James > as to who has what rights it is a code hammered in stone: To the victor belong the spoils.
I accept that, hard truth as it may be.
> I can see how you might side with Palestinians since you are a victim of apartheid.
No, no, being white I was a so-called beneficiary of apartheid but the policy simply become unmanageable. Instead of the fundamental idea of separate but equal, it became a means to exploitation and oppression of the blacks which eventually led to continuous war, both inside and outside the country. But, as you suggest correctly, I do see the situation as very similar to the Israeli/Palestinian one. And there are many who also see it the way I do, which is not only from a moral stand point but from a practical and pragmatic one.
Life, for me, possibly even most blacks, was probably better in the "old" South Africa but I do accept that for all concerned, the present arrangement is more ideal. At least the idea of democracy pacifies everyone, even if they have nothing else, much like religion. It's not that the old arrangement couldn't work, in fact, it may even have been better than the present one, which is really a tyranny of the ruling clique, but the greed and self-righteousness of those in power during the apartheid regime screwed it up. It also has to be remembered that, with the rise of the civil-rights movement in the US and the fall of the USSR, the concept of racial separation became intolerable to the US and Britain. SA was simply told to change by the powers that be --- and it did. But, for some reason, it's different for Israel. For Israel, everyone else must change.
> From your viewpoint the United States should turn back the western US to the Mexicans
During the 18th and 19th centuries there seemed to be a different set of values operating than today. Then, conquest, imperialism and colonization was the order of the day. Now, that's considered abhorrent. Unless, of course, one is doing it via "globalism", using money as the weapon and not force of arms.
> the current SA government should roll over and give the rule and the land back to white South Africans
The white SAns were never in any kind of majority. Further, they fought amongst themselves: local Dutch/Boer settlers against the imperial might of Britain which culminated in the Boer war. This war was almost an exact replica of the present Iraq war but, then, Britain wanted the gold, which had been discovered in the Boer republic of the Transvaal. Today, the US wants the oil. Anyway, Britain won the war and set about oppressing the Boers. Eventually, in 1948, the Boers' descendants (Afrikaners) obtained a flimsy majority at the polls and put in the Nationalist government which remained in power until 1994 when democratic elections took place. Actually, and this is what most people don't realize, the apartheid policy was not directed at oppression of the blacks but toward preventing them gaining majority in any future election.
> What would the Palestinians do with the land if they had it back?
Palestinians are not uncivilized people. The idea that they are mainly bedouins, riding around on camels, is quite untrue today. Unfortunately, in the US, I think people get a very slanted idea that the Palestinians are "different" from so-called civilized people, like us. Today, many are well educated professionals who can take their place in any society. And many are poor, hungry and desperate.
> For their own good they need to change, not Israel
That may be true, and it may even apply to all of us, but we should each be given the opportunity and the right to do it "our" way. (like Frank Sinatra used to sing about) |
