South Africa's de Klerk: Israel must reach peace

[Hossfly]

 

[RoccoR]

proudveteran06, et al,

In a very great measure, there is truth and understanding here. But, maybe not so much success towards peace.

Let me translate; The Palestinian is stating that Israel will never go back to " borders" that were never recognized in the first place , Refuse to have no rights in E. Jerusalem where their sacred sites are located or allow " Right of Return" which would in time annex Israel to " Palestine". Let them continue with ALL their demands . It will never happen.

(COMMENT)

Compromise is part of the healthy relationships between states, and most allies - over time - become acutely sensitive to each other's political positions and paradigms. The type of negotiations that Israel and Palestine are certainly not considerate of the political ground that each has to maneuver within and certainly has proven ineffective in conflict avoidance. The problem is that "compromises" dilutes the decision-making processes and makes the one that compromises look weak in the eyes of the hardliners which the negotiators have to politically satisfy. This sets the stage for the end decisions to be a watered-down version of each sides original expectations. And the end decisions are not, by themselves, strong enough to withstand quarrelsome criticisms and political controversy from the internal opponents to any compromise.

On both sides of the border, there are elements which demand 100% of there starting position. While a compromise may be good enough to achieve peace and regional security, it may not by satisfactory close enough to what each opposing hardline element will support politically. Over time with many many of these compromises stacking up, it's easy for nation to feel that their political position has strayed way off course, and get resentful and totally uncompromising. Today's Israeli-Palestinian Talks are just in such a condition. It may take the economic collapse of one side or the other to reinitialize peace negotiations that are actually in a good faith environment.

Currently, neither side really wants to enter into any kind of settlement arrangement of their international disputes because neither Administration (Israeli or Palestinian) has the ability to survive the political fire brought upon them by their hardline domestic elements. The only reason that the talks were initiated in the first placed for this latest round, is simply because the US exerted its influence. It was not helpful, but made it look like there was some sort of advanced diplomatic effort and elegant statesmanship. When in fact, it was a worthless effort because the US could not impact the hardline elements of either side; and the general populations had little to no influence over the topics at large.

Outside intervention, like that of the recent US pressure, only appears to be helpful, but clearly shows a lack of understanding the US has on the dynamics which are necessary to achieve sincere negotiation efforts by both parties. But neither side had a chance, not because of what the other side did or did not do something, but because neither side (Israel or Palestine) has the domestic political strength to make meaningful compromises or accept meaningful compromises; necessary to achieve peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Roudy]

Israel must reach peace? Pardon me...I forgot... the poor peaceful Palestinians have no responsibility in the matter.

Too busy terrorizing and killing. LOL

 

[Roudy]

Israel tried several times, but the Palestinians kept rejecting the offers.

Can you tell us what those offers were?

They were offered 95% of their prison. The only thing they did not get was the walls and doors.

Considering there has never been a country called Palestine in history, they were actually offered too much. The best solution to this problem as it stands now is for Israel to annex the West Bank and offer incentives to the Arabs to migrate back to where they came from, countries such as Jordan. And possibly provide incentives to those countries as well.

 

[montelatici]

Can you tell us what those offers were?

They were offered 95% of their prison. The only thing they did not get was the walls and doors.

Considering there has never been a country called Palestine in history, they were actually offered too much. The best solution to this problem as it stands now is for Israel to annex the West Bank and offer incentives to the Arabs to migrate back to where they came from, countries such as Jordan. And possibly provide incentives to those countries as well.

" offer incentives to the Arabs to migrate back to where they came from"

They came from what is now Israel, are you offering the right of return?

 

[MJB12741]

LOL! Got news for you. Jews were indigenous Palestinians of the land. No Muslim Palestinians except for whatever small percentage of Jews may have converted to Islam. Time long overdo for Israel to get the Palestinian squatters off of Israel's land by whatever means necessary. LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!

They were offered 95% of their prison. The only thing they did not get was the walls and doors.

Considering there has never been a country called Palestine in history, they were actually offered too much. The best solution to this problem as it stands now is for Israel to annex the West Bank and offer incentives to the Arabs to migrate back to where they came from, countries such as Jordan. And possibly provide incentives to those countries as well.

" offer incentives to the Arabs to migrate back to where they came from"

They came from what is now Israel, are you offering the right of return?

 

[Phoenall]

They were offered 95% of their prison. The only thing they did not get was the walls and doors.

Considering there has never been a country called Palestine in history, they were actually offered too much. The best solution to this problem as it stands now is for Israel to annex the West Bank and offer incentives to the Arabs to migrate back to where they came from, countries such as Jordan. And possibly provide incentives to those countries as well.

" offer incentives to the Arabs to migrate back to where they came from"

They came from what is now Israel, are you offering the right of return?

Not according to the evidence of the Ottomans who tried to populate Palestine with arab muslims and failed because they did not like the work involved. 4 times they shipped them in and 4 times they left within a year, so they invited the Jews to migrate there and turn the land fertile. Are the Palestinians offering the Jews the right of return, and the same nationality deal that they have themselves ( two years residency to be classed as a Palestinian with the right of return to a house they have never even seen )

 

[toastman]

Israel tried several times, but the Palestinians kept rejecting the offers.

Can you tell us what those offers were?

They were offered 95% of their prison. The only thing they did not get was the walls and doors.

You make no sense whatsoever.... As usual.

 

[montelatici]

Considering there has never been a country called Palestine in history, they were actually offered too much. The best solution to this problem as it stands now is for Israel to annex the West Bank and offer incentives to the Arabs to migrate back to where they came from, countries such as Jordan. And possibly provide incentives to those countries as well.

" offer incentives to the Arabs to migrate back to where they came from"

They came from what is now Israel, are you offering the right of return?

Not according to the evidence of the Ottomans who tried to populate Palestine with arab muslims and failed because they did not like the work involved. 4 times they shipped them in and 4 times they left within a year, so they invited the Jews to migrate there and turn the land fertile. Are the Palestinians offering the Jews the right of return, and the same nationality deal that they have themselves ( two years residency to be classed as a Palestinian with the right of return to a house they have never even seen )

The only people the Ottomans shipped in were a few Jews. The Palestinian Christians and Muslims are the indigenous inhabitants who converted from Judaism to both religions. That's just an undeniable fact.

 

[Phoenall]

" offer incentives to the Arabs to migrate back to where they came from"

They came from what is now Israel, are you offering the right of return?

Not according to the evidence of the Ottomans who tried to populate Palestine with arab muslims and failed because they did not like the work involved. 4 times they shipped them in and 4 times they left within a year, so they invited the Jews to migrate there and turn the land fertile. Are the Palestinians offering the Jews the right of return, and the same nationality deal that they have themselves ( two years residency to be classed as a Palestinian with the right of return to a house they have never even seen )

The only people the Ottomans shipped in were a few Jews. The Palestinian Christians and Muslims are the indigenous inhabitants who converted from Judaism to both religions. That's just an undeniable fact.

Try this child

Demographics in the Middle Ages[edit]

Main articles: Islamization of Palestine, Kingdom of Jerusalem § Crusader society and demographics and Ayyubid § Demographics

The Christian-dominated Palestinian society of the late-Byzantine era, having been formed by conversions plus various migrations, was to undergo yet another upheaval. In 629 Palestine was invaded by Arabs from the Hejaz. By 635 AD, Palestine, Jordan and Southern Syria, with the exception of Jerusalem and Caesarea, were in Muslim hands. Jerusalem capitulated in 636.

Levy-Rubin advocated that conversion was not commonplace during the early-period of the Islamic empire (the Umayyad Caliphate [661 - 750 CE] and the Abbasid Caliphate [750 - 1258]) - “It has been presumed until now that [the presence of Muslims in Samaria] was solely a result of immigration of Arab Muslims into the area. … a small part of this Muslim population originated in Samarian population which converted to Islam during the early Muslim period mainly as a result of difficult economic conditions. As of now this is the only evidence we have of mass conversion to Islam in Palestine during the early Muslim period.”.[18] Arabization of the Levant involved the realm’s new subjects adopting the Arabic language and Islam.[19]


"Very few Arabs were productive settlers of the land, an activity they despised; a few were great landlords who used native tenants to cultivate their estates; but generally they were nomadic tribesmen, soldiers and officials all of whom lived off the jizya (or poll tax) and the kharaj (or land tax) paid by the occupied peoples in return for the protection of their lives and property and for the right to practise their own religion. Because the jizya and the kharaj could be imposed only on non-Muslims, the Arabs had little interest in making converts to Islam, a contributory reason why Syria, Palestine and Egypt would remain overwhelmingly Christian for centuries to come."[20]

According to Atimal and Ellenblum the Islamization of Palestine had its beginnings in the early Islamic period (ca. 640-1099 C.E.), but had halted and apparently even been reversed during the time of Frankish rule (Kingdom of Jerusalem). In the aftermath of the Muslim reconquest, which began in 1187, and the advent of Ayyubid rule (1187-1260) in parts of Palestine and then the Mamluk rule, it appears that the process of religious conversion was accelerated. With the beginning of the Ottoman period in 1516, it is commonly assumed, and may well be that the Muslim majority in the country was more-or-less like that of the mid-19th century.[21]


Demographics of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sally]

" offer incentives to the Arabs to migrate back to where they came from"

They came from what is now Israel, are you offering the right of return?

Not according to the evidence of the Ottomans who tried to populate Palestine with arab muslims and failed because they did not like the work involved. 4 times they shipped them in and 4 times they left within a year, so they invited the Jews to migrate there and turn the land fertile. Are the Palestinians offering the Jews the right of return, and the same nationality deal that they have themselves ( two years residency to be classed as a Palestinian with the right of return to a house they have never even seen )

The only people the Ottomans shipped in were a few Jews. The Palestinian Christians and Muslims are the indigenous inhabitants who converted from Judaism to both religions. That's just an undeniable fact.

Since Haniya can't seem to restrain herself from babbling this over and over, perhaps we can take up a collection for her to actually go to the area and take DNA samples of all these Palestinians to see if they have the Jewish gene. No one says that some of these Arabs don't originally have Jewish ancestry, but the Jews certainly didn't convert en masse to Christianity or Islam like Haniya wants the readers to think. In fact, most of the Arabs came from their poor surrounding countries when the Jews had jobs for them. Perhaps in the future, the Muslim immigrants to Europe who also came for jobs from their poor countries will be claiming that they are the indigenous people, and Haniya will be cheering them on. Say, while Haniya is over there, perhaps she can hop over to Egypt and take DNA samples there to see which Muslims actually have Coptic Christian roots. After all, the Muslims left the Saudi Peninsula and invaded Egypt, forcing many to convert and killing many who refused.

History of Jihad against the Egyptian Coptic Christians (640)

 

[Hossfly]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1vB5FGYKPs

Has everyone had a look at this video? Straight from the horse's mouth.

 

[proudveteran06]

They were offered 95% of their prison. The only thing they did not get was the walls and doors.

Considering there has never been a country called Palestine in history, they were actually offered too much. The best solution to this problem as it stands now is for Israel to annex the West Bank and offer incentives to the Arabs to migrate back to where they came from, countries such as Jordan. And possibly provide incentives to those countries as well.

" offer incentives to the Arabs to migrate back to where they came from"

They came from what is now Israel, are you offering the right of return?

Translation: The eventual annex of Israel to " Palestine?" HELL NO ! Tell us please what the Palestinians are doing to " negotiate" There will not be a response; There never is.

 

[proudveteran06]

proudveteran06, et al,

In a very great measure, there is truth and understanding here. But, maybe not so much success towards peace.

Let me translate; The Palestinian is stating that Israel will never go back to " borders" that were never recognized in the first place , Refuse to have no rights in E. Jerusalem where their sacred sites are located or allow " Right of Return" which would in time annex Israel to " Palestine". Let them continue with ALL their demands . It will never happen.

(COMMENT)

Compromise is part of the healthy relationships between states, and most allies - over time - become acutely sensitive to each other's political positions and paradigms. The type of negotiations that Israel and Palestine are certainly not considerate of the political ground that each has to maneuver within and certainly has proven ineffective in conflict avoidance. The problem is that "compromises" dilutes the decision-making processes and makes the one that compromises look weak in the eyes of the hardliners which the negotiators have to politically satisfy. This sets the stage for the end decisions to be a watered-down version of each sides original expectations. And the end decisions are not, by themselves, strong enough to withstand quarrelsome criticisms and political controversy from the internal opponents to any compromise.

On both sides of the border, there are elements which demand 100% of there starting position. While a compromise may be good enough to achieve peace and regional security, it may not by satisfactory close enough to what each opposing hardline element will support politically. Over time with many many of these compromises stacking up, it's easy for nation to feel that their political position has strayed way off course, and get resentful and totally uncompromising. Today's Israeli-Palestinian Talks are just in such a condition. It may take the economic collapse of one side or the other to reinitialize peace negotiations that are actually in a good faith environment.

Currently, neither side really wants to enter into any kind of settlement arrangement of their international disputes because neither Administration (Israeli or Palestinian) has the ability to survive the political fire brought upon them by their hardline domestic elements. The only reason that the talks were initiated in the first placed for this latest round, is simply because the US exerted its influence. It was not helpful, but made it look like there was some sort of advanced diplomatic effort and elegant statesmanship. When in fact, it was a worthless effort because the US could not impact the hardline elements of either side; and the general populations had little to no influence over the topics at large.

Outside intervention, like that of the recent US pressure, only appears to be helpful, but clearly shows a lack of understanding the US has on the dynamics which are necessary to achieve sincere negotiation efforts by both parties. But neither side had a chance, not because of what the other side did or did not do something, but because neither side (Israel or Palestine) has the domestic political strength to make meaningful compromises or accept meaningful compromises; necessary to achieve peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

You appear to be one of the most OBJECTIVE knowledgable people on the board so let me ask a question. What do you believe EACH side has to do to achieve peace? Thank you.

 

[RoccoR]

proudveteran06, et al,

Thank you for the kind words.

What do you believe EACH side has to do to achieve peace? Thank you.

(OBSERVATION)

Both side (Israeli 'v' Palestinian) have irreconcilable differences that eventually disrupt negotiations. The Negotiating Teams never have the necessary authority to make the hard decisions. Both sides have disruptive influences within the respective domestic political arena which interrupt negotiations.

(COMMENT)

Both sides need to establish an internationally recognized program for an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) settlement - "Binding Arbitration;" where both parties agree in advance (the Knesset and the Palestinian Legislative Council) to abide by the result.

The Arbitration can be along the standard model like the The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID); or be a specially assembled group specifically for the Israeli-Palestinian settlement.

This will completely knock-out the interruptions by the adversarial political parties of each nation, and the external influence of international assemblies, regional compacts, and local and adjacent countries having an interest in influencing progress and outcomes.

In order for this to work, both countries --- through the chambers of their respective Parliaments --- must want to enter into a "good faith process."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[proudveteran06]

proudveteran06, et al,

Thank you for the kind words.

What do you believe EACH side has to do to achieve peace? Thank you.

(OBSERVATION)

Both side (Israeli 'v' Palestinian) have irreconcilable differences that eventually disrupt negotiations. The Negotiating Teams never have the necessary authority to make the hard decisions. Both sides have disruptive influences within the respective domestic political arena which interrupt negotiations.

(COMMENT)

Both sides need to establish an internationally recognized program for an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) settlement - "Binding Arbitration;" where both parties agree in advance (the Knesset and the Palestinian Legislative Council) to abide by the result.

The Arbitration can be along the standard model like the The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID); or be a specially assembled group specifically for the Israeli-Palestinian settlement.

This will completely knock-out the interruptions by the adversarial political parties of each nation, and the external influence of international assemblies, regional compacts, and local and adjacent countries having an interest in influencing progress and outcomes.

In order for this to work, both countries --- through the chambers of their respective Parliaments --- must want to enter into a "good faith process."

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks for the response ! If I were in the Israeli Govt I would hesitate for ONE reason; What if the ADR agreed to adopt the " Saudi Peace Plan" or something almost identical to it ? Then Israel would have to abide by it and the JEWISH STATE would no longer exist in time.

 

[RoccoR]

proudveteran06, et al,

Yes, how does it work.

proudveteran06, et al,

Thank you for the kind words.

What do you believe EACH side has to do to achieve peace? Thank you.

(OBSERVATION)

Both side (Israeli 'v' Palestinian) have irreconcilable differences that eventually disrupt negotiations. The Negotiating Teams never have the necessary authority to make the hard decisions. Both sides have disruptive influences within the respective domestic political arena which interrupt negotiations.

(COMMENT)

Both sides need to establish an internationally recognized program for an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) settlement - "Binding Arbitration;" where both parties agree in advance (the Knesset and the Palestinian Legislative Council) to abide by the result.

The Arbitration can be along the standard model like the The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID); or be a specially assembled group specifically for the Israeli-Palestinian settlement.

This will completely knock-out the interruptions by the adversarial political parties of each nation, and the external influence of international assemblies, regional compacts, and local and adjacent countries having an interest in influencing progress and outcomes.

In order for this to work, both countries --- through the chambers of their respective Parliaments --- must want to enter into a "good faith process."

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks for the response ! If I were in the Israeli Govt I would hesitate for ONE reason; What if the ADR agreed to adopt the " Saudi Peace Plan" or something almost identical to it ? Then Israel would have to abide by it and the JEWISH STATE would no longer exist in time.

(COMMENT)

There are basically three parties to the Arbitration. Each side gets to present their opening position and their justification. The Arbitrator then tries to get them to come together, as close as they can. It is not a matter of merely adopting a "plan" or framework. This is a final solution to:

• War Reparations
• Restitution for Damages
• Significant Civil Claims Payments
• Land Apportionment, Borders, and the Distribution of Settlements
• Property Transfers and Annexation of Land
• Refugee Status and Payments of Claims
• Militarization and defense issues
• Resource Exchanges and Economic Relationships
• etc

The Arbitration, when finalized, wipes the slate clean, and establishes a completely new point in time for the beginning of a new relationship with a Peace Treaty. Nothing before that point will have any legal standing.

The Saudi Plan does not come close to that manner of detail. Certainly everything that the Saudi Plan touches upon will be an issue in the Arbitration, but each side gets to argue their concerns and the Arbitrator will guide them to a resolution of differences.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[pbel]

LOL! Got news for you. Jews were indigenous Palestinians of the land. No Muslim Palestinians except for whatever small percentage of Jews may have converted to Islam. Time long overdo for Israel to get the Palestinian squatters off of Israel's land by whatever means necessary. LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!

Considering there has never been a country called Palestine in history, they were actually offered too much. The best solution to this problem as it stands now is for Israel to annex the West Bank and offer incentives to the Arabs to migrate back to where they came from, countries such as Jordan. And possibly provide incentives to those countries as well.

" offer incentives to the Arabs to migrate back to where they came from"

They came from what is now Israel, are you offering the right of return?

Still trying to sell Fairy Tales...Stupidity is your product...The Palestinian genetic analysis proves that they are closer to the ancient Jews genetically than the Jewish Israelis.

 

[GHook93]

Acceptable peace now or non existence tomorrow?

JERUSALEM: South Africa's de Klerk: Israel must reach peace - World Wires - MiamiHerald.com

JERUSALEM -- South Africa's last president under white rule has suggested that Israel risks heading toward apartheid if it does not reach a peace deal with the Palestinians.

The comments by F.W. de Klerk echo warnings made by Palestinian, American and dovish Israeli officials. But his words carry special meaning, given his role in South Africa's painful history of race relations.

De Klerk was the last president under apartheid and along with the late Nelson Mandela, brought about the end to decades of systematic racial discrimination against blacks, jointly winning the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize.

Comparisons to South Africa's racist rule have increased in public discourse about Israel and its treatment of Palestinians. In April, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry — who had been mediating negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians — set off an uproar when he made a similar warning.

In an interview aired Tuesday on Israeli Channel 2 TV, de Klerk said calling Israel an apartheid state now was "unfair." But he said that without the establishment of a Palestinian state, Israel may have to contend with the consequences of one state for both peoples.

"The test will be (does) everybody living then in such a unitary state, will everybody have full political rights?" de Klerk said. "Will everybody enjoy their full human rights? If they will, it's not an apartheid state."

He added: "There will come in Israel a turning point where if the main obstacles at the moment which exist to a successful two-state solution are not removed, the two-state solution will become impossible."

De Klerk was in Israel receiving an honorary doctorate from the University of Haifa.

Read more here: JERUSALEM: South Africa's de Klerk: Israel must reach peace - World Wires - MiamiHerald.com

No one in South Africa has any authority on reconciliation. They are the most RACIST country and government in the world. They are ACTIVELY practicing genocide against WHITE South Africans. They have enacted AFFIRMATIVE ACTION for the majority. Affirmative action for the majority is nothing more than government pograms and oppression. Blacks can FULLY discriminate against whites, but whites will be killed or imprisoned if they discriminate against blacks. There are no white hire government agencies and black businesses. It's racism and discrimination at it's worst.

They are also the world leaders in many horrendous categories:
(1) MURDER
(2) RACE BASED MURDER
(3) Rape
(4) Gang-Rape
(5) BABY RAPE (what kind of sick assholes rapes a baby)
(6) Car Jacking
(7) AIDS and HIV infections

They actively practice ethnic cleansing. In fact the most dangerous job in the world is a white farmer in South Africa. Not because you will get hurt on the job, but rather you will be killed by Black African animals in the most horrendous ways. They rape, torture and then kill white farmers for the crime of being white.

The government officials PUBLICLY condone and promote these inhuman actions. Heck they sing songs about killing whites! They ******* GOVERNMENT does this!

South Africa has no moral authority! They are the worst human rights abusers and most racist county in the world. 1000 fold worse than Syria!

So take your shit artwork that no one will ever want to buy and shovel it up your ****** Muslim ass!

 

[pbel]

Acceptable peace now or non existence tomorrow?

JERUSALEM: South Africa's de Klerk: Israel must reach peace - World Wires - MiamiHerald.com

JERUSALEM -- South Africa's last president under white rule has suggested that Israel risks heading toward apartheid if it does not reach a peace deal with the Palestinians.

The comments by F.W. de Klerk echo warnings made by Palestinian, American and dovish Israeli officials. But his words carry special meaning, given his role in South Africa's painful history of race relations.

De Klerk was the last president under apartheid and along with the late Nelson Mandela, brought about the end to decades of systematic racial discrimination against blacks, jointly winning the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize.

Comparisons to South Africa's racist rule have increased in public discourse about Israel and its treatment of Palestinians. In April, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry — who had been mediating negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians — set off an uproar when he made a similar warning.

In an interview aired Tuesday on Israeli Channel 2 TV, de Klerk said calling Israel an apartheid state now was "unfair." But he said that without the establishment of a Palestinian state, Israel may have to contend with the consequences of one state for both peoples.

"The test will be (does) everybody living then in such a unitary state, will everybody have full political rights?" de Klerk said. "Will everybody enjoy their full human rights? If they will, it's not an apartheid state."

He added: "There will come in Israel a turning point where if the main obstacles at the moment which exist to a successful two-state solution are not removed, the two-state solution will become impossible."

De Klerk was in Israel receiving an honorary doctorate from the University of Haifa.

Read more here: JERUSALEM: South Africa's de Klerk: Israel must reach peace - World Wires - MiamiHerald.com

No one in South Africa has any authority on reconciliation. They are the most RACIST country and government in the world. They are ACTIVELY practicing genocide against WHITE South Africans. They have enacted AFFIRMATIVE ACTION for the majority. Affirmative action for the majority is nothing more than government pograms and oppression. Blacks can FULLY discriminate against whites, but whites will be killed or imprisoned if they discriminate against blacks. There are no white hire government agencies and black businesses. It's racism and discrimination at it's worst.

They are also the world leaders in many horrendous categories:
(1) MURDER
(2) RACE BASED MURDER
(3) Rape
(4) Gang-Rape
(5) BABY RAPE (what kind of sick assholes rapes a baby)
(6) Car Jacking
(7) AIDS and HIV infections

They actively practice ethnic cleansing. In fact the most dangerous job in the world is a white farmer in South Africa. Not because you will get hurt on the job, but rather you will be killed by Black African animals in the most horrendous ways. They rape, torture and then kill white farmers for the crime of being white.

The government officials PUBLICLY condone and promote these inhuman actions. Heck they sing songs about killing whites! They ******* GOVERNMENT does this!

South Africa has no moral authority! They are the worst human rights abusers and most racist county in the world. 1000 fold worse than Syria!

So take your shit artwork that no one will ever want to buy and shovel it up your ****** Muslim ass!

GayHook pleads again.