Mandela, Apartheid And The Jews
Tue, 12/10/2013
Irving “Yitz” Greenberg
Irving “Yitz” Greenberg

Nelson Mandela’s death evoked a worldwide outpouring of respect and love. Jewish leaders, from Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu (to South African Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein to President Obama, praised his greatness. Netanyahu called him “a freedom fighter who rejected any violence” and “a moral leader of the highest order.”

Yet there is an undercurrent of unease about Mandela in the Jewish community. After all, he embraced Yasir Arafat, variously calling him a “brother” and a “comrade in arms.” In 1990, he declared, “We do not reject the PLO as a terrorist organization.” In 2000, in a show trial, Iran falsely convicted 13 Iranian Jews of espionage for Israel. When Mandela defended the trial as “free and fair,” the American Jewish Committee cancelled its planned dinner honoring him for humanitarianism and statesmanship.

We must remember that when South Africa became independent, the whites created an oppressive, racist system and tightened it until it became the morally despicable system of apartheid, which denied blacks civil rights, including the right to vote.

Nelson Mandela and his friends courageously stood up for Africans’ full human dignity and rights. He started as a person committed to non-violence. However, in the face of tightening repression and especially after the Sharpeville incident in which 57 Africans peacefully demonstrating for their rights were shot to death by the police, Mandela and his circle concluded that only armed resistance could bring down the government and turned to violence. This gave the government the excuse to arrest and try him. He was imprisoned for 27 years.

During this period, Mandela and the ANC received support primarily from Arab and Third World dictators. Mandela’s allies denied Israel’s right to exist, portrayed their own struggle as one of human rights against colonialism, and practiced terrorism in the name of liberation. In the 1960s, Israel [then led by the Socialist Mapai party] reached out to Africa and Asia — offering aid to strengthen their economies and training for their nascent unions and civil rights movements. However after 1967 the Communist bloc/Arab joint economic and ideological pressures led most African and Asian nations to break relations with Israel. The Jewish state, having shifted to a Western orientation, also cooperated with the South African government (as did the United States). This reached an apex in Israel’s dash to attain nuclear power-where the South African government supplied needed sources of uranium and technical support.

Nevertheless, thanks to the spread of democratic values — such as the triumph of the civil rights movement in the United States — and a massive shift in public opinion, South Africa was deservedly labeled racist and apartheid. It was isolated, sanctioned, boycotted and investment divested — until the white government yielded and released Mandela. He renounced violence and was elected president.

Here, Mandela showed further moral greatness. He chose not to revenge decades of oppression and exploitation. He rejected the calls to drive out the whites. He protected minority rights and insisted on building a new South Africa together. He checked some of his comrades in arms, including his wife, Winnie, who wanted to impose radical economic policies that would also have driven out many whites. In truth, he did not solve the problem of poverty. However, he allowed a capitalist system to evolve, which hopefully can solve the problem eventually. Some of his comrades turned to self-enrichment. Others continue to push for radical economic policies. He remained moderate in policy and personally honest.

Mandela’s model of democracy and reconciliation is a shining example that deserves the love and respect shown to him on his death. Jews, too, should treasure and honor such a moral role model — all too rare in the annals of modern liberation movements.

Despite his personal policy at home, Mandela did not challenge or critique the policies of his comrades in arms abroad. He embraced abusive tyrants like Kaddafy in Libya and Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Having switched from non-violence himself, Mandela accepted their rationalizations as they turned armed resistance into terrorism. He did not employ or accept the Arabs’ genocidal language vis á vis Israel, but he did not rebuke or publicly condemn the Arafat/Palestinian continuing search for revenge. He spoke to the Jewish Board of Deputies in London and asserted that Israel should give over the West Bank to a Palestinian state — but not unless the Arabs first recognized the Jewish state. In 1999 he said: “I cannot conceive of Israel withdrawing if the Arab states do not recognize Israel under secure borders.”

In short, Mandela is a moral icon of the highest order with real flaws and limitations — as with any real-life person. This is just as Israel is a real-life democracy with flaws and limitations, including limited cooperation with the undemocratic government when there was no other choice for survival.

In recent decades the left that whitewashed the crimes of the Third World rulers has “koshered” any policy that presents as being anti-colonialist. It has turned against Israel and sought to define it as an apartheid regime. They ignore the critical differences: that Israel’s Jewish population represents the return of a people to its homeland; that its Jewish land was bought and reclaimed, not seized; that Arabs were offered a nation of their own but chose to try to destroy the Jewish state; and that Israel is a vital functioning democracy despite living under constant siege.

The key to the delegitimization strategy is to exaggerate normal faults and inescapable errors in self-defense, and to invent evils and thus define Israel as an apartheid society. The bald-faced lie of this claim is blatant because in Israel itself, the opposite of apartheid is true. Despite the Arab states’ unrelenting assaults from without, the internal Arab minority was granted full voting rights and all civil rights. Starting as a disadvantaged community, Israeli Arabs have steadily improved their levels of public health, education, and economic well being — beyond any of the Arabs in neighboring states. They are still behind the Jewish curve but — like blacks in America — they have the full range of democratic mechanisms available to improve their status. Their fate is significantly in their own hands.

The left that airbrushes the evils of “underdogs” or ex-colonial peoples and demonizes the Jewish state betrays the moral greatness of Mandela in his insistence on giving revenge no place and genocide no favor.

Jews should not be thrown off by the tension between Mandela’s universal stature and his flaws on Jewish issues. Jews should proclaim his greatness and urge — nay, challenge — the Arab nations to walk in his footsteps. The main hope for a true Arab Spring is that they come up with a Mandela of their own who can lead them beyond tribalism and sectarianism, beyond the politics of resentment and revenge, to a society that offers democracy and peace to all.

Rabbi Irving “Yitz” Greenberg, a scholar and author, was the founding president of CLAL (the National Center for Jewish Learning and Leadership) and of the Steinhardt Foundation for Jewish Life. 

Comment Guidelines

The Jewish Week feels comments create a valuable conversation and wants to feature your thoughts on our website. To make everyone feel welcome, we won't publish comments that are profane, irrelevant, promotional or make personal attacks.

Comments

Rabbi Greenberg:

The first paragraph of this opinion is confusing. First, there is no close parentheses [)] to match the open parentheses {(]. Second, the wording implies that President Obama is a Jewish leader. While he is a leader of a nation that includes Jews, he is not a leader who is himself Jewish.

With regard to the column, "Mandela, Apartheid and the Jews" of December 10:

Although Mandela is justly praised for his accomplishments, the write points out that he embraced such tyrants as Mugabe and Kaddafy. Most egregiously, he called on Israel to turn over the West Bank to the Palestinians--but did insist on their recognition of Israel's right to exist.
All this is true. Still, some historical perspective is appropriate here. These third world dictators supported the efforts of the African National Congress to overturn the apartheid regime.
On April 9, 1976, the Israeli government headed by Yitzhak Rabin welcomed the arrival in Israel of the prime minister of South Africa, Balthazer Johannes Vorster. If the visitor paid homage to the victims of the Holocaust at the Yad Vashem memorial, his appearance inspired cries of protest. Vorster’s government was carrying out with great brutality the strictest segregation of blacks and coloreds from whites. Also, his National Party contained anti-Semitic elements who had rejected South African opposition to Germany in World War II, a party that now in power freed those condemned as traitors by the wartime government. Vorster himself had been a member of a militant nationalist organization that openly proclaimed its pro-Nazi support during the war.
The South African prime minister had come to Israel to review arrangements reached by the two countries several years ago. (That Israel had entered into arrangements with other authoritarian regimes as well was later revealed by the disclosure that in 1977-1978, the Jewish state supplied 14 percent of all the armaments purchased by the Argentine military government. The figure rose after 1982 at the very time a Western boycott of arms was put in place to show support for Great Britain (in that nation’s conflict with Argentina over the Falkland Islands.)
However much the Rabin government publicly denounced South Africa’s racial and nationalist ideology, the Israeli prime minister believed that his country’s pressing need of markets for its war-battered industries required the overture. The Meir government that preceded his had forged ties with several of the newly independent African states, but the 1967 and 1973 wars and the occupation of Palestinian territories pinned a colonialist label on the Jewish state. These states severed their relations with, and closed their markets to, Israel, and the Meir dream of a pro-Israel Africa went up in smoke.
For Rabin and the military, it was a question of Israel’s survival. In return for exports (and it was weapons, including those allowing for the development of at least parts of a nuclear arsenal that most interested South Africa), Israel would receive raw materials, particularly coal and diamonds, and testing space for its own weapons. A military agreement had been signed the year previous to Vorster’s visit by Defense Minister Peres and his South African counterpart, P.W. Botha. Both governments kept the details of the military relationship a closely guarded secret but considerable international speculation--and condemnation--of their economic ties, followed by a move for sanctions against the apartheid regime, soon found support.
Inevitably, the opening of trade strengthened the military ties. A younger generation that included Peres, Dyan, and Rabin placed highest priority on Israeli security, and the defense establishment--although not the diplomats--agreed. Such Likud conservatives as Sharon and the rising young Benjamin Netanyahu found little to please in the African National Congress and other liberation movements that denounced Israeli support for regimes found oppressive. And despite real differences between the two countries, both Israel and South Africa saw themselves as victims of terrorists and both were strongly anti-Soviet in the nineteen-seventies. That a new African National Congress government would seek diplomatic openings after 1990 with Libya, Cuba, and the PLO, among others who offered support in its struggle against the nationalist regime and turn to European arms suppliers, could have been foreseen, but not easily.
* * *

Add comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.