A Deal with the Devil: The Strange Case of Israel and South Africa
(The Occidental Observer) -- by Sam Davidson --
...Most Jews found South African “White supremacy” inherently distasteful. As a result, in 1961 when the South African Foreign Minister defended apartheid in front of the U.N., Israel was one of only two “Western” states to support his censure. Months later the Israelis again supported an initiative for diplomatic sanctions against South Africa while the United States, Great Britain, and other Western nations remained opposed. South Africa retaliated in 1963 by pressuring its own Jewish community, going so far as to the ban the transfer of gift funds to Israel. (South African Jews had, until this point, been one of the highest sources of per captia donations to Israel in the world.) The South African government considered severing relations with Israel but held back due to fear of foreign repercussions. The Israelis eventually recalled their own ambassador in September of that year (p. 38).
How then did South Africa and Israel eventually form an “alliance?”
The Six-Day War and the resulting conflicts polarized world opinion of Israel. France, which had hitherto been a source of “intense, if secretive, military cooperation”, began to cool relations with Israel (p. 36). Likewise, many of the relationships that Israel had cultivated with African and other third-world states simply disintegrated. Of the 32 Israeli technical and trade missions in Africa, only 4 remained following the Yom Kippur War. Likewise, the conflict had left the Israeli economy “in shambles” according to Polakow-Suransky (p. 76). The Israeli solution was to build a massive arms export industry.
Like Israel, South Africa was facing an increasingly polarized world opinion. Its stability was undermined both by internal disturbances and the destabilization of neighboring regimes. Politically its options were limited but economically it still possessed significant assets. For example, South Africa possessed 86% of the total world reserves of platinum group metals. It also possessed 83% of the world’s reserves of chrome ore, 49% of gold reserves, and 17% of uranium reserves.
South Africa faced a security threat. Israel faced an economic threat. The solution for both was to develop extensive yet highly secretive military cooperation. Between 1973 and 1981 the Israeli arms export industry increased from $70 million to nearly $1 billion (p. 77). By 1979 South Africa had become Israel’s largest arms client, accounting for 35% of their military exports (p. 132). These deals included tank engines, aircraft, and nuclear technology.
Yet the Israelis, like most Jews, generally condemned South African apartheid. In judging their relationship with South Africa the Israelis seemed to be asking the old question, “Is it good for the Jews?” Perhaps the best answer was articulated by an Auschwitz survivor: “We will make agreements with the devil to save Jews from persecution and to secure the future of this state ” (p. 91). But such agreements require a certain amount of discretion. Because, you know, not everyone approves of making deals with the devil. As one Israeli editor advised a South African, “You are faced with a hypocritical world. … The trend is to sound liberal. To be liberal is to be nice. … But make the world believe you are sincere. You have to be hypocritical to survive.” (p162)...MORE...LINK
Chris Moore comments:
The hypocritical chutzpah of the Jewish Zionists — secretly selling arms to S. Africa even as they publicly condemn its apartheid; passing judgment on relatively moderate S. Africa apartheid even as Israel ethnically cleanses the Palestinians; adopting self-righteous and self-serving liberal poses even as Israel engages in naked fascism, which is subsequently whitewashed by international Jewry’s media power.
In fact, the rank, Jewish supremacist hypocrisy at this point is so appallingly blatant and noxious in both Israel and the Jewish Zionist diaspora that that it threatens to topple all of those who have sustained them and participated in their racket for all these decades, from the pseudo-secular Marxist left through mainstream left-liberalism and multi-culturalism through the neocon Right.
So many of these corrupted institutions are so dirtied by their relationship with Zionist Jewry that it is clearly the linchpin to toppling the lot, and if they can’t all be brought down together, all of them will sooner or later collapse from the dry rot.
It’s only a matter of time, and how much damage they can do to the West between now and then.
Sam Davidson: In judging their relationship with South Africa the Israelis seemed to be asking the old question, “Is it good for the Jews?”
A commenter at this article's home at Occidental Observer made the following comparison:
It reminds me a little bit of the attitude taken by many Jewish Zionists toward Christian Zionists. In the discourse, the Jewish Zionists are treated as demeaning themselves in partnering with the Christian Zionists, although they accept the latter’s support all the same. The Jewish Zionists are presented as being on a higher moral ground than the “nutjob” or “genocidal” (this characteristic is taken from their supposed End Times beliefs) or “stupid” Christians. The Christian Zionists are always the “devil” in that deal.This is an important point. The liberal intelligentsia's zeitgeist is pretty much dictated by Jewry, hence the gross spectacle of mainstream media sneering at evangelical "nutters" on the one hand, while warmly embracing, celebrating and glorifying the even more nutso and pathological Jewish Zionists.
Not that I approve of Christian Zionist policy toward the United States and Israel. I’m just not certain they deserve to be treated as lesser, or less moral, human beings than Jewish Zionists.
This is all, of course, residue from the anti-White narrative.
Judeo-Christian Zionists and Jewish Zionists should by rights be sneered at equally, and actually the more potent, warlike and dangerous of the two, the Jewish Zionists, deserve the higher degree of sneering contempt.
But because diaspora Jewry essentially owns the establishment left, this doesn't happen -- even as Jewry's phony liberal mask slips lower and lower, and it is more and more exposed as the Judeofascist creature it truly is.
This outright fraud by the entire liberal fascist establishment and its Judeofascist string-pullers will hopefully sooner or later occur even to slow-witted evangelicals.
Jewry, as always, is publicly knifing these dimwits in the back even as, on the subject of Israel and Zionism, it is slipping into the back room with them and pleading how they all have "shared values," and "aren't these anti-Israel liberal nihilists truly horrible people?"
Additionally, perhaps even dimwitted liberals who are earnest in their liberalism will catch on to double-dealing Jewry.
But do either have the integrity, character, and enough of a principled core to form enough of a critical mass in their respective movements and confront Jewry on its psychotically cynical opportunism, double dealing and hypocrisy?
Probably not. So many liberals and eveangelicals already sold their souls to get into bed with Jewry and its lucrative, murderous rackets decades ago.
Most Americans know little about the situation between South Africa and Israel. However, every American should spot the glaring hypocrisy when a "universalist" Jew prattles on about Jewish support for the Civil Rights movement in the United States, when the vast majority of American Jews knowingly supported far worse in Israel at the same time.
Is it really a mystery why supposedly intelligent, well-educated and wordly Jews still make bogus comparisons between Israel's brutal wars and ongoing ethnic cleansing and segregation in the U.S.? Not a single person is asking that they gloss over the past or to present things as better than they were, but there is no comparison between the two situations. So why make the constant comparisons, and why always place Jews in a better light, as if it is a lowering of Jews to be placed on a moral plane with white segregationists, when the opposite is most likely true?
The same happens when "American" Jews compare Israel's founding to America's founding. U.S. imperfections aside, rebelling from a colonial motherland is not what happened with Jews in Palestine. Noam Chomsky twists things even further by claiming it is American Christians who are making the case for Israel by comparing the treatment of Palestinians with that of the American Indians. I know quite a few evangelicals, and their usual patriotism wouldn't really go along with that line of thinking. Jew on the other hand.....
So, I guess the game is now to try and dish out blame for what has gone wrong in America, and it seems that organized Jewry is ready to lay it all at the feet of the rabid evangelicals. The problem is that evangelical Christians lose on just about every issue except for support of Israel and aggression in the Middle East. Whatever the percentage of the electorate the media is claiming is made up by evangelicals, power doesn't seem to rest in body count.
Post a Comment