BDS is up to its old tricks again
BDS back to its old tricks preyING on the political and historical naïveté of its target audience with selec info that works for its failed playbook.
BDS-SA is back to its old tricks of selective memory to prey on the political and historical naïveté of its target audience with selective information that works for its failed playbook.
The Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions against Israel in South Africa (BDS-SA) campaign issued a press statement late on Friday afternoon in what can only be described as trying to pick up lost ground in recruitment of membership and another poor attempt to embarrass Israel and have an impact on SA/Israel relations.
BDS-SA has been very quiet since their “Shoot the Jew” campaign backfired on them so badly some months back and seem to have engaged an old trick of theirs – ostensibly to gain mileage while Jewish communications practitioners are unable to respond to their manipulation of the truth until after Shabbos.
RIGHT: Muhammed Desai of BDS-SA
BDS’ old trick of issuing selective information will only resonate on the political and historical naïveté of what it seems to have decided is its target audience. Offering selective information that works well for its failed playbook certainly won’t pass muster with the inteligencia.
In a press statement on Friday afternoon claiming that “The Nelson Mandela Foundation has issued an official statement refuting allegations that Nelson Mandela had military interactions with Israeli operatives,” BDS has once again showed that it has no intention to recruit thinking South Africans.
Insulting peoples’ intelligence
BDS quotes an official press release from the Nelson Mandela Foundation refuting Israeli allegations (bold, italicised type to be questioned below) that Nelson Mandela was trained by Israeli “Mossad” operatives in Ethiopia – a claim being made in Israel and by Israeli media.
BDS’ Muhammed Desai goes on to quote an article from JTA in 1990: “If one has to refer to any of the parties as a terrorist state, one might refer to the Israeli government, because they are the people who are slaughtering defenseless (sic) and innocent Arabs in the occupied https://www.sajr.co.za/images/default-source/People/single/bds—bugger-off.jpg” />Before coming to Ethiopia he was in Accra (where he met Nkrumah and his advisors), Lagos and Tanganyika. In Ethiopia he was trained in various kinds of light weaponry (including Israeli). In conversations with him he expressed socialist worldviews, and at times created the impression that he leaned towards communism.
He showed an interest in the methods of the Haganah and other Israeli underground movements.
In response, 13 days later, the Foreign Ministry confirmed that the ‘Black Pimpernel’ was in fact Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela, who the year before had arranged a nationwide strike and thereafter went into hiding. ‘Black Pimpernel’ was the code name for Nelson Mandela used by the South African authorities who were hunting him. Curiously they also mention that he was considered by ANC supporters and many others as the most important person in his movement, despite the fact that Albert Luthuli was still the elected president-general of the ANC.
So, Nelson Mandela, under an alias, learnt weapons and sabotage techniques from embassy staff who were likely Mossad agents, whilst being gently prompted to become a supporter of the Jewish state.
This episode is remarkable for a number of reasons. First of all, Mandela was in no way a lone participant in a covert Israeli training program: Israel had established ties with various movements considered subversive by the South African government. A number of Israeli embassies stationed in Africa provided training, advice and transport vehicles to members of the Pan Africanist Congress, including Potlkako Leballo, the head of its militant Poqo wing. Since the PAC was considered anti-Communist and not aligned with the Soviet Union, they were more attractive for a prospect for Israel to deal with than the ANC. Yet what makes this tentative contact with the pre-incarcerated Mandela so fascinating is his willingness to engage with these Israelis in the first place.
The golden era of cooperation between Israel and African liberation movements continued through the 1960s. Golda Meir, as Foreign Minister and ardent admirer of black Africa, called for leniency in the Rivonia trial and for the commutation of any death sentence.
The Israeli National Archives’ public relations office, and the Israeli press in its wake, have been careful to point out Golda Meir’s actions and the public face of Israel’s support for anti-apartheid activists. While this is an admirable instance of humanitarian activism, however, it hardly tells the whole story. Israel’s history with South Africa is marked not only by cultivating relationships with those opposed to apartheid, but also by exacerbating tensions with these very same groups and individuals after the Israel: liberation movements’ honeymoon came to an end.
A historian should not hypothesize as to what would have happened had Mandela not been caught and tried by the South African authorities. Nor what would have been the consequences had Israel, following its abandonment by Black Africa in the 1970s, not fostered such warm ties with the Apartheid regime. Yet this episode does go some way in showing that the tensions that now exist were not inescapable.
Mandela’s release from prison in 1990 placed Israel in a quandary. After almost two decades of actively supporting the apartheid regime it had to come to terms with the fact that South Africa was reversing course and was undergoing a transitional phase which would inevitably lead to the end of white rule in the Republic.
Yet Israel’s ambassador to South Africa at the time, Zvi Gov-Ari, appeared to be ill-equipped to adjust himself to the new situation. Thus instead of trying to cultivate ties with the recently unbanned ANC, Israel’s representative in Pretoria made the double faux pas of criticizing Mandela, the movement’s de facto leader, while at the same time expressing a preference for Mangosuthu Buthelezi, widely perceived as a black puppet for the Nationalist Government. It is perhaps no wonder that Israel Maisels, a major Jewish and Zionist leader and one of the lead defense attorneys in the Rivonia trial, did not think highly of the ambassador, referring to him as that “bloody stupid fellow” (quoted in Cutting through the Mountain: Interviews with South African Jewish Activists , edited by Immanuel Sutner).
Back in Israel, the venerable English-language Jerusalem Post, which at that time was doing its best to show how loyal it was to the Likud government, was probably reflecting the government’s opinion when it predicted on June 25, 1991 that “if ANC leader Nelson Mandela assumes power in South Africa it will certainly not be a democracy…If he or his like rule South Africa, the country will be an unmitigated totalitarian disaster and an economic basket case.” Further underlining its dire predictions, the newspaper declared:
“If full, non-segregated political equality is achieved in South Africa, it will not be the violent ANC, whose membership is 300,000, that will rule. The Zulus and their followers, numbering six million; the three million coloreds (people of mixed blood) who have been alienated by the ANC’s Communist ideas; the million Indians, and the five million whites will probably form the ruling coalition one day. Only then is there a chance that South Africa will be both free and prosperous”.
No one knows whether Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and his cabinet honestly thought that Mandela had no political future in South Africa, but its persistent backing of the old regime only came to an end with the ascension to power of Yitzhak Rabin and his Labor Party. With the appointment of Dr. Alon Liel, a seasoned diplomat and close ally of Yossi Beilin, one of Israel’s most vociferous critics of the white regime, Israel managed to salvage some of the damage by cultivating ties with the ANC.
Indeed the Israeli-Palestinian peace process of 1993 provided Israel with an even greater opportunity to reconcile itself with an ANC now in government which was both supportive and thankful for the prospects of a peaceful resolution between the Jewish State and its Palestinian counterpart. Sadly, as the Oslo process fell apart, relations between Israel and the Republic continued to be strained, as they do to this day.
With Mandela’s death, Israel once again had the opportunity of mending at least some of the damage it had caused in the past, by sending a top-level delegation which would include at least the head of government or the head of state. It failed, opting instead to send the Knesset’s speaker. Unfortunately Israel has shown, more from folly than malice, that it serially misunderstands the new South Africa, and the repercussions will be felt not only in the international diplomatic arena but also by the Jewish community of South Africa itself.
- David Fachler has a Masters in Law from South Africa (LLM) and a Masters in Contemporary Jewry from Hebrew University, Jerusalem (MA).He is contactable at firstname.lastname@example.org
The NM Foundation STATEMENT issued Saturday:
Nelson Mandela and Alleged Interaction with Israeli Operative
21 December 2013
Media have picked up on a story alleging that in 1962 Nelson Mandela interacted with an Israeli operative in Ethiopia.
The Nelson Mandela Foundation can confirm that it has not located any evidence in Nelson Mandela’s private archive (which includes his 1962 diary and notebook) that he interacted with an Israeli operative during his tour of African countries in that year. Both the diary and the notebook were used as evidence against him in the 1963-1964 Rivonia Trial for sabotage.
In 1962 Mr Mandela received military training from Algerian freedom fighters in Morocco and from the Ethiopian Riot Battalion at Kolfe outside Addis Ababa, before returning to South Africa in July 1962. In 2009 the Nelson Mandela Foundation’s senior researcher travelled to Ethiopia and interviewed the surviving men who assisted in Mandela’s training – no evidence emerged of an Israeli connection.
Israel not target of Obama’s UN ire, Trump is!
Why is Bibi acting so mad about the US not using its veto?
Au Contrère: A blog by ANT KATZ
Do Bibi Netanyahu and his government get that the US allowing the UN anti-Israel Resolution to pass this week was not targeted at the Jewish state?
Because this fact is quite transparent and Israel’s PM is certainly no fool. So what is Netanyahu playing at?
Of course he is angry about the UN Resolution. So are all people who love Israel. The Obama administration may well have drafted and promoted the Resolution on Israel. But not because Obama, America or the present administration are anti-Israel.
There is only one logical purpose in what is being viewed as a sea of anti-Israel madness in the White House and State Department… and that is that they fear Donald Trump and his incoming Administration and State Department may tip the very, very delicate scale of seemingly pragmatic even-handedness that exists between the US and the Arab world.
In a blog I posted last week, US unlikely to open Embassy in Jerusalem, I wrote why I did not think the US’s Embassy would move to Jerusalem – as much, I added, that I would sincerely like to see the move.
This issue has been on the table since it was unequivocally decided by US lawmakers in 1995 to shift the embassy and acknowledge Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. Congress sent to then-President Bill Clinton to action the move. Neither Clinton, nor the successive eight-year-long governments of George Bush (the Younger – and stupider); nor that of Barak Obama, had made any moves in that direction.
Trump and his team are taking no advice on this issue from State or the White House. So scared is the Obama administration of Trump’s rhetoric (the dangers it could impose on the ground), that it has seen fit to send him a stern warning of just how seriously they believe he could be blundering into this eons-old balancing act without understanding the consequences.
Trump, therefore, was the target of the US administration’s actions.
Israel was simply the instrument they chose to get the message across to him.
Why does Obama want Trump to slow down and assess the motivations of Presidents going back over 20 years? Here are some of the reasons that have been mooted by Obama’s predecessors:
- It would send out a message that could jeopardise the security of both the US and Israel. And, what’s more, it would kibosh any future role that America could play as an ‘honest broker’ in any mid-East peace talks as it will have already taken what is probably the world’s hottest political potato (the future of Jerusalem) and placed it squarely on the table as a fait accompli – a done deal – leaving scant space for a ‘no pre-condition’ meeting;
- It is essential that the US ensure it remains on very good terms with Saudi-aligned states in the neighbourhood – and especially so with Israel’s friendly neighbours Egypt and Jordan. The beat of the Trump drum could see these countries having to leave America/Israel’s sphere of influence under renewed pressure from fellow-Muslim states and become client-states of Russia which is working hard on becoming a bigger role-player in the region, (or even China, Iran, North Korea…);
- Israel gets the most advanced American armaments, while Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States get second-tier weapon systems. This may change if any US President risks being accused of bias in this regard and result in Israel not getting them, or a business-friendly Trump selling the best to everyone;
- Worldwide anti-Israel, anti-Zionist and anti-Semitism would gain another stick to beat Israel with, just as they did after the rocket-firing provocation that led to the outbreak of the 2013 Gaza incursion. That event was so masterfully exploited globally by BDS-acolytes that I have little doubt Hamas knew its provocation would lead to hundreds of Arab deaths. The sick interpretation of Islam by militants denies any value to life lost (actually, it rewards it) in its propaganda war against Israel and the West;
These and similar reasons, quoted by successive Presidents to explain the dangers of implementing Congress’s 1995 decision to relocate the Embassy, are what has forced the current administration to do something it would otherwise have been loath to do.
By not exercising its veto on the settlements issue, the incumbent administration was firing a shot across Trump’s bough – albeit using Israel as their weapon.
There can be no doubt that Obama & Co. realised fully the potential risk of negative implications that Israel and the world would face as a result of the Resolution being passed.
That they did it anyway, is indicative of the enormity of the risk they feel of allowing Trump, with all good intent but bad understanding of the situation, to continue down the path of over-placating Israel while creating a more dangerous future.
As I wrote last week, I would love to see all Embassies move to Jerusalem. Heck, I would also like to see the annexation (Golanisation) of the West Bank everyone is suddenly talking about.
But does the short-term gain of such moves create a greater long-term risk to Israel? If so, I urge Israelis and Zionists, to think whether it is the actions of Obama’s outgoing administration sending a message to Trump, or the latter’s reckless and uninformed statements, that is placing them at more risk.
US unlikely to open Embassy in Jerusalem
Ant Katz writes that he sees little likelihood of an Embassy move, even though he would like to see it
The US Congress mandated the moving of its Israeli embassy to Jerusalem many years ago, but the nation’s security services have warned that such a move could endanger US facilities and personnel in the wider region. Here’s why even Trump will likely backtrack…
Donald Trump campaigned on the promise to move the embassy and last week, the Trump Transition Team made the announcement on their website: US Ambassador to ‘work from Jerusalem’ which both Trump and his ambassador-to-be David Friedman consider the country’s capital.
Despite much speculation to the contrary, Trump’s team now seem to be back-tracking and all that exists in the public domain is that Ambassador Friedman will “work from” Jerusalem. Many pundits see this as an intention to relocate the embassy – but (as much as I would like to see such an action take place) – I think the risks will outweigh the benefits and the associated risk may be more than it is worth.
Yesterday the Palestinian Authority added its voice, with Mahmoud Abbas threatening certain sanctions on Israel if the move goes ahead… really!
I somehow think pragmatism will prevail and the term “work from Jerusalem…” will become the real state of play.
The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 is a public law of the US passed by the 104th Congress in 1995 under the Presidency of Bill Clinton.
It was passed for the purposes of initiating and funding the relocation of the Embassy of the US in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, no later than 1999, and attempted to withhold 50 percent of the funds appropriated to the State Department specifically for “Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad” as allocated in fiscal year 1999 until the new US Embassy in Jerusalem had officially opened.
The act also called for Jerusalem to remain an undivided city and for it to be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel. Israel’s declared capital is Jerusalem, but this is not internationally recognised, pending final status talks on the world’s most complicated political situation.
Successive Presidential administrations have, however, withheld recognition of the city as Israel’s capital – despite the Law having been adopted by the Senate (93–5), and the House (374–37). Since passage, therefore, the law has never been implemented. Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama have viewed it as a Congressional infringement on the executive branch’s constitutional authority over foreign policy and have consistently claimed the presidential waiver on national security interests.
So, President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign trail claims of wanting to “move the Embassy to Jerusalem” has become David Friedman’s statement of hoping he will work from the city.
Although Trump’s transition team continues to affirm the intention to move the embassy, it is a toothless statement as they offer no timeline. And, Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Ron Dermer, in a forceful speech at Tuesday night’s Chanukah party at the Washington embassy, encouraged Trump to make good on the pledge (even saying it was long past due) – the likelihood is that when Friedman takes office it will be a case of his “working” from Jerusalem – without moving the Embassy. In any case, it would take years to acquire a site in overpacked Jerusalem and design and build a new Embassy.
Dermer enumerated some of the positives for the move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which were subsequently outlined in a Wall Street Journal editorial yesterday.
There is already US Consulate in Jerusalem, likely where Friedman will work from.
JTA’s Ron Kampeas broke it down further today, writing:
Here’s what the “for” argument looks like:
- The Jewish connection to Jerusalem is ancient.
- No other country is denied representation in its capital.
- Done correctly (i.e., with lots of pre-move assuaging of nerves in Arab and Muslim lands allied with the West, and with a site in western Jerusalem), it should go smoothly, especially because relations between Israel and its Arab neighbours are closer than ever due to shared interests in crushing the Islamic State and stopping Iran.
Here’s a summary of the “against” case:
- The Palestinians have a claim to the city and moving the embassy before a final-status agreement pre-empts their claim.
- The city is a tinderbox and any disturbance of its status quo will lead to violence.
- Israel’s allies in the Arab and Muslim world (both unofficial and official) may reluctantly go along, but its enemies – particularly Iran, which annually commemorates the “loss” of Jerusalem, and the Islamic State — will seize the opportunity and stoke violence.
- And those Arab allies? Even the dictators have to answer to their constituencies, who would likely be violently against. This could endanger whatever nascent comprehensive peace is in the works.
Other writers such as Eli Lake at Bloomberg gets at some of the ‘against’ arguments, particularly regarding tentatively improving relations between Israel and its Arab neighbours.
But, beyond the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ there is also the UNPREDICTABLE. That, readers, is what concerns me – in the eventuality of their transpiring…
Back to a paraphrasing of Ron Kampeas’ assessment on some things we can’t know about the move until it actually happens:
In the early 1980s, then-PM Menachem Begin used incentives to get journalists to move from Tel Aviv to the press centre in Jerusalem, Beit Agron, because he wanted them to recognise the city as Israel’s capital.
Plenty of news agencies did, with an unexpected result: Whereas the journalists occasionally visited with Palestinians while based in Tel Aviv, in Jerusalem they got to know Palestinian leaders well and media understanding of the Palestinian story deepened — not necessarily to Israel’s benefit, says Kampeas.
The Americans maintain a consulate in eastern Jerusalem. Some Israeli officials and pro-Israel groups complain that its staff has ‘gone native,’ – and reflects the opinions of the Arab population. The Tel Aviv staff, by contrast, is ensconced in the most western corner of Israel and has a positive outlook on Israel. “What happens to that attitude once they move 40 miles up the hill to Jerusalem?” asks Kampeas.
WHO DROPS BY? AND WHAT ABOUT THE CONSULATE?
Israel frowns on diplomats taking meetings with Palestinian officials in Jerusalem as it signals recognition of Palestinian claims to the city. “Does that policy stick if the embassy moves there?” is another question on Ron Kampeas’ lips.
Would Palestinian officials even agree to enter as they would no doubt not recognise it?
What happens to the consulate in eastern Jerusalem that deals with Arab issues? Its continued presence would undercut Israeli claims to the entire city. Does Israel’s government agitate for its removal? And, if Palestinian representatives do meet their US contacts, where is that done?
JERUSALEM IS PROTEST-CENTRAL
Jerusalem residents with grievances such as the charedim, Arabs, nearby settlers and their supporters — hold their demonstrations in Jerusalem. A US embassy would be a fat, juicy place for them to hold such protests.
WHAT HAPPENS IF…
“Try building anything new in Jerusalem and you’re bound to hit some pottery shards, possibly even bones,” Kampeas points out. If it is a significant find, a construction site could attract a stop order from the Israel Antiquities Authority.
THE RESIDENCE AND THE SCHOOLS
The US ambassador has a spacious home in Herzliya, a place amenable to festivities and bashes – and near some of the best schools in the country. Space is hard to come by in Jerusalem. Especially if Americans decide (to assuage Arab anger) to build both embassy and a residence in the city’s west.
“And the schools! For ambassadors with school-age kids, what a hornet’s nest,” says JTA. That sounds right- any choice could offend someone. Going ‘international’ risks accusations of exposing the kids to anti-Israel views. Going for Israel’s schooling system and take your pick of whom to offend — the religious, the Charedim, the national religious groups, etc.
There are so many other unpredictables – this is, of course, the world’s most politically contentious city. A city where anything can happen. They call it: The Jerusalem Syndrome.
“One more thing,” Kampeas points out, “the city is susceptible to earthquakes. Considering everything else, that’s almost an afterthought,” he chirps.
Jeenah: Under BDS, Palestine solidarity irrelevant
The BDS strategy is problematic and unprincipled says Jeenah. Read why…
Minhaj Jeenah is chairman of the Muslim Youth
Movement’s Western Cape region, which is in turn a member of the National Coalition for
Palestine – which he admits is a BDS-SA-inspired coalition and which he believes is failing in its work.
While not as quick to specifically name BDS-SA as the
culprit in his piece “Why the Palestine solidarity movement in
South Africa has to evolve – or become irrelevant” as was Prof Steven Friedman, Jeenah makes no bones about who he holds accountable for the shambles
that the SA anti-Israel lobby finds itself in.
To be clear, Jeenah is no friend of Israel, he is simply
saying that the anti-Israel lobbyists in SA are doing a hopeless job, losing
ground and risk becoming irrelevant. Click here to read this piece in its
original form TheDailyVox.co.za or see below.
Little wonder after Prof FRIEDMAN:
BDS-SA INCOMPETENCE PROMOTING ZIONISM and this piece from Jeenah, that BDS-SA’s
response today which can be read here: VERBATIM
FROM THE HOUSE OF HORRORS was so vitriolic.
While BDS’ profanities and theologies were certainly not
called for, they are most telling of where the organisation, which has received
several black eyes during this week’s Israel Apartheid Week event, finds
I am publishing Minhaj Jeenah’s critique verbatim.
Why the Palestine solidarity movement in South Africa has to
evolve – or become irrelevant
Why the Palestine solidarity movement in South Africa has to evolve – or become irrelevant
The Palestinian struggle has captured the imagination of black South Africans since the 1970s, but of late the movement has been gripped by a dangerous form of populism. It’s time for the movement to undertake a critical shift in approach towards one that is principled and immersed in the programmes of the decolonisation movement in South Africa, argues MINHAJ JEENAH.
The Palestinian struggle for self-determination is a righteous struggle which is necessarily linked to the Black condition. Its resistance in all its forms, violent or otherwise, is a legitimate resistance.
Let’s be clear to set the terms of our engagement through this post: I’m not interested in compromising on or discussing these actualities.
Post-1994 saw certain significant changes to Palestine solidarity work, most notably during the outbreak of the second intifada in 2000 when it was addressed more strongly as an issue of national liberation, and South African civil society was lobbied.
After the call from Palestinian civil society for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) of Israel in 2005 and the launch of Israeli Apartheid Week, campus-based Palestine solidarity activism was strengthened and focused. Since then, the global BDS campaign helped define and intensify Palestine solidarity in South Africa – through campus-based structures, civil society, BDS South Africa, Muslim and Christian groups, anti-Zionist Jewish groups and unions.
There were also numerous efforts to form broad coalitions to coordinate solidarity work. The most recent such effort was the National Coalition for Palestine, formed during the 2014 massacre in Gaza, and now dominated by the NGO BDS South Africa.
Towards a critical shift
In the recent past Palestine solidarity work has been gripped by a dangerous form of populism.
After the massive solidarity march in Cape Town in 2014, Palestine solidarity activism has been characterised by the #BoycottWoolworths campaign. As part of a broader consumer boycott, this campaign aims to pressure Woolworths to remove Israeli products from its shelves. In what was, arguably, a bad tactical move Woolworths was targeted for a consumer boycott because the campaign was deemed “winnable” – for a number of reasons. There have been a few voices of dissent against the campaign, within the movement and externally, challenging the moral and tactical value of the boycott.
The “winnable” strategy, which is an approach that has dominated the BDS campaign in South Africa, is problematic and unprincipled – it reduces struggle to a list of feel-good victories rather than moving towards substantive change. Alas, almost two years later, the campaign has seemingly lost steam.
Nevertheless, #BoycottWoolworths succeeded in mobilising some (especially young) activists and now needs to be re-strategised into a new, more rigorous strategy. The campaign should build on its success and now cast the intense focus directly on Israeli products, not particular stores. #BoycottWoolworths must now become #BoycottIsrael.
There has also been dangerous courting with the ANC, with some solidarity groups becoming apologists for the ruling party and feting it in rallies as if it’s the vanguard of Palestine solidarity. Although the party has stated its commitment to the BDS campaign, its role has been contradictory, with its government often working contrary to these commitments.
It’s deeply concerning and offensive that apparent support for the Palestinian course is often used (particularly before elections) as an ANC buffer to pacify people sympathetic to the course at the expense of interrogation of problematic policy (and, yes, to get votes).
This inability to properly politicise Palestinian solidarity and approach it with principle rather than just tactic has also seen many ad-hoc airy-fairy events that result in minimal understanding of the complexities of Palestinian activism. Admittedly, there have been more substantive campaigns, such as the current campaign to arrest Shimon Peres, but these have not led to large-scale mobilisation.
There is, now, a need for the Palestine solidarity movement in South Africa to undertake a critical shift in approach.
The South African movement for solidarity with the Palestinian people needs a process of difficult reflection. It must divorce itself from reductionist praxis and undertake serious mass engagement with the political complexities of the Palestinian struggle and internationalism.
The movement must be claimed as a radical collective movement that is intersectional and decentralised. It must direct both our revolutionary anger and our love for freedom, justice and equality through principled, uncompromising and intelligible strategies.
It is, therefore, also clear that solidarity for the Palestinian struggle must be immersed in the programmes of the decolonisation movement in South Africa. The movement will be compromised if it regards its victimhood to the exclusion of other colonial sufferings.
Key to these solidarity strategies is a more strengthened commitment to force unconscious capital, government and academic institutions to submit to the call from Palestinian comrades to isolate Israel. Consistency in praxis, also, includes uprooting and discomforting Zionist sentiment, in order to de-normalise and remove racist ideology from our spaces.
Israel must fall.
Minhaj Jeenah is the Chairperson of the Muslim Youth Movement Western Cape region, which is a member of the National Coalition for Palestine. Follow him on Twitter @minhajjeenah
This is part of a special series called Apartheid 2.0, which The Daily Vox is running this month in partnership with AlJazeera’s Palestine Remix.
Featured image by Ihsaan Haffejee
Read the series:
Letters/Discussion Forums5 days ago
Protest not a creative solution to education funding crisis
Letters/Discussion Forums5 days ago
Looking for descendants of Lithuanian great-grandfather
Letters/Discussion Forums5 days ago
Only those on the frontline should be vaccinated
Youth5 days ago
KDVP holds siyum for firstborn boys
Voices5 days ago
Time for Israelis to pray for South Africa
Voices5 days ago
Join us for Yom Hashoah
Religion5 days ago
Finding faith in the hippo
Israel5 days ago
Helen Mirren to play Golda Meir in upcoming film