Social Question

Dr_Lawrence's avatar

How does one reconcile Mandela's great domestic triumphs with Mandela’s endorsement of violent terrorists and promoters of terrorism?

Asked by Dr_Lawrence (20019points) December 6th, 2013

With the recent death of Nelson Mandela I found that as a Canadian, and as a Jew and supporter of Israel’s right to exist, I had to deal with the conflict between Mandela’s triumph in domestic matters and his troublesome conduct of his country’s foreign affairs.

At the point of his death, there is pressure to celebrate his as a great hero who endorsed peace and reconciliation after having suffered a lifetime of abuse and 27 years of imprisonment. There seems to be a desire to gloss over his serious mistakes in supporting al Gadaffi and Arafat while they were still active terrorists and promoters of terrorism.For those of you who get bored reading about the complex relationship between Israel and South Africa before and after the end of Apartheid, you may be inclined to skip over several of the following paragraphs. Of course, if you do so, you will not understand why I feel conflicted in my feelings about the man who was Nelson Mandela.

During the years between the establishment of the State of Israel (in 1948) and the end of Apartheid (1990 – 1993) and the birth of the New Republic of South Africa, Israel as a State cooperated in some ways with the old regime in South Africa. Why did Israel do so? The Afrikaners welcomed Jews and unlike so many African countries, did not work toward to destruction of Israel and the Jewish people. South Africa was among the first countries to recognize the State of Israel. Israel never condoned not participated in the abhorrent and violent mistreatment of non-White South Africans.

Despite Israel’s cooperation and international trade with the old regime in South Africa this, Jews in their thousands participated in demonstrations against Apartheid long before Mandela was released from prison. I know this because I was one of those Jews who demonstrated outside the South African Consulate in Montreal and the South African Embassy in Ottawa in the 1970’s and 1980’s. We did this in Canada and thousands of Jews in the USA and most other free countries outside of South Africa including Israel and we Jews around the world celebrated his release and his rise to power as President of South Africa.

P. W. Botha became prime minister in 1978. Despite pressure from inside South Africa and global pressure to end apartheid rising by the 1980’s Botha’s regime authorized armed attacks in nearby countries like Botswana and Zambia, where ANC activists had taken refuge and also utilized the State Security Council to kill in-country agitators. Botha was elected President of South Africa In 1984,. This led to the the creation of a new constitution that extended some political representation to the Asian and coloured (mixed ethnicity) populations, but granted no power to blacks. Domestic protest grew dramatically and Botha called a national state of emergency in 1985, where, subsequently, thousands of citizens were detained without trial.

After Botha had a stroke in January 1989, he resigned from his position as leader of the National Party. Later that year, he met with Mandela in prison though Mandela was not released. it was only when F. W. de Clerk became President of South Africa in 1989 did de Klerk started working directly with Mandela in the early 1990s. This led to the release of Mandela and the unbanning of the ANC and several other similar organizations

Mandela demonstrated that he was a man who believed that peace could best be achieved with love and respect for all, including those who had oppressed Mandela and all non-Whites and who opposed his party, the African National Congress ANC including those who had imprisoned him for a total of 27 years.

As the first Black President of South Africa and after his one term as President Nelson Mandela’s Foreign Policy was tainted by his endorsement and support of Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi a Libyan revolutionary and politician who promoted and financially supported violent terrorism around the world.

*The USA considered Gaddafi, Arafat and Mandela as terrorists. Mandela was not deleted from that this until 2008!

Mandela demonstrated his active support for Yasser Arafat who founded the Fatah political party and former paramilitary group in 1959 and later founded and became Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) which until 1993 were committed to the destruction of Israel and driving every last Jew into the Mediterranean Sea. *

Around the same time as Mandela was released in South Africa, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin working with Egypt’s President Anwar el-Sādāt concluded a peace treaty that ended over 40 years of conflict and periodic wars between those countries.

Following this treaty, Arafat and his Fatah party ultimately rejected terrorism and acknowledged the right of Israel to exist within secure borders. This resulted in the formation of an independent Palestinian Territory worked toward peace between his PLO and Israel. Another Palestinian territory was founded in Gaza, although conflict between factions in Gaza have continued to incite war with Israel.

*If you have been skipping paragraphs, this would be a good place to rejoin the question ! *

The point I make is that within South Africa, he personified reconciliation and peacemaking even with those most responsible for tormenting and abusing Mandela, members of his ANC and all non-Whites within South Africa under Apartheid. His accomplishments leading to a relatively peaceful transition to democratic Majority rule in the new South Africa made him a great hero for his domestic policies. He set a standard that to some extent was followed by other groups of long-term enemies.

His foreign policies were confused and misguided and his endorsement of people who were leaders of terrorist groups still committed to violent revolution aimed at the annihilation of their enemies was in stark contrast to his masterful nonviolent negotiation that rightfully earned him worldwide acclaim and respect.

At a time when he Mandela was still considered a terrorist by the USA, He became the only person ever granted honorary citizenship by Canada. He was invested with Companion of the Order of Canada, the highest level of the highest honour Canada can bestow on a Canadian citizen. He was declared a universal symbol of triumph over oppression who has inspired people everywhere to work peacefully to end intolerance and injustice.

As a towering figure in the transition from apartheid to democracy in South Africa, he has emerged as one of this century’s greatest statesmen and humanitarians, recognized the world over for his dignity, moral strength, and integrity. His lifelong struggle for freedom, justice, and equality guarantee his presence in the history books of generations to come.

Canada also awarded Mandela the Golden Jubilee Medal, and the Diamond Jubilee Medal.

Back to the main point of my question:

*How does one reconcile his great domestic triumphs and the example he set that may have led to peaceful resolutions of conflict between Egypt and Israel and between Israel and the PLO with Mandela’s endorsement of violent terrorists and promoters of terrorism? *

Thank you for offering serious, helpful answers at a point when generally we are motivated to celebrate his great accomplishments without coming to some resolution of his paradoxical behaviour in supporting active terrorists and promoters of terrorism around the world that lead to the deaths of many innocent people.

Real life is so damn complicated!

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

5 Answers

1TubeGuru's avatar

Given the plight of black South Africans under oppressive white rule you may want to look at it from a different perspective.one mans terrorist is almost always another mans freedom fighter.

ragingloli's avatar

Freedom fighters will always be considered terrorists by the oppressors.

dougiedawg's avatar

Violence begets more violence but the oppressed people will eventually rise up and either succeed or fail. In South Afrika, the black majority won out but Mandela was instrumental in preventing retaliation and promoting peace afterwards.

On the other hand, minorities seldom win as seen in the WWII holocaust and the decimation of countless indigenous cultures throughout history.

His support of Arafat was most certainly due to his own country’s struggle but should not be viewed as condoning terrorism as the only means of leveling the playing field.

True, he took up arms against a brutal system in his younger years but gained perspective while in prison and emerged as a man of peace, 27 years later. Arafat was never able to transform himself and was marginalized largely because of it.

LornaLove's avatar

I just thought I would mention that there were not different laws for colored or Asian. They too were under the same law as blacks. So in effect you were either black or white. Also, just as you mentioned that Jews were not in favor of apartheid and even protested so were not all whites. To think that all whites were in agreement of apartheid is wrong. Many risked their lives to ban it. Living under a regime is every body’s prison.

Mandela as a youth was an angry man and yes he was a freedom fighter. All those years later he emerged a different person. He realized the way forward was peace and love, not hatred and war. If he had emerged angry the whole country would have seen a blood bath.

To me, this shows a man who learned over time and brought that knowledge to the present. He really did become a father of the nation. Sometimes people have to be taught how to be. He was their teacher.

elbanditoroso's avatar

TLDR

But in general, whether someone is a terrorist or a patriot depends on which side you are on (and whether your side won or lost). And to a degree, who wrote the history books.

In Mandela’s case, violence was a means to an end. He achieved his goals, which means that his means were effective. Unpleasant, yes. Bloody, yes. But effective.

As @Dr_Lawrence wrote,Arafat is a similar example – but to some degree a negative one. Arafat didn’t reach his goals. And in particular, he lacked the introspection and philosophical long view to make the changes that Mandela did. And because of that, the Palestinians are still a fighting a battle that could have (and should have) been settled 25 years go.

Arafat used violence as a means to an end, but never reached his goal and must be seen as ineffective. Mandela used violence, achieved his goals, and became a changed person.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther