modifications to the AEB weapon design to meet the military's requirements for safety, security and reliability.
In 1985, the government capped the weapons program at seven gun-type devices and limited HEU production at the Y-Plant to that needed to meet this goal. Research on implosion, boosted fission and thermonuclear designs continued but work on plutonium-based weapons was halted. In addition, development of a ballistic missile to replace the aging Buccaneer bombers as a nuclear delivery system was continued. Armscor also received additional funds to build a new weapon production facility called Advena Central Laboratory.
South Africa's nuclear strategy, originally developed in the late 1970s, had three phases. Phase one consisted of perpetuating strategic uncertainty regarding South Africa's nuclear capabilities. If South Africa faced an overwhelming conventional military threat and the West was unwilling to intervene on its behalf, South Africa would implement phase two of the strategy. Under this phase, South Africa would covertly acknowledge the existence of its nuclear weapons to key Western powers in the hope of inducing their intervention. If this approach did not succeed, South Africa would move to phase three, the adoption of an overt deterrent posture, which included several options. South Africa would publicly acknowledge the existence of its nuclear stockpile, conduct an underground nuclear test, or detonate a nuclear explosion on the surface. South Africa calculated that the West's determination to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons would force them to place South Africa under their nuclear umbrella in the event of a crisis. The implementation of South Africa's nuclear strategy never progressed beyond phase one.
By 1989, South Africa had six devices in its arsenal, each containing 55 kilograms of HEU, and enough HEU for a seventh device. South Africa took several precautions to safeguard its weapon stockpile. All the devices were stored unassembled with the front and rear portions of the weapons stored in separate vaults. Four codes, including one held by the president, were required to assemble the two parts into a weapon. In addition, to prevent premature detonation of a device, the weapons would only arm once they reached a certain altitude on board their delivery aircraft. Armscor based its safeguards largely on American practices.
By late 1989, the departure of Cuban forces from Angola, the decline of the Soviet Union and the independence of Namibia, had significantly improved South Africa's security situation. President F.W. de Klerk, elected in September 1989, sought an end to the apartheid regime and South Africa's acceptance back into the international community. The nuclear weapons program was viewed an obstacle to these goals and orders were issued for the termination of the program. By the time South Africa joined the NPT in the summer of 1991 and IAEA inspections began later that year the program had been dismantled and its nuclear weapon manufacturing facilities had been decontaminated. Largely because of domestic and international pressure, de Klerk announced the existence of the former weapons program and began cooperating with IAEA efforts to verify the rollback of the program.
With access to South African records, the IAEA recalculated the Y-Plant's production on a day-to-day basis and arrived at a final estimate within about 5-10 kilograms of South Africa's declaration. The IAEA was able to verify the scope and timing of the South African nuclear weapons program and its subsequent dismantlement.
South Africa's success in developing nuclear weapons can be attributed to five elements. First, South Africa mastered the highly enriched uranium production process. Second, the nation had a defense industry which could produce nuclear delivery systems. Third, the program had good scientists and technicians. Fourth, the program had a good foreign procurement network. Fifth, the weapons' design was kept simple and low in cost. The international sanctions placed on South Africa in the 1970s slowed but did not stop its nuclear weapon program. In fact, the imposition of the sanctions in the 1970s may have hardened South Africa's determination to build nuclear weapons.
Rapporteur: Gregory Koblentz

---

back to seminar schedule, spring 2001

via web.mit.edu

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Israel, South Africa and #Goldstone

  ...there is a fallacy going viral around involving Israel, South Africa and #Goldstone

America allied with Stalin to destroy Hitler. Goldstone the prosecution was an Apartheid hanging and lynching judge.
via video.seesmic.com