[Logic]

we need someone similar to Mr. Olof Palme. Read this speech made in 1977 against the apartheid system in South Africa.

But before you read it you should read this post by Troll in the thread about the Israeli marriage laws:
Originally posted by Troll

Now go on and read Palmes speech from 1977.
There is no middle ground in Southern Africa between the oppressors and the oppressed

I'll bring up some of the more relevant quotes from his speech that also reflects my own opinion. Just think Israel when it says SA and so on.

The Prime Minister of South Africa, Mr. Vorster, talks about the need to protect Western civilization and Christian nationalism. At the same time he articulates values of unchristian racial chauvinism, contrary to the basis of Western humanism.

..........................

They are both hoping for external aid to fight for the interests of what they call the "free world". For us in Europe, with our colonial past, it is necessary to be crystal clear. We will never accept Smith`s and Vorster`s perversion of Western democracy. Their oppression and racism will never be included in a world of freedom. They represent the very opposite of democracy.

......................

As a representative of a movement that for decades has fought for democracy against all forms of dictatorship, I cannot find words harsh enough to condemn their misuse of the words "democracy" and "freedom". They are denying the peoples of Zimbabwe, Namibia and South Africa the most fundamental human and political rights.

........................

Nevertheless, the attitude to be taken in regard to South Africa poses a basic question of morality, of respect for the values and ideas which were created by those very countries in the West that now are seen to support the apartheid regime by their failure to join the great majority of nations in a programme to effect radical change. The peoples of Africa have very seldom met those high principles of Western civilization I just mentioned. They have met colonialism, advanced military technology and Western capitalism in its most brutal form. How long shall our professed ideals coexist with apartheid, this weird dictatorship of the minority for social and economic exploitation?

...........

Apartheid is a regime doomed to disappear and those who now exploit it for the sake of immediate profit are sacrificing much longer-lasting and much more secure advantages in the future.

..........

Already today, the African nations are in a position to show that those who pursue with a single mind economic and material interests should beware of too close a link with the South African regime.

..............

South Africa is trying to build itself into one of the world`s important military and economic Powers with a supremacy over the whole region of southern Africa. So far, these efforts have been helped by foreign loans and external investments.

................

Peaceful change becomes increasingly unlikely as the arsenals of the racist regime develop into a formidable machinery of both military and economic power for internal oppression and external aggression.

..................

Those who continue to let foreign capital freely flow into South Africa and Namibia take on a great responsibility. South Africa`s growing deficit in her balance of payments is to a very large extent due to the sharp increase of her military expenditure. The loans from abroad designed to cover this deficit are thus used for armaments which South Africa otherwise would not be able to afford.

.....................

We all obviously prefer peaceful solutions to violent ones. But those of us who are privileged and who have had the good fortune of peaceful change should never moralize about it, never try to appear virtuous in relation to those who have been forced to take up arms to liberate themselves. If we do, we have forgotten our own past.
.......................
As the climax approaches and the struggle deepens in southern Africa, violence and economic disruption increase, as well as the risk of the wrong kind of foreign involvement. The wrong kind of foreign intervention is the continued introduction of major Power rivalries in the region. The right kind of foreign involvement is that which will support the liberation struggle and reduce the resistance of the forces which still cling to the idea of maintaining white supremacy.

........................

Extensive foreign investments in South Africa, Namibia and Rhodesia help to internationalize the conflict. The natural resources of these countries and their strategic position may furnish a pretext for further involvement on behalf of the white regimes. At the same time, however, such involvement would encourage other Powers to become more active in the area. We are facing the two-fold risk of a racial war and an escalated conflict between the foreign interests in the area. Thus the global consequences of South Africa`s aggression against its neighbours and the situation in South Africa created by apartheid - those elements constitute a serious threat to international peace and security. Therefore Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter should be applied.

............................

Why should there be such concern in the West, I have often wondered, to categorize liberation movements in the Third World countries as friends or enemies of the West?

............................

Those in the West who cry wolf about political and material aid to Africa from the East should consider their own contribution to this development. Did they themselves assist the liberation movements? From where did the Portuguese colonialists get their arms? From where did the South African racists get their arms and their licences?

..............................

We should together oppose a trend of paternalism from those on the outside who seem to believe that only they can solve Africa`s problems, that the Africans themselves are unable to find responses to their own aspirations.

................................

The Africans of Zimbabwe, Namibia or South Africa have but one overriding goal: that of their own liberation, their own dignity, their own identity as peoples and nations. They will accept any assistance from whatever source because they wish to achieve their freedom.

The lesson is simple but fundamental: we should support the African peoples` struggle for liberation on their own terms, on African terms, because it represents the longing of the African peoples, the true and vital interests of the African nations.

.............................

However, the actions taken in the United Nations, or the lack of such actions, cannot serve as an alibi for passivity on the national level. Each country and government, each popular movement, has its own responsibility and its own role to play.

................................

Allow me then to recapitulate some of the areas where I believe action should be taken.

First, we must work for a halt to all exports to South Africa and all military cooperation with its government. The apparatus of oppression is strengthened by each new weapons delivery or licence. The military cooperation gives the country the means to start its own manufacturing of arms in most important areas of weapon technology, may be also in the ultimate of weapons.

...........................

A United Nations decision on a mandatory arms embargo is long overdue.

...........................

Second, we must seriously deal with the question of investment and export of capital to South Africa and Namibia. In this we should include the effects of transfer of technology as a strengthening of apartheid.

............................

And to those who claim that such measures would upset basic principles of the Western economic system, we must explain that free men are more important than free movement of capital.

............................

This conference is dealing with speeches, documents, resolutions, programmes of action. Behind these words and papers lies the reality of people. Human beings who suffer the indignities of apartheid, men and women who are imprisoned as political prisoners or mental detainees, children who are deprived of food and shelter, who see their parents constantly humiliated, who have known only resentment, rejection and violence.

.................................

The longing for peace is common to all people. But so long as there is apartheid and racism, there can be no peace.

I hope you get the point

Discuss™

[eklipse]

: awaits accusations of anti-Semitism by proxy :

[Logic]

Originally posted by eklipse:
: awaits accusations of anti-Semitism by proxy :

I guess it was too long for the regular crowd that brings up the anti-semitism card

Nothing to see here, move along.......

[lil'babykitten]

:Birds Singing:

[Sven G]

Probably, Olof Palme, Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, and others were political giants compared to the politicians of today: at least, they tried, in some way, with their social democracy, to make capitalism more human (while still remaining within the statist context, of course). I think the following part of your Palme quotes is particularly important:

And to those who claim that such measures would upset basic principles of the Western economic system, we must explain that free men are more important than free movement of capital.

... A rather difficult thing to apply in today's context, which, in many respects, is much worse (mainly from the social point of view) than that of the '70s...

[Logic]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Probably, Olof Palme, Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, and others were political giants compared to the politicians of today: at least, they tried, in some way, with their social democracy, to make capitalism more human (while still remaining within the statist context, of course). I think the following part of your Palme quotes is particularly important:

And to those who claim that such measures would upset basic principles of the Western economic system, we must explain that free men are more important than free movement of capital.

... A rather difficult thing to apply in today's context, which, in many respects, is much worse (mainly from the social point of view) than that of the '70s...

Indeed. It is a long time since I saw a politician of the same caliber as Palme et al. It seems like politicians nowadays are only doing it because of the power, and not to actually do something good for their people and the human as a race.

[Uday's Carcass]

letting Palestinians become citizens would destroy Israel as the Jewish state in only a short time. It would be suicide. No matter how much people want equality or liberalised voting and citizenship laws for non-Jewish Israelis, it can't happen if the people of Israel want to keep their state.

how long do you think it'd take for Israel to be renamed Palestine and have the Jews expelled if Palestinians were a majority? About 2 minutes.

Pie-in-the-sky fantasies about this crap may be your cup of tea, but in reality it'll never happen.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
letting Palestinians become citizens would destroy Israel as the Jewish state in only a short time. It would be suicide. No matter how much people want equality or liberalised voting and citizenship laws for non-Jewish Israelis, it can't happen if the people of Israel want to keep their state.

I sort of agree with you but that could have been different if Israel/Palestine/that particular area would have been founded/treated otherwise. I'm not saying that Israel shouldn't exist, but I'm saying that perhaps it could have been made in a better way. If it from the start would have listened to everyones opinions, especially in the area where people would lose their property and land because of the foundation of Israel.

how long do you think it'd take for Israel to be renamed Palestine and have the Jews expelled if Palestinians were a majority? About 2 minutes.

On the first point. What difference does it make if it is called Israel or Palestine? Isn't the goal for "Pro-Israelis" to be able to live in "their" holy land? Or was it to have a state named Israel? And perhaps some deal could be made to prevent that the Jews would be expelled. Perhaps some kind of an agreement between the so-called-palestinians and the so-called-Israelis. One should not state that the end result would be that all Jews would be pushed into the ocean, one should try to work out a solution to the problem. Don't you agree?

Pie-in-the-sky fantasies about this crap may be your cup of tea, but in reality it'll never happen.

It will never happen as long as the west continues to support a "regime" that treats its fellow human beings like that no, that much is true. Therefore we need some politician of Palmes caliber to enlighten people and bring people to the table to find a solution. We need a personality strong enough to challenge the west, but at the same time is in the west.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by Logic:
I sort of agree with you but that could have been different if Israel/Palestine/that particular area would have been founded/treated otherwise.

I don't agree with that assessment. Most Palestinians are politically moderated, so are most Israelis. A majority that would 'push the other side into the sea' could only be achieved in one of two separate entities.

Israel has to decide: either Jewish, Democratic or Secure. You can only pick two.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by Logic:
Indeed. It is a long time since I saw a politician of the same caliber as Palme et al.

Wait - isn't there a certain Swedish foreign minister... oops. nevermind.