Mandela Quote

[Freeman]

"We consider ourselves to be comrades in arms to the Palestinian Arabs in their struggle for the liberation of Palestine. There is not a single citizen in South Africa who is not ready to stand by his Palestinian brothers in their legitimate fight against the Zionist racists."

Reverend Tutu in his part was banned by zionists federarions in US!- shame

 

[editec]

He probably remembers that while the rest of the civilized world was shunning SA's apatheid goverment, Isreal's semi-apartheid government was still dealing with it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Mandela the communist siding with the Palis?? Say it aint so.
Gee Friedman, I had no idea you held Mandela in such high regard.

 

[Freeman]

Mandela the communist siding with the Palis?? Say it aint so.
Gee Friedman, I had no idea you held Mandela in such high regard.

communist , palis??

don't be a hater, and stay civil, ok?

 

[Marc39]

The Arab and Muslim Middle East is the single largest apartheid system in the world, where people are systematically discriminated against based on religion, gender and sexual orientation.

Jews are forbidden to live in Jordan and Gaza, where hanging is the penalty for selling land to a Jew.

Christians are prohibited from even entering Mecca and Medina.

I could go on.

Israel is the only countryin the region that is multicultural and embraces freedom, human rights and civil liberties for all its citizens, constitutioally guaranteed.

Thus, you, once, again, are PWNED.

 

[Marc39]

He probably remembers that while the rest of the civilized world was shunning SA's apatheid goverment, Isreal's semi-apartheid government was still dealing with it.

The Arabs and Muslims today embrace the president of apartheid Sudan, an indicted war criminal for his complicity in the Muslim and Christian genocide in Darfur and southern Sudan...
Arab League Embraces Sudanese President Wanted for War Crimes - World View

 

[The Rabbi]

Isnt it amazing that anti semites live in a parallel universe where everything is the opposite? I wonder how they put on their undershorts.

 

[Marc39]

He probably remembers that while the rest of the civilized world was shunning SA's apatheid goverment, Isreal's semi-apartheid government was still dealing with it.

You don't even know what apartheid is, Mustafa. Don't use such big words. You're just an ignorant camel herder, after all.

 

[Shogun]

clearly, if Nelson Mandela were arab then jews like marc, the rabbi and cmike would be telling us how antisemitic it is for south africa to desegregate it's government and why it makes sense for a fraction of the population, whites, to dominate the indigenous people of the land, blacks.

Of course, we'd also probably have to sit through some laughable tale about how g-d promised diamond mines to the jooooos and that the holocaust paid for such an ironic genocide in full so...

 

[Marc39]

clearly, if Nelson Mandela were arab then jews like marc, the rabbi and cmike would be telling us how antisemitic it is for south africa to desegregate it's government and why it makes sense for a fraction of the population, whites, to dominate the indigenous people of the land, blacks.

Of course, we'd also probably have to sit through some laughable tale about how g-d promised diamond mines to the jooooos and that the holocaust paid for such an ironic genocide in full so...

Translation: You're whacked.

 

[Barb]

He probably remembers that while the rest of the civilized world was shunning SA's apatheid goverment, Isreal's semi-apartheid government was still dealing with it.

Them and the US:

Take the distinction between terror and resistance. One question that arises is the legitimacy of actions to realize "the right to self-determination, freedom, and independence, as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, of people forcibly deprived of that right...particularly peoples under under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation." Do such actions fall under terror or resistance ? The quoted words are from the the most forceful denunciation of the crime of terrorism by the UN General assembly, which stated further that "nothing in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the right" so defined. The resolution was adopted in December 1987, just as officially recognized international terrorism reached its peak. It is obviously important. The vote was 153 to 2 (with a single abstention, Honduras), hence even more important.

The two countries that voted against the resolution were the usual ones. Their reason, they explained at the UN session, was the paragraph just quoted. The phrase "colonial racist regimes" was understood to refer to their ally, apartheid South Africa. Evidently the US and Israel could not condone resistance to the apartheid regime, particularly when it was led by Mandela's African National Congress, one of the world's "more notorious terrorist groups," as Washington determined at the time. The other phrase, "foreign occupation," was understood to mean Israel's military occupation, then in its twentieth year. Evidently, resistance could not be condoned in that case either.

Chomsky, Noam, Hegemony or Survival, Henry Holt and Company, LLC, 2004, Pg 190

Nothings changed in over twenty years.

 

[Marc39]

He probably remembers that while the rest of the civilized world was shunning SA's apatheid goverment, Isreal's semi-apartheid government was still dealing with it.

Them and the US:

Take the distinction between terror and resistance. One question that arises is the legitimacy of actions to realize "the right to self-determination, freedom, and independence, as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, of people forcibly deprived of that right...particularly peoples under under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation." Do such actions fall under terror or resistance ? The quoted words are from the the most forceful denunciation of the crime of terrorism by the UN General assembly, which stated further that "nothing in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the right" so defined. The resolution was adopted in December 1987, just as officially recognized international terrorism reached its peak. It is obviously important. The vote was 153 to 2 (with a single abstention, Honduras), hence even more important.

The two countries that voted against the resolution were the usual ones. Their reason, they explained at the UN session, was the paragraph just quoted. The phrase "colonial racist regimes" was understood to refer to their ally, apartheid South Africa. Evidently the US and Israel could not condone resistance to the apartheid regime, particularly when it was led by Mandela's African National Congress, one of the world's "more notorious terrorist groups," as Washington determined at the time. The other phrase, "foreign occupation," was understood to mean Israel's military occupation, then in its twentieth year. Evidently, resistance could not be condoned in that case either.

Chomsky, Noam, Hegemony or Survival, Henry Holt and Company, LLC, 2004, Pg 190

Nothings changed in over twenty years.

Those who actually fought against apartheid in South Africa and who live in Israel would disagree. You know better?
Expose ?apartheid? charge's real agenda

 

[Barb]

He probably remembers that while the rest of the civilized world was shunning SA's apatheid goverment, Isreal's semi-apartheid government was still dealing with it.

Them and the US:

Take the distinction between terror and resistance. One question that arises is the legitimacy of actions to realize "the right to self-determination, freedom, and independence, as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, of people forcibly deprived of that right...particularly peoples under under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation." Do such actions fall under terror or resistance ? The quoted words are from the the most forceful denunciation of the crime of terrorism by the UN General assembly, which stated further that "nothing in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the right" so defined. The resolution was adopted in December 1987, just as officially recognized international terrorism reached its peak. It is obviously important. The vote was 153 to 2 (with a single abstention, Honduras), hence even more important.

The two countries that voted against the resolution were the usual ones. Their reason, they explained at the UN session, was the paragraph just quoted. The phrase "colonial racist regimes" was understood to refer to their ally, apartheid South Africa. Evidently the US and Israel could not condone resistance to the apartheid regime, particularly when it was led by Mandela's African National Congress, one of the world's "more notorious terrorist groups," as Washington determined at the time. The other phrase, "foreign occupation," was understood to mean Israel's military occupation, then in its twentieth year. Evidently, resistance could not be condoned in that case either.

Chomsky, Noam, Hegemony or Survival, Henry Holt and Company, LLC, 2004, Pg 190

Nothings changed in over twenty years.

Those who actually fought against apartheid in South Africa and who live in Israel would disagree. You know better?
Expose ?apartheid? charge's real agenda

Like any other politician or nation state, I think I'll go with their actions (the VOTE) at the time rather than their statements (apologia) in the present. The doves in Israel government (and I've always acknowledged their existence) are vastly outnumbered and out powered by hawks.

 

[Marc39]

Them and the US:



Nothings changed in over twenty years.

Those who actually fought against apartheid in South Africa and who live in Israel would disagree. You know better?
Expose ?apartheid? charge's real agenda

Like any other politician or nation state, I think I'll go with their actions (the VOTE) at the time rather than their statements (apologia) in the present. The doves in Israel government (and I've always acknowledged their existence) are vastly outnumbered and out powered by hawks.

There is widespread apartheid throughout the Arab Muslim Middle East, however, Israel is the only country in the region that guarantees freedom, human rights and civil liberties to all its citizens.

 

[Barb]

Those who actually fought against apartheid in South Africa and who live in Israel would disagree. You know better?
Expose ?apartheid? charge's real agenda

Like any other politician or nation state, I think I'll go with their actions (the VOTE) at the time rather than their statements (apologia) in the present. The doves in Israel government (and I've always acknowledged their existence) are vastly outnumbered and out powered by hawks.

There is widespread apartheid throughout the Arab Muslim Middle East, however, Israel is the only country in the region that guarantees freedom, human rights and civil liberties to all its citizens.

It is not. Read a book.

 

[Marc39]

Like any other politician or nation state, I think I'll go with their actions (the VOTE) at the time rather than their statements (apologia) in the present. The doves in Israel government (and I've always acknowledged their existence) are vastly outnumbered and out powered by hawks.

There is widespread apartheid throughout the Arab Muslim Middle East, however, Israel is the only country in the region that guarantees freedom, human rights and civil liberties to all its citizens.

It is not. Read a book.

I live in Israel. I know. In Saudi Arabia, there are Muslim-Only roads.
In Israel, Arabs and Muslims and Christians and Druze have senior positions in government, the judiciary and the military.

There are 25 apartheid Arab countries and 57 apartheid Muslim countries: Go protest there, hun.

 

[Shogun]

clearly, if Nelson Mandela were arab then jews like marc, the rabbi and cmike would be telling us how antisemitic it is for south africa to desegregate it's government and why it makes sense for a fraction of the population, whites, to dominate the indigenous people of the land, blacks.

Of course, we'd also probably have to sit through some laughable tale about how g-d promised diamond mines to the jooooos and that the holocaust paid for such an ironic genocide in full so...

Translation: You're whacked.

Spare me the kind of jewish translation usually reserved for iranian presidents, joobjoob. We already know your modus operandi

 

[Marc39]

clearly, if Nelson Mandela were arab then jews like marc, the rabbi and cmike would be telling us how antisemitic it is for south africa to desegregate it's government and why it makes sense for a fraction of the population, whites, to dominate the indigenous people of the land, blacks.

Of course, we'd also probably have to sit through some laughable tale about how g-d promised diamond mines to the jooooos and that the holocaust paid for such an ironic genocide in full so...

Translation: You're whacked.

Spare me the kind of jewish translation usually reserved for iranian presidents, joobjoob. We already know your modus operandi

Translation: You're cracked.

 

[Barb]

There is widespread apartheid throughout the Arab Muslim Middle East, however, Israel is the only country in the region that guarantees freedom, human rights and civil liberties to all its citizens.

It is not. Read a book.

I live in Israel. I know. In Saudi Arabia, there are Muslim-Only roads.
In Israel, Arabs and Muslims and Christians and Druze have senior positions in government, the judiciary and the military.

There are 25 apartheid Arab countries and 57 apartheid Muslim countries: Go protest there, hun.

Don't call me "hun." You don't know me like that. Lots of people live in the US, they know jack too.

 

[Marc39]

It is not. Read a book.

I live in Israel. I know. In Saudi Arabia, there are Muslim-Only roads.
In Israel, Arabs and Muslims and Christians and Druze have senior positions in government, the judiciary and the military.

There are 25 apartheid Arab countries and 57 apartheid Muslim countries: Go protest there, hun.

Don't call me "hun." You don't know me like that. Lots of people live in the US, they know jack too.

Fail, hun.