Afrikaner Apartheid’s crimes Were Infinitely Less Barbaric Than Those being Perpetrated by Apartheid
The Height of Hypocrisy: Allowing Apartheid Israel to Participate in the 2014 World Cup
“We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.”
Afrikanerdom was born in 1652 with the establishment of a Dutch East India Company settlement at the Cape of Good Hope’s Table Bay (http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/arrival-jan-van-riebeeck-cape-6-april-1652) which served as a stopover for ships during their six-month journey to the East Indies where the company’s lucrative spice trade was based. Following the French Revolution and ensuing European wars, Britain’s occupation — to maintain a safe shipping route to India — became permanent at the 1814 European peace conference with a British £6 million compensation payment to the Dutch.
Resentment over British domination eventually led to the Great Trek of 1836 when more than 12,000 Boers (http://www.history.co.uk/study-topics/history-of-south-africa/the-boers) migrated northwards in separate groups to establish independent republics. Some Voortrekkers settled in the Transvaal under constant threat from Ndebele warriors while others were lost to malaria and African native resistance en route to Mozambique’s Delagoa Bay. Of those who trekked to the Natal, many were massacred by Zulu warriors, an event that was later avenged at Blood River (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/69844/Battle-of-Blood-River) with the Boer republics of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State being established in 1852 and 1854.
The 1866 discovery of gold in the Transvaal witnessed an influx of foreigners that heightened rivalry to exploit the land’s mineral wealth with the British attempt to annex the Transvaal ending in defeat at Majuba Hill in the First Boer War of Independence in 1880. Despite the peace treaty of 1881, the Transvaal remained a target for the rapacious multi-millionaire “Randlord” and Cape Colony Governor, Cecil Rhodes, whose 1895 failed raid (http://africanhistory.about.com/od/southafrica/a/JamesonRaid01.htm) with cohort Leander Starr Jameson as well as other subsequent incidents eventually led to the Second Anglo-Boer War.
Rhodes’ main competitor had been Barney Barnato, a Jew, who eventually sold his business for £4 million to Rhodes who became the richest man in the world on the back of cheap Black labour thanks to the notorious Masters and Servants Act otherwise known as “Every Man to Wallop his Own Nigger Bill.” Rhodes was an avowed racist who believed that Anglo-Saxons should exploit all areas inhabited by “the most despicable specimens of human beings.” It is no surprise that Theodore Herzl, the father of modern Zionism, wrote to Rhodes requesting that he use his influence with the British government to help establish a Jewish state.
After being financed by bankers N. M. Rothschild & Sons, Rhodes purchased and amalgamated many diamond mines into the De Beers company whose ownership was subsequently wrested in 1927 by Ernest Oppenheimer who went on to found the Anglo American Corporation and thereby consolidate monopoly over the world’s diamond industry (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/44613/jennifer-seymour-whitaker/south-africa-inc-the-oppenheimer-empire). When in the late 1930s Oppenheimer converted from Judaism to Anglicanism, cynical observers suggested it was to facilitate the continued sale of industrial diamonds to Hitler’s Germany. His involvement in other controversies included price fixing, antitrust behaviour, and an allegation of not releasing industrial diamonds for the U.S. war effort.
The cocksure British campaign began in 1899 with the belief that it would be over by Christmas. Though less than two-thirds of the 70,000 civilian Afrikaners who took up arms were actually active at any given time, they still proved a worthy match for the better equipped British force of 450,000. British writer Rudyard Kipling reported that the British were taught no end of a lesson by the Boers who captured the world’s imagination and were joined by volunteers from many countries who desired to fight British imperialism.
The Boers’ guerrilla hit-and-run tactics cost the British over £200 million with 20,000 wounded and 7,000 killed. Britain’s inability to quickly end the war forced Commander-in-Chief Kitchener to isolate the guerrillas by employing a scorched earth policy. Thirty thousand farmsteads were destroyed and entire villages burnt to the ground. The 60,000 made homeless, mostly women and children, were then “concentrated” in ill-equipped camps where 26,000 of them died. The Germans, the Japanese, and now the barbaric Israelis — Gaza and the West Bank are concentration camps for 4.5 million Palestinians — may have perfected the “concentration” concept, but the innovators were the British. The fact that those who died in the camps represented ten percent of the entire Afrikaner population while those who died in actual battle numbered only 4,000, is testament to the British atrocity. After having accepted defeat, the Afrikaners settled for peace and allowed the Transvaal and the Orange Free State to become parts of the Union and British Empire.
Though debate over whether to fight alongside the British in World War I was cause for dissension amongst Afrikaners, South Africa did participate in significant military operations against Germany.
The post-war depression, severe droughts, and crop failures forced many Afrikaners to work in the cities and mines as underclass labourers thereby heightening the racial tension which in those days was between Afrikaners and Britons rather than Whites and Blacks. Enforced anglicisation of Afrikaner culture resulted in the establishment of the Afrikaner Broederbond secret society in 1918 (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/8470/Afrikaner-Broederbond) to counter Britishness and entrench Afrikanerdom.
There was a further influx of foreigners of whom many were part of general Jewish exodus from an increasingly anti-Semitic Central Europe that led to the wider diaspora in London, New York, and Johannesburg. Anti-Semitic Afrikaner sentiment took different forms including the caricature of “Hoggenheimer,” a silk-hatted and bloated character with accentuated Semitic features who came to personify the hated capitalist in both national socialist and communist propaganda. The “Hoggenheimer” caricature had been based on a West End musical The Girl from Kays that opened in 1902 at London’s Apollo Theatre. About an alluring dancer who beguiles a South African millionaire, the show lampooned the “Randlords" who flaunted their wealth with mansions in Park Lane and Belgravia while their exploited Black workers in South Africa were confined to compounds like animals. The rise of Jewish mining magnates increased anti-Semitism with editorial views suggesting that the Boer war had been fought to serve the interests of a small group of international financiers who were mainly German in origin and Jewish in race. In keeping with what had been a recurrent — but not entirely false — theme throughout history, Jews were openly accused of controlling the economy to the detriment of the rest of the population.
With Broederbond support the National Party won the 1948 general election and started enacting Apartheid — literally Afrikaans for “apart-hood” — legislation that required all South Africans to be classified by race as “black”, “white”, “coloured”, and “Indian”: that mandated strict segregation in residential areas, public places, and transport; and that prohibited mixed race sexual relations and marriage. In 1970 non-white political representation was abolished with black people being deprived of their citizenship and instead becoming citizens of one of ten tribally based self-governing homelands called Bantustans of which four were nominally independent states. With the entrenchment of Apartheid, the Broederbond became so powerful that it continuously provided the country’s Prime Ministers and governments to the extent that virtually every member of the Cabinet was also a member Broederbond Executive Council. It was impossible for any member of the National Party to become Prime Minister without having first been a member of the Broederbond.
While South African Jews were concerned over this newly intensified race differentiation scenario, they soon realised that the government would not risk creating a bigger demographic problem by isolating a white minority, even if that minority was Jewish. So within a couple of years most Jews — including Auschwitz survivors — felt safe and even supportive of Afrikaners whose Nationalist Party government pursued policies reminiscent of Hitler’s Nuremberg laws against Jews. Jews pursued a deliberate policy of “neutrality” without “rocking the boat” so as not to endanger the Jewish population and it was not uncommon to hear Jews speak of Blacks with the same derisive manner as was used by Nazis to describe Jews.
Jews had no qualms about enjoying the benefits Apartheid’s exploitation of Blacks and the Zionist Federation and the Jewish Board of Deputies regularly honoured Jewish men such as Percy Yutar who was hailed as a “credit to the community” and an example of Jews’ contribution to South Africa. Yutar, who was elected president of Johannesburg’s largest orthodox synagogue, was the attorney who in 1963 successfully prosecuted Nelson Mandela for sabotage and conspiracy against the state. A small number of Jews, however, notably Joe Slovo, Albie Sachs, Harry Schwarz, and Helen Suzman — the latter being for many years the only member of parliament to oppose apartheid — did feel that silence with regard to racial oppression was tantamount to collaboration and as a consequence of openly opposing the system, they were regarded as enemies of the state and pariahs amongst their own people.
Afrikaner Apartheid, however, was doomed because Afrikaners, unlike Israelis, lacked a holocaust that would have accumulated the amount and kind of international sympathy that would condone continued Afrikaner human rights violations; Afrikaners lacked a dedicated worldwide network of lobbyists who could bribe Western politicians and suppress negative public opinion about their crimes; Afrikaners lacked the financial clout that Jews enjoy in the economies of many Western nations; and Afrikaners lacked the benefit of U.S vetoes to block UN Assembly resolutions condemning their violations.
So Please Consider The Following . . .
The World’s reaction to Afrikaner Apartheid was to impose trade embargoes, sanctions, and boycotts that included sporting events. When trade sanctions prevented the legal import of South African agricultural products, such products were sent by air to Israel from where they were re-exported as being of Israeli origin to end up in major European retailers such as Britain’s high street giant, Marks & Spencer (M&S). M&S was run by successive generations of the Sieff family whose collaboration with Chaim Weizman and Zionism had been long and inexorable. Marcus Sieff, stated in his book, Management: The Marks & Spencer Way (Weidenfield & Nicolson, 1990), that one of the fundamental objectives of M&S is to aid the economic development of Israel (http://www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-marks-and-spencer.html).
Though nuclear Israel uses airstrikes to prevent nuclear development programmes by other Middle East nations, in 1975 it was prepared as insurance against further international isolation to provide South Africa — a rich source of essential yellowcake uranium — with missiles, advisors, and secret nuclear weapons testing support. South Africa, however, decided that the cost of acquiring Israeli nuclear weapons was too high and nothing came of the negotiations (http://mondoweiss.net/2013/12/alliance-relationship-apartheid). So while Apartheid South Africa faced international sanctions, the far more barbaric Apartheid Israel enjoys a U.S. Free Trade Agreement and an Association Agreement with the EC which entitles it to preferential trade treatment for agricultural and manufactured goods produced in “the territory of the state of Israel.” In April 2001 the Guardian newspaper reported that “nobody is in any real doubt that the products have come from illegal settlements and that their documentation has been falsified.”
In sport, the same double standard applies with Apartheid South Africa being barred from all international events including the Olympics, while Israel is allowed to compete in all events including — even though it is not in Europe — football’s European Championship. So despite being an irrefutably Apartheid nation guilty of international law violations and brutal crimes against humanity, Israel is rewarded with preferential treatment by nations claiming the high moral ground.
When in March 1970 South African police shot and killed 69 protesters in the township of Sharpeville (http://overcomingapartheid.msu.edu/multimedia.php?id=65-259-E) the world’s reaction was unanimous condemnation. Equally, the June 1976 Soweto uprising (https://libcom.org/history/1976-the-soweto-riots) with some 176 fatalities was met with universal outrage. Compare that with world reaction to the sheer devastation of Apartheid Israel’s Operation Cast Lead (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/operation-cast-lead.htm) with 1,400 Palestinian deaths and the recent Operation Protective Edge (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28439404) with more than 2,100 Palestinians killed, and you will mostly find cowardly silence tantamount to conscious complicity by corporate, political, religious and mass media leaders and organisations whose double standards, hypocrisy, and toleration of Apartheid Israel’s crimes against humanity exceed all bounds of common decency and respect for human values.