Nelson Mandela was a true hero. He stood for truth, justice, reconciliation and peace. He led his people to freedom and he set a stellar example to other people around the world as they engage in their own struggles for peace and justice. The world’s outpouring of respect as we honor his passing is natural. Nevertheless, I feel some unease at some of this reaction. Many who now praise him are guilty of, if not outright hypocrisy, then at least a remarkably forgetful and self serving kind of conversion. 

Over the weekend, for example, former Reagan advisor and Bush’s secretary of state James Baker spoke of his respect for Mandela on “Face the Nation.” That’s hard to believe. Baker opposed US sanctions on Apartheid South Africa and opposed Mandela’s release from prison. Both the Reagan and Bush administrations labeled Mandela a “terrorist” and his ANC a “communist front organization.” Even after Mandela had proven his commitment to peace, shown his leadership in national reconciliation, and presided over the unilateral nuclear disarmament of his country, Mandela’s presence on the US terrorist watch list was not lifted. It only officially ended in 2008. 

Obviously Mandela was no terrorist or communist. But have his former critics really learned the lesson—the lesson that in the long term, truth and justice will eventually triumph over shallow, short term, political opportunism? I doubt it—and doubting it, I must also doubt these new “converts” to the Mandela position. I doubt their commitment to peace and justice—or their commitment to anything else Mandela really stood for. I doubt them because they were wrong, and Mandela was right and yet, in spite of this, they still support positions he would have abhorred. To put it bluntly, their current praise seems aimed largely at obscuring their past obstruction of his quest for peace and justice. 

One glaring example of this hypocrisy is in the Middle East. At this critical point in US relations with that region it must be noted that the occupation of Palestine (the longest running continuous conflict since WWII) mattered intensely to Mandela. Israel’s invasion and occupation of Palestine concerned Mandela as an issue of basic principles and human rights. It should matter to every American not only on those counts, but as a practical issue about how we budget our national resources. The 8 million dollars a day we give to Israel buys us nothing but ill will in the rest of the world. Every one of those direct dollars eventually costs us much, much, more in terms of combating the rising tide of worldwide Arab and Muslim opposition and anti-Americanism of all kinds. Even in Israel itself, our virtually unconditional aid leads to complacency, triumphalism and a lack of accountability that delays peace. Our support for the current Israeli Likud Party regime of Netanyahu is not just a negative force in moral terms, it is also essentially unsustainable. Comparable US support for the white South African government delayed the victory of the Mandela agenda for years. How many victims did that needless delay create? How does one calculate that cost?

This week, Palestinians mourned Nelson Mandela as their most loyal champion, lighting candles in special prayer services and holding his picture like a shield in confrontations with Israeli troops. Mandela famously said that, “…our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.” Mandela knew that, Israel has created a system of ethnic/racial discrimination, inequality and military occupation which deprives Palestinians of their lands and rights in gross, systematic and ongoing violations of violates international law. Mandela addressed this issue in a 1997 address to commemorate solidarity with the Palestinian people in Pretoria. He said in part:

When in 1977, the United Nations passed the resolution inaugurating the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian people, it was asserting the recognition that injustice and gross human rights violations were being perpetrated in Palestine. In the same period, the UN took a strong stand against apartheid; and over the years, an international consensus was built, which helped to bring an end to this iniquitous system.But we know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinian...the time has come to resolve the problems of Palestine.*

If we really want to honor his legacy, shouldn’t we act on the substance of the principles he so bravely stood for? 

In South Africa, Mandela’s legacy on Palestine is obvious. Last year, the government there made changes in product labeling that support the international effort of boycotts, divestments and sanctions (BDS) against Israel. Further, (To quote from an article entitled Palestinians Remember Mandela as an Inspiration, By Karin Laub, December 8, 2013 12:26 PM, AP):

In 2011, the University of Johannesburg became the world's first to impose an academic boycott on Israel. In October, veteran anti-apartheid leader Ahmed Kathrada, who was convicted alongside Mandela in 1964, launched a campaign from Mandela's former prison cell for Marwan Barghouti. The Palestinian uprising leader was jailed 11 years ago and is serving five life terms after being convicted of a role in the uprising-related killings of four Israelis and a Greek monk (an imprisonment probably as unjust as Mandela’s own—my comment). Asked about the use of violence by the Palestinians, Kathrada noted that Mandela's African National Congress also turned to it (violence) at one point. As he said, “When everything failed, every peaceful method failed, we also had to resort to armed struggle.” 

Interestingly, though Mandela preferred non-violence when possible, he never renounced violence (as some of those who praise him today think). What he clearly stood for was truth as the only force that would achieve justice, and for justice as the necessary pre-condition for peace. 

In my view, those Israelis and their supporters who criticize the Palestinian leadership for not being “more like Gandhi” or “more like Mandela” (and there are many of them) are rank hypocrites. I’m not sure what circle of hell will be reserved for them in Dante’s scheme, but I’m sure it will be quite special. 

To have the right to respectfully invoke the legacy of Gandhi or Mandela you need to believe in truth and justice—and if critics of Palestine actually did have the slightest concern for truth and justice, they would not expect anyone to willingly undergo the kind of sacrifices and suffering that Gandhi and Mandela did. Instead, they would simply stop their own brutal and self-serving policies of oppression, murder and land theft. After all, a key part of Gandhi’s notion of non-violence demanded not that we blame others, but that we look first to our own actions when seeking a remedy to injustice. This laudable level of introspection was rarely in evidence when Israelis and their supporters made cow eyes at Gandhi’s reputation while stealing more Palestinian land and at the same time complaining that, “Arafat was no Gandhi.” 

In fact, though the situation in Palestine has often been punctuated by violence, over the years most Palestinian efforts to achieve national liberation (through the UN, NGO’s, civil actions, etc.) have had a predominantly non-violent component. This simple fact is largely ignored by US media. Awareness of the non-violent aspects of the Palestinian struggle is actively obstructed by hysterical Israelis (who demand total security while stripping the Palestinians of their remaining land).  In this ugly equation, security for Palestinians is rarely even mentioned.  

One notable example of non-violent resistance is the small village of Bil’in, located alongside the new Israeli “exclusion fence” (which has ironically—but quite intentionally—been built inside Palestine). This village has staged non-violent protests against the Israeli wall for years, but their actions have been largely ignored or de-emphasized by the US media.

As we consider the legacy of Mandela, Gandhi and King, One simple fact is this: for a campaign of non-violence to succeed, it needs to be directed against a people who still have a sense of shame. Britain in India was one thing- modern Israel under a hard-line Likud government is apparently quite another. 

Other simple facts are these: First, when Mandela cried out for freedom and justice against blatant racial discrimination and oppression (just as Palestinians do with regard to Israel today), his opponents falsely accused him of “terrorism.” This is exactly the same playbook that Israeli opponents of Palestinian rights have deployed over the years--with equally slim justification. 

Second, during Mandela’s struggle, white supporters of South African Apartheid argued that blacks would annihilate whites (another holocaust!) and that South Africa’s nuclear weapons would fall into the hands of (supposedly) irresponsible blacks. None of this happened. Black South Africans pioneered a process of truth and reconciliation. South Africa unilaterally dismantled its nuclear arsenal. There was no ‘black on white’ race war.

Yet in spite of these facts, I daresay almost every major American politician attending Mandela’s funeral this week is on record as supporting continued US aid to Israel—or at least of quietly going along with it.  Their arguments for that support are merely warmed over versions of the false notions previously put forth in defense of South African apartheid. They are just as untenable, yet cowardly politicians adhere to them as if they were a holy grail. This is inexplicable, unreasonable and indefensible. It is time to try something different.  

An example is not hard to find. It may well be that Mandela would never have been freed if not for the landmark sanctions bill sponsored by Ted Kennedy. That bill was opposed by Reagan and Neo-Cons like Bush, Cheney, Gingrich, Rumsfeld, McCain, and Wolfowitz (many of whom pay lip service to Mandela today). The resulting psychological shock to the white South African government of F.W. De Clerk was enough to finally bring peace and justice to South Africa. Similar sanctions on Israel today would likely have the same positive effect.

So why can’t we just do the right thing? I guess because we are too absorbed in other matters...

Tellingly, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu will apparently not be able to attend the memorial for Mandela. He claims he can’t afford it. The 8 million dollars Israel gets DAILY from Washington (in spite of “the sequester”) apparently just isn’t enough. He will be forced to stay at home and continue to egg the US on in projects like attacking Syria or threatening Iran or whatever else is needed to distract the US from the benefits of abandoning his vile regime and making peace. After all, the Likud party he represents is about as antithetical to Mandela’s vision as possible. The Likud party favors continued settlement and occupation of Palestine and continued denial to Palestinians of any kind of decent life as Israel extends and strengthens a system that even former president Carter admits is a new version of apartheid. So to Netanyahu we should say, “Thanks for staying at home.” Any pretence that Netanyahu and his Likud party actually respected Mandela and what he stood for would be hollow indeed.

Clearly, among the other hypocrites, the race is on to make Mandela and his agenda a museum piece. All of their praise aside, if his former and present opponents are judged by their actions, they hope Mandela will be revered solely for his place in the past. 

What we need right now is for people of goodwill everywhere to stand for Mandela’s message in the present, and for the lessons of his victorious struggle to become a guide for the future. All of those who really understand and respect Mandela in terms of what his life means to the world should take his statements on Palestine to heart. If we truly want to honor this extraordinary human being, we can all do something he would have really respected—like finally forcing Israel to make peace in Palestine by imposing real sanctions on Israel. 

• Prev
• Next