South Africa: Madiba, Pienaar and that Rugby World Cup.

Voice of America reports

South African Rugby Hero Reflects on Unlikely Friendship with Nelson Mandela

Darren Taylor

Last updated on: February 28, 2011 7:00 PM

On spotting this article hidden away amongst all the tributes to Madiba I must say I was some what astonished that I was reading an American and not a New Zealand news story. That might be an indication of just how much we expected to win the 1995 Rugby World Cup, that said New Zealand expects to win every RWC. Fortunately the dateline sort of explains it.

                                                  Francois Pienaar Nelson Mandela RWC 1995

Former Springbok captain Francois Pienaar credits ‘Madiba’ with historic World Cup win and racial reconciliation in South Africa.

There would be absolutely no argument from any New Zealander about the about the latter, call it poor sportsmanship if you like but we Kiwi's tend to credit Suzie with the former achievement.   

Subsequently, various allegations were made surrounding the lead up to the final. Many of the New Zealand players were suffering from food poisoning 48 hours prior to the game, which affected their performance in the final. New Zealand coach Laurie Mains alleged a mysterious waitress known as "Suzie" had deliberately poisoned the All Blacks' water in the week before the final. During the match New Zealand players could be seen throwing up on the sidelines.

It is also worth noting just how utterly revolting the attitude and sportsmanship of the South African Rugby Union was at that time. Mandela arrived not a moment too late for both South Africa and quite probably for the sport of Rugby Union.

However, the after match mood soured considerably during the end of tournament banquet when South Africa's rugby president, Louis Luyt said in his speech that "There were no true world champions in the 1987 and 1991 World Cups because South Africa were not there." This claim that South Africa were the first "true world champions" led the New Zealand team to walk out of the dinner.

The reason South Africa wasn't at those tournaments was quite simply apartheid. The 1981 Springbok tour of New Zealand is perhaps a better starting point if one wants to understand the influence of rugby with regard to changing South Africa. You could also argue it was a long overdue starting point for change in New Zealand.

"The anti-apartheid movement in South Africa was buoyed by events in New Zealand. Nelson Mandela recalled that when he was in his prison cell on Robben Island and heard that the game in Hamilton had been cancelled, it was as ‘if the sun had come out’."

JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA —

In 1995, South Africa hosted the Rugby World Cup tournament.  It was just a year after the country’s first democratic elections, the first time black people had been allowed to vote after decades of white minority rule.

 But South Africa then was even more deeply divided along racial lines than it is now.  It was also split along sporting lines, with the white minority being passionate followers of rugby, and the black majority worshipping football, otherwise known as soccer. 

The hard truth is that is still a problem today. Incidently Peter De Villiers was the first Black African to coach the springboks.

" In many ways post-apartheid South African rugby views itself as upholding an Afrikaner ethos and values. Any efforts to change South African rugby have to contend with this history.

The former Springbok coach Peter de Villiers knows this very well. Commenting on the SARU plans to introduce a quota system, de Villiers is quoted in the media as saying that the quota system will never work.

As far as de Villiers is concerned, transformation in South African rugby will come about when "there is a transformation period in people's hearts."

Exactly. For that populational transformation in peoples hearts to happen there needs to be real investment in black players and indeed black rugby. It needs to happen in the townships.  

In most parts of black South Africa, the country’s rugby team, the Springboks, was reviled as a symbol of racial oppression.  The Springboks had been funded and adored by successive administrations of the National Party (NP) - the largely Afrikaner political organization that established apartheid in 1948.  

It was a bit surreal having the All Blacks as favourites of the black community in South Africa when they played the Springboks. That thanks to Mandela ( or should that be "thanks Mandela " ) is now to a large degree something of the past.  

But the Springbok captain in 1995, Francois Pienaar, was convinced that winning the Cup could help reconcile black and white South Africans.

The burly blonde Afrikaner wasn’t alone. He found a powerful ally in then-President Nelson Mandela – the revolutionary leader of the African National Congress (ANC) who had been jailed for 27 years by the NP government for fighting against the white supremacist regime.  

Pienaar and Mandela formed an unlikely and dramatic partnership that sustained a nation at a particularly fragile time in South Africa’s often tragic history.

One has to suspect that with Mandela gone the immediate future might well be fragile.

‘Madiba’ embraces the Springboks 

The former Springbok captain recalls Mandela phoning him constantly during the 1995 World Cup, asking after the team’s well-being.  During the competition, the president also appeared on national TV to assure the Springboks of his support.  

Pienaar says Mandela’s backing “meant the world” to him and his team of underdogs.  Rugby pundits had written off their chances of winning the trophy, but the Springboks eventually battled through to the final.  Their opponents were the New Zealand All Blacks, who at the time were the mightiest force in international rugby.  Again, the experts maintained South Africa had no chance of victory. 

New Zealand is always the mightiest force in world rugby. The problem is that no team can win every time it goes onto the field and the All Blacks are no exception to that rule ( 2013 results aside ). The All Blacks just happen to be really bad at world cups, currently us the Aussies and South Africa have two apiece and inexplicably somehow England have one.  I mostly blame the French for New Zealand's failure to dominate this fixture. 

But Mandela disagreed with them, and in the dressing room of the Ellis Park Stadium in Johannesburg, a few hours before kickoff, he told Pienaar so.

“Madiba stood there, wearing a Springbok jersey; he had a Springbok badge over his heart.  It was very emotional for me, seeing this man, who had gone through so much, being willing to do this for us,” he recalls.

To this day, Pienaar refers to Mandela affectionately by the liberation hero’s Xhosa clan name, “Madiba.”  Yet the rugby player, like most white South African children of his generation and before, had grown up fearing Mandela as a “terrorist.”  But, in the space of a few weeks, Pienaar and his team containing just a single black player had come to know Mandela as a “symbol of everything that is good in humanity,” and a man willing to wear the green and gold Springbok regalia that had been created by his former oppressors.

I doubt that Mandela would have seen it as being " willing to wear the green and gold Springbok regalia ", in fact I very much doubt he would have seen it as symbol of apartheid. Mandela I am sure would have viewed it as part of the sporting and cultural inheritance of South Africa and as such, something belonging to all South Africans.   

Triumph for the Rainbow Nation

The ex-captain remembers walking out of the changing room and onto the field, “with the sounds of ‘Madiba!  Nelson, Nelson, Nelson!’” reverberating around the stadium.     

The cheers for Mandela, from a crowd of 65,000 that was almost exclusively white – many who had previously supported his imprisonment – made international headline news.  This moment, when South African whites cheered for the ANC leader as much as they did for their beloved rugby team, would come to be a powerful symbol of a changing South Africa.

That match was about far more than rugby. It was a realisation that a new nation had been born and from a white perspective it was probably relief that they were a part of it. I wonder how white South Africans feel today, particularly when they look north to Zimbabwe ?  

" .....Mr Malema is similar to politicians in Zimbabwe's Zanu-PF party, led by President Robert Mugabe.

"They express conservative views on social issues [for instance, gay rights]. When it comes to economics they use socialist rhetoric but they are, in fact, capitalists who use the state to advance their own political and business interests."

One of his first run-ins with the ANC leadership came in 2010, when he praised Robert Mugabe's seizures of white-owned land."

And when they finally took the field, fired up by Mandela, the Springboks continued this transformation.  In a marathon game often described as one of the greatest ever sporting contests, South Africa narrowly beat New Zealand by 15 points to 12, with virtually the last kick of the game. 

The stereotypical New Zealand response to a defeat is a cliche along the lines of " rugby was the winner on the day " . That day rugby was arguably a spectator, it was South Africa that was the winner.

Critics had called the Springboks “no-hopers,” dismissing any chance the team would do well.  But the no-hopers from the multiracial nation that Archbishop Desmond Tutu had described as “God’s rainbow people” had triumphed.  A proud and smiling Mandela, still clad in his Springbok rugby jersey, strode onto the field to shake Pienaar’s hand and to present the golden World Cup to him.

“When Madiba handed the trophy to me, I shook his hand, and he said to me, ‘Thank you for what you’ve done for South Africa….’”  Pienaar says he was “dumbstruck” when Mandela, who had almost sacrificed his life so that South Africans could be free of racist domination, thanked him – a “mere white rugby player” – for his contribution to the country.

A bit of false modesty on Pienaar's part I suspect.

‘Leader’ and ‘Brave One’ 

Following the historic victory, Mandela maintained contact with Pienaar – even phoning him to congratulate him on the birth of his first son, Jean.  “Madiba gave him the Xhosa nickname, Nkokele, which means ‘leader.’  He also told me that Jean would be his godchild,” he says.  

A few years later, Mandela invited Pienaar and his family to tea at the former president’s Johannesburg home.  The rugby player’s second son, Stefan, was five years old at the time.  After the boy begged Mandela to also be his godfather, the Nobel Peace Prize winner hugged him, laughed and declared, “I will call you ‘brave one.’”

Pienaar says, “That just goes to show what kind of a person Madiba is, that he always finds time for all people in life, no matter how small they are.  I think absolute humility is his greatest virtue.”

The world is a far poorer place today than it was yesterday.  

In 2007, in France, the Springboks – this time with new captain John Smit at the helm – again reached the World Cup final. In a videotaped message to the team before the game, Mandela urged them to “play the game hard and honestly, and whatever the outcome – hold your heads high. We are convinced that you will triumph and bring the trophy home."

The Springboks indeed emerged victorious, beating England to once again win rugby’s most coveted prize.

Bloody French, took us out in the quarter final.

Pienaar will always be grateful to Mandela for supporting what was then the “white sport” of rugby. But he emphasizes that the freedom fighter should ultimately be remembered more for saving South Africa from what would have been a disastrous civil war.

He says, “Things didn’t go totally wrong in South Africa because we had the most amazing leader, at the right time.”

Sometimes, not often but sometimes everything just falls into place.   
By supporting rugby, Mandela had suddenly and boldly gained the affection of millions of white South Africans. Analysts agree the strategy probably avoided further tragedy in South Africa. They continue to use it as proof of Mandela’s genius.

Genius....maybe but more likely his humanity. The world lost a little bit of its magic yesterday 

RIP Madiba. 

South Africa: Biko's Legacy ?

Voice Of America reports

New Political Party Launched in South Africa

                                                  Mamphela Ramphele (2013 photo)

 
A political battle is in the air in South Africa as the 2014 presidential election gets closer. A new party was officially launched Saturday named Agang, which means "to build" in the Sotho language. The party plans to challenge Nelson Mandela's historical party, the African National Congress or ANC.

I think Mandela would be happy to see this development. The arrogance of the ANC is mind numbing.
 
She steps on the stage with her arm raised and her fist clenched above her head. Mamphela Ramphele, the leader of Agang, wants to make it clear : she is here to start the political fight against the ANC, which has been ruling South Africa since 1994 and the end of apartheid.

According to Ramphele, who is an academic and a former partner of anti-apartheid activist Steve Biko, the ANC hasn't done enough to transform the country and the life of South Africans.

A name that rings through out the history of the apartheid years and a hero of mine.

"I say that 20 years is too long to wait for jobs. 20 years is too long to wait for quality education. This is not the legacy our great leaders had in mind. This is not the country dreamed of by of our beloved Madiba ((Mandela)), by Steve Biko or Lillian Ngoyi," Ramphele said.

Ramphele articulates her program around reducing poverty, improving the education system, and also tackles corruption which, she says, has been one of the main causes of the dysfunction in the country.

The Democratic Alliance has largly failed to capture the black vote this could be a political ally on the left.

"Corruption and a culture of impunity have spread throughout government and society stealing textbooks from classrooms, stealing drugs from those living with HIV and stealing thousands of jobs and billions of rands of investment," Ramphele said.

A few hundred people, mostly young, attended the party launch event Saturday. Some of them were brought by bus from the neigboring province, where Ramphele is from. She announced her intention to create her own political party only four months ago and many Agang supporters are disaffected ANC voters, like Coleen Loyd.
　

"At the moment, they (the ANC) are not satisfying our youth. We are here for our youth," Lloyd said.

Despite recent scandals, the ANC remains very popular among South Africans, largely due to the role it played to end the white minority rule known as apartheid, back in the early 1990s. The party has been ruling the country ever since, winning each election.

Not a good sign in any democracy.

Patrick Mphaphuli says he does not expect Agang to beat the ANC, but he hopes that the new competition can shake the ANC and force them to do change.

"What I'm looking for is just to reduce the number for the ANC. And I think reducing the number will make these guys wake up to think that maybe, we must start taking the people serious," Mphaphuli said.

The party certainly has a long way to go to beat the ANC, but Ramphele can already count on the support of South African Nobel peace laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who praised Ramphele for entering the South African political arena and challenging the ruling party.

Another great man.

South Africa: Helen Zille and the DA's Challenge

Timeslive ( South Africa ) reports

'DA will not bring back apartheid': Zille

                                                               Helen Zille. File photo.

People should not fear that the Democratic Alliance will bring back apartheid if the party came into power, leader Helen Zille said on Saturday.

"We will never bring back apartheid. In fact, people who think life was better under apartheid do not belong in the DA. We will never take away your grants or houses," Zille said.

Last year I read When Mandela Goes and I blogged about it and have been meaning to follow up on that for some time. One of the points in the book was the possibility that the Democratic Alliance  held for the new South Africa. The book was published in 1997 and the author pointed out that  he held no great optimism for the party ever becoming a real challenger to the ANC.

"We will only work to expand opportunities, grow the economy to create jobs for more people, fix the schools... deliver basic services better, and stop the corruption that steals money straight from the pockets of the poorest people."

The Democratic Alliance returning South Africa to apartheid is a bloody joke as anyone with even the smallest knowledge of South African politics would know. The party has a proud history of opposing apartheid and grew out of the white anti-apartheid movement of the seventies so is philosophically opposed to the repugnance that is apartheid but on a more pragmatic note white rule in Africa is over period and it will never return.  

Zille was speaking at the welcoming of Jabulani Chiya to the party in Umzimkhulu, KwaZulu-Natal.

Chiya is a former African National Congress (ANC) member who ran independently in the municipal elections.

Zille said Chiya was part of the growing number of former ANC members and activists who were now joining the DA.

Again from memory the DA has since the fall of apartheid been making a real effort to attract " coloured " ( I hate that term ) and black membership. It currently is the official opposition in South Africa and in my opinion would be a far better organisation to inherit the mantel of Nelson Mandela than the corrupt and increasingly racist ANC.

In her speech Zille referred to a letter from Lesego Setou, written to the Mail&Guardian on Friday entitled "fear of the unknown".

Setou said that the reason why people stayed in toxic relationships was fear. They were afraid of the unknown and would rather stick with the known no matter how bitter, terrifying or unbearable it was.

"I realised how we have allowed the ANC to abuse us. We have rewarded the ANC with faith when it failed us with ever rising electricity tariffs," the letter read.

I agree completely the ANC has become a toxic brand but it is not only increasing electricity tariffs that have caused the problem. The ANC no longer cares for the people of South Africa. It is no longer committed to building a strong wealthy middle class. It has degenerated into a political party that props up the traditional black elites and maintains their control over the state. It has become in short the legitimate successor to the South African Nationalist Party. 

"We have been with the ANC even when it cheated us in the form of corrupt public servants who squander our tax money. We pardoned the ANC for infidelity in the form of the arms deal and we are still pardoning the ANC for slapping us in the face with e-tolling."

Setou said that a majority of black South Africans remain in a "toxic relationship" with the ANC and said they "have a fear of Helen Zille".

"We fear to take a chance on her [Zille] because of the colour of her skin, we fear the policies she has in store for us."

I actually can understand the fear of the DA when it comes to older black South Africans.The generation that grew up under apartheid have good reason to fear white rule and at the moment if you are white in South Africa that is a political reality that must be factored into any electoral equation. However South Africa ( like the rest of Africa ) is a young and becoming younger nation.

However, Zille said there was nothing to fear as evidenced by the move of ANC members to the DA.

She said they have come to see that the DA was "the best hope for the future" of the country.

The DA is a center left party and one that I would have no difficulty supporting if I was a South African. There are several paths open to South Africa one hopes they can see the futility of following Mugabe's example and leading South Africa down the Zimbabwe road as advocated by former ANC youth leader Julius Malema, who is by any reckoning a fool. The ANC seems to at best now offer an increasingly Swaziland alternative with the curtailment of individual liberties and the abolition of women rights. The DA offers a real future for South Africa but it must become in reality a party that is trusted by the black population of South Africa, that more than anything should be its priority. That is Helen Zille's Challenge.

"Today, I am here with Jabulani Chiya to show that there is nothing to be afraid of in the DA," she said.

"We want to build a future for South Africa where no one needs to fear the colour of another person's skin, as Mr Setou said -- because we all work for the betterment of one another, no matter who or what colour we are."

In other words Mandela's dream of the rainbow nation.

Mali: A bizarre assessment.

Oseph Rwagatare opines in New Times ( Rwanda )

Where is the AU in Mali?

Africa is a land of extreme contradictions.  It is a continent of incredible abundance, but also unconscionable scarcity. Because of this, Africa attracts adventurers, plunderers and other fortune seekers, and starry-eyed do-gooders in equal measure. 

Well he got off to a good start I will concede that.

It is the cradle of humankind and human civilisation, but is now the most backward place on earth. That is a source of mixed feelings. First, there is immense pride in what once was and the potential to retrieve what made that possible. In some way this feeling compensates for Africa’s other deficiencies. Second, there is shame that, in spite of that glorious history, we must owe our existence to people once considered barbarians.

I haven't got a clue who he is referring to here. Maybe he means the Chinese.

Africa is home to some of the proudest and bravest people, but also harbours some of the most spineless. It boasts some of the most visionary, philosophical, independent-minded and selfless leaders. Equally, some of the most short-sighted, mediocre, selfish and vicious dictators trample its beautiful landscape and desecrate its heritage.

Well sadly the vast majority of Africa's leaders fall into the vicious dictator ( crocodiles ) category including the current leadership of Rwanda.

The list of contradictions goes on. 

Africa holds so much promise. All the good and great things about the continent can be so exciting, even exhilarating. For the same reason, all the bad and negative things, the unrealised potential can be so depressing. That’s why Africa can be so exasperating.

In the last two decades, however, most of the news from Africa has been good, even uplifting.

Nothing is really leaping to mind on the uplifting fantastic front . I guess the end of apartheid just sneaks in but even that has been more about a failure to capitalise on opportunities.

After so many years of economic stagnation, and regression in some cases, African economies are on the rise and growing faster than some of the traditionally strong economies. New resources are being discovered. The continent is attracting other suitors, creating jealousy among those who thought they had her to themselves.

Take a bow France.

Again, following decades of political instability and insecurity, stability has returned to large parts of the continent.

Where ? Just asking.

The continent is recovering from many years of sheepishly following political ideologies and directives from the outside, and development models designed elsewhere. Many countries feel confident enough to apply genuinely African, home-grown approaches to issues of governance and development.

Stalin would be reasonably happy with many of the political arrangements occurring on the continent today. " ...home-grown approaches to issues of governance... " Yup Zimbabwe leads the world.

They feel strong enough to take on continental problems and solve them without having to wait for external prompting and leadership. At least that has been the rhetoric in the recent past. We have heard stronger and louder African voices calling for “African solutions to African problems”. And to be fair, Africans solving their own problems has been the practice, especially in Eastern and the horn of Africa.

That is an interesting interpretation of the word " solving "

It has become a cherished principle of the African Union to call on fellow Africans to come to the aid of countries in various kinds of trouble. And it has been working.

I wonder if Oseph has noticed what is occurring over the border in the Eastern  DR Congo ?

In Sudan, leaders of the East African countries of Uganda, Kenya and Ethiopia, played a key role in ending the conflict between north and south and saw the birth of an independent South Sudan. Of course, problems remain, but they are being addressed at regional level.

The same is happening in Somalia. Uganda and Burundi took the initiative to pacify the country that had defied all previous attempts. Kenya joined them and now Somalia is slowly returning to a functioning state.

But just when things are getting neatly in place – the economy, politics and diplomacy – they come unstuck and we return to the familiar, frustrating contradictions.

Well he gets to Mali eventually.

In West Africa, the French have returned to their traditional role of military intervention in local conflicts. Mali has provided the occasion for this. West Africans clapped and welcomed French involvement in expected ways.

As a New Zealander I feel I have a special right to revile the French. They have caused us untold reputational damage in at two RWC's ( Rugby ) that however doesn't cloud my judgement on the necessity of the French the French action in Mali.

Mali has been practically partitioned for close to one year. The partition was hastened by the collapse of a government in a country that had been touted as the very model of democracy. As it turned out, Malian democracy was an artificial creation of the very country that is now being applauded for intervening to restore the unity of the country.

That is a huge statement and it is bollocks. To lay the blame exclusively at France's door is very unfair. 

The threatened break-up of Mali is also the result of the actions of France and its Western allies in Libya. They removed Gaddafi but also damaged the Libyan State and left a political and diplomatic vacuum that Islamists and other rebels exploited.

I guess the West should have propped up the Gaddafi regime. History lesson for Oseph, the West didn't remove Gaddafi. His own people did. Something I am sure hasn't escaped the notice of a few African leaders.

To be fair, West African States have dragged their feet on the Mali crisis. And this warranted intervention of some kind. But that was to be expected. They have been used to Big Brother wielding the stick whenever there is a quarrel.

West African states actually applauded Frances actions as did the African Union and they haven't so much dragged their feet as just taken a bit longer to get organised. It is a question of resources and the ability to deploy them. That Oseph is where the AU are. Where you are totally eludes me.

Earlier in the Ivory Coast, a similar situation had developed. Again, it was the originators of the problem who came in to provide a solution.

So, are we seeing the end of “African solutions to African problems”? Probably not. Two things are evident. Some Africans refuse to take responsibility for their continent. Former colonial powers are not about to change their ways. They want to maintain their influence and are not even hiding it behind some high sounding moral principle. Sadly, some Africans are complicit in this.

No one doubts the harm that colonialism caused Africa. Would France have bettered served Mali by abandoning them ? I think not. Oseph needs to understand we are living in a new century and African's must make it Africa's century. Blaming the French for the fall of Gaddafi (as though that was a bad thing ) and then suggesting that makes them accountable for the failure of governance in Mali is utterly ridiculous. 

Israel Apartheid

The Information Clearing House reports

Survey: Most Israeli Jews Would Support Apartheid Regime in Israel

A Survey, conducted by Dialog on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, exposes anti-Arab, ultra-nationalist views espoused by a majority of Israeli Jews.

By Gideon Levy
October 23, 2012 "Harretz" -- Most of the Jewish public in Israel supports the establishment of an apartheid regime in Israel if it formally annexes the West Bank.

A majority also explicitly favors discrimination against the state's Arab citizens, a survey shows.

The survey, conducted by Dialog on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, exposes anti-Arab, ultra-nationalist views espoused by a majority of Israeli Jews. The survey was commissioned by the Yisraela Goldblum Fund and is based on a sample of 503 interviewees.

Can't argue with the sample size. I am guessing from the perspective of Dialog this was close to the worst possible result.

The questions were written by a group of academia-based peace and civil rights activists. Dialog is headed by Tel Aviv University Prof. Camil Fuchs.

The majority of the Jewish public, 59 percent, wants preference for Jews over Arabs in admission to jobs in government ministries. Almost half the Jews, 49 percent, want the state to treat Jewish citizens better than Arab ones; 42 percent don't want to live in the same building with Arabs and 42 percent don't want their children in the same class with Arab children.

This is a awful result  whilst it is a long way from Nazism I have to ask if the holocaust taught Israel and the majority of its citizens the right lessons.

A third of the Jewish public wants a law barring Israeli Arabs from voting for the Knesset and a large majority of 69 percent objects to giving 2.5 million Palestinians the right to vote if Israel annexes the West Bank.

Israel has already taken stolen so much Palestinian territory that a two state solution is becoming impractical. The question should not be annexing the West Bank but retreating from the occupied territories.

A sweeping 74 percent majority is in favor of separate roads for Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank. A quarter - 24 percent - believe separate roads are "a good situation" and 50 percent believe they are "a necessary situation."

Apartheid in South Africa it was recognised in the end as being totally absurd another lesson Israel appears not to have learnt. 

Almost half - 47 percent - want part of Israel's Arab population to be transferred to the Palestinian Authority and 36 percent support transferring some of the Arab towns from Israel to the PA, in exchange for keeping some of the West Bank settlements.

You can't just remove people if you live in a so called civilised society some sort of deal should be reached with regard to territory and if it going to work it needs to be just.

 Although the territories have not been annexed, most of the Jewish public (58 percent ) already believes Israel practices apartheid against Arabs. Only 31 percent think such a system is not in force here. Over a third (38 percent ) of the Jewish public wants Israel to annex the territories with settlements on them, while 48 percent object.

That 48% is a little bit encouraging.

The survey distinguishes among the various communities in Israeli society - secular, observant, religious, ultra-Orthodox and former Soviet immigrants. The ultra-Orthodox, in contrast to those who described themselves as religious or observant, hold the most extreme positions against the Palestinians. An overwhelming majority (83 percent ) of Haredim are in favor of segregated roads and 71 percent are in favor of transfer.

The ultra-Orthodox are also the most anti-Arab group - 70 percent of them support legally barring Israeli Arabs from voting, 82 percent support preferential treatment from the state toward Jews, and 95 percent are in favor of discrimination against Arabs in admission to workplaces.

Fanatics are  generally speaking always a pain in the arse be they Christian, Jewish or Muslim.

The group classifying itself as religious is the second most anti-Arab. New immigrants from former Soviet states are closer in their views of the Palestinians to secular Israelis, and are far less radical than the religious and Haredi groups. However, the number of people who answered "don't know" in the "Russian" community was higher than in any other.

The Russians register the highest rate of satisfaction with life in Israel (77 percent ) and the secular Israelis the lowest - only 63 percent. On average, 69 percent of Israelis are satisfied with life in Israel.

Secular Israelis appear to be the least racist - 68 percent of them would not mind having Arab neighbors in their apartment building, 73 percent would not mind Arab students in their children's class and 50 percent believe Arabs should not be discriminated against in admission to workplaces.

It would be interesting to know how the population divides percentage wise into these groups.


The survey indicates that a third to half of Jewish Israelis want to live in a state that practices formal, open discrimination against its Arab citizens. An even larger majority wants to live in an apartheid state if Israel annexes the territories.

Not a lot of tolerance.

The survey conductors say perhaps the term "apartheid" was not clear enough to some interviewees. However, the interviewees did not object strongly to describing Israel's character as "apartheid" already today, without annexing the territories. Only 31 percent objected to calling Israel an "apartheid state" and said "there's no apartheid at all."

In contrast, 39 percent believe apartheid is practiced "in a few fields"; 19 percent believe "there's apartheid in many fields" and 11 percent do not know.

The "Russians," as the survey calls them, display the most objection to classifying their new country as an apartheid state. A third of them - 35 percent - believe Israel practices no apartheid at all, compared to 28 percent of the secular and ultra-Orthodox communities, 27 percent of the religious and 30 percent of the observant Jews who hold that view. Altogether, 58 percent of all the groups believe Israel practices apartheid "in a few fields" or "in many fields," while 11 percent don't know.

Finally, the interviewees were asked whether "a famous American author [who] is boycotting Israel, claiming it practices apartheid" should be boycotted or invited to Israel. About half (48 percent ) said she should be invited to Israel, 28 percent suggest no response and only 15 percent call to boycott her.

Not completely utterly awful but fairly bad.


© Haaretz Daily Newspaper Ltd. All Rights Reserved


Hat tip No Right Turn

Apartheid America....

It should come as no suprise to Americans that the world has started to avoid the USA. The insane security laws in place at American airports has encouraged residents down under to transit through Asia when heading to Europe rather than suffer the indignities your law enforcement community enjoys inflicting on weary travelers, but this is moving things to a whole new level of fucking insanity.

From the New Zealand Herald today.

" A six-year-old who threw a tantrum at her small-town Georgia school was taken away in handcuffs, arms behind her back, in an episode that is firing up the debate over whether teachers and police around the US are overreacting all too often when dealing with disruptive students.

The family of Salecia Johnson lashed out early today (NZ time) over her treatment and said she was badly shaken, while the school system and the police defended how they handled the episode."

What the fuck ?  Look at her.

"Kids are being arrested for being kids," said Shannon Kennedy, a civil rights attorney who is suing the Albuquerque, New Mexico, school district, where hundreds of kids have been arrested in the past few years for minor offences - including such things as having cellphones in class, burping, refusing to switch seats and destroying a history book. In 2010, a 14-year-old boy was arrested for inflating a condom in class.

In Georgia, Salecia was accused of tearing items off the walls and throwing books and toys in an outburst last week at Creekside Elementary in Milledgeville, a city of about 18,000, some 140km from Atlanta, police said. Authorities said she also threw a small shelf that struck the principal in the leg, and jumped on a paper shredder and tried to break a glass frame.

Police refused to say what set off the tantrum. The school called police, and when an officer tried to calm the child in the principal's office, she resisted, authorities said. She then was handcuffed and taken away in a patrol car."

Police officers are defending this shit. America you are fucked. What I guess we should be grateful for is that the police didn't just gun her down. Maybe the principle would have done it if Georgia had " standing your ground " laws.

" He said the girl will not be charged with a crime because she is too young.

The girl's aunt, Candace Ruff, went with the child's mother to pick her up at the police station. She said Salecia was in a holding cell and complained about the handcuffs.

"She said they were really tight. She said they really hurt her wrists," Ruff said. "She was so shaken up when we went there to pick her up."

Why on earth isn't the police officer fuckwit facing charges. This reads like an apartheid South Africa story.