Bharat Rakshak

Haresh wrote: ↑13 Jan 2024 02:55
The relationship with the old apartheid SA and Israel was strictly transactional, nothing more. The Iranians under the Shah and the sowdis/gulf nations also traded with them. If my memory is correct I remember reading many years that some Vijayanta tanks were exported whole to SA as scrap.

In 1994, South Africa held its first democratic elections, and Nelson Mandela was elevated to the presidency. In a speech in August 1993, Mandela had said that his party, the ANC, had been "extremely unhappy" with the apartheid-era Israel–South Africa connection, but was willing to move past it, including in seeking a resolution to the longstanding Israeli–Palestinian conflict:

"As a movement, we recognize the legitimacy of Palestinian nationalism just as we recognize the legitimacy of Zionism as a Jewish nationalism... We insist on the right of the state of Israel to exist within secure borders, but with equal vigor, support the Palestinian right to national self-determination."[134]


He (Mandela) finally visited Israel in October 1999, during a tour of the Levant. He reiterated his unwavering opposition to Israeli control of Gaza, the West Bank, Golan Heights, and Southern Lebanon,[139] but also said:

"To the many people who have questioned why I came, I say: Israel worked very closely with the apartheid regime. I say: I've made peace with many men who slaughtered our people like animals. Israel cooperated with the apartheid regime, but it did not participate in any atrocities."[140]

[in 2004] This followed a particularly tense phase in relations: earlier that year, the South African government had criticised Israel's construction of the Israeli West Bank barrier,[141] and an official delegation led by Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad had made representations in support of the Palestinian case at the International Court of Justice.[143]

In 2008 a delegation of African National Congress (ANC) veterans visited Israel and the Occupied Territories, and said that in some respects it was worse than apartheid.[156][157] In May 2018, in the aftermath of the Gaza border protests, the ANC issued a statement comparing the actions of Palestinians to "our struggle against the apartheid regime". It also accused the Israeli military of "the same cruelty" as Hitler, and stated that "all South Africans must rise up and treat Israel like the pariah that it is".[158] Around the same time, the South African government withdrew indefinitely its Ambassador to Israel, Sisa Ngombane, to protest "the indiscriminate and grave manner of the latest Israeli attack".[159]

Following the 2010 Gaza flotilla raid, South Africa recalled its ambassador from Israel,[161] and summoned the Israeli ambassador for a reprimand.[162] In 2013, Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, the South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, said that South Africa had not been sending its ministers to Israel, having decided "to slow down and curtail senior leadership contact with that regime until things begin to look better".[162] Later that year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cancelled his planned trip to South Africa for Mandela's funeral.[163]

In April 2015, Israel denied South African Higher Education Minister Blade Nzimande and his aides permission to visit the Palestinian government in Ramallah, provoking an angry response from Nzimande.[164] And, later that year, the governing ANC in South Africa angered Israel by hosting a delegation from militant Palestinian nationalist group Hamas, which met with South African President Jacob Zuma – though in his capacity as ANC party leader – and signed a memorandum of understanding with the ANC about ending Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories.[165] In response, the Israeli foreign ministry summoned South Africa's deputy ambassador for a reprimand.[166]

An additional contributor to tensions between Israel and South Africa over the past two decades has been high-level political support in South Africa for the pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign. As early as June 2006,[167] the Congress of South African Trade Unions – then the largest union federation in South Africa, and a close partner of the ruling ANC – declared its support for boycotts of Israel, calling the latter an apartheid state.[168]

In September 2011, due to lobbying by Zackie Achmat and his pro-Palestinian Open Shuhuda Street organisation, South African Trade and Industry Minister, Rob Davies, "agreed in principle" that imports manufactured in occupied Palestinian territories should not be labelled as products of Israel, in order to facilitate voluntary boycotts of Israeli goods under BDS.[169] At its 2012 elective conference, the ANC formally resolved to support the BDS campaign.[170] Particularly sensitive has been the academic boycott of Israel by some South African universities.

Following an apparent détente in 2017,[171][172][173] on 14 May 2018, South Africa withdrew its ambassador indefinitely following the 2018 Gaza border protests. In a statement, its Department of International Relations and Cooperation reiterated South Africa's "view that the Israeli Defence Force must withdraw from the Gaza Strip and bring to an end the violent and destructive incursions into Palestinian territories."[174]

In a less restrained statement the following day, the ANC called "on all South Africans to demonstrate to the world that we regard the Israeli government and its armed forces as an outcast and blight on humanity."[175] The ambassador returned to Tel Aviv in September of that year,[176] but, in April 2019, the South African foreign minister, Lindiwe Sisulu, announced that the ambassador would not be replaced when his term ended, and the Tel Aviv embassy would be downgraded to a liaison office.[177][178] This downgrade had earlier been endorsed as the official policy of the ANC by delegates to its December 2017 elective conference.[179][180]

The South African Department of International Relations summarises the prevailing situation as follows:

"There is currently limited political and diplomatic interaction between South Africa and Israel, mainly due to Israel’s antagonistic attitude towards the MEPP [Middle East peace process] and disregard for International Law regarding the rights of the Palestinians and their territories. South Africa’s baseline is that Israel must return to negotiations and create favorable conditions for peaceful negotiations."[18]

Cyrano wrote: ↑13 Jan 2024 11:30 South Africa seems to draw needless parallels and getting into perceived/manufactured outrage.

sanman wrote: ↑27 Jan 2024 00:23
But why has South Africa, of all countries, made this issue their holy crusade?

Jay wrote: ↑27 Jan 2024 00:30 Because Israel was one of the very prominent supporters of the apartheid regime in south africa. Combining this historical fact with the most recent support of arab regimes to the south african finances explains this crusade.

In the video, Colonel Douglas McGregor discusses the recent attack on a US military base in Jordan and the possibility of the United States going to war with Iran.

Colonel McGregor believes that the United States does not have a clear strategy or policy in the Middle East, and that they are essentially pawns of Israeli national policy. He is critical of the US support for Israel, and believes that it is leading to more instability in the region.

He also warns of the dangers of a wider war with Iran, which could draw in other countries such as Russia and China. He believes that the US military is not prepared for such a war, and that it would be a disaster.

Colonel McGregor believes that the American people are not being told the truth about what is happening in the Middle East, and that they need to be more engaged in their government. He encourages people to join his organization, Our Country Our Choice, which he believes can become a third party in American politics.

I hope this summary is helpful!

Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS) issued an immediate response to Hamas’ attack, and tried to frame the event to promote al-Qaeda’s agenda of global jihad.

The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) also voiced its support for Hamas on October 7, identifying with the group’s struggle against a stronger power while also highlighting the localized nature of its own fight with Pakistan.
The Afghan Taliban gave a somewhat delayed statement, and surprisingly appealed to the International Court of Justice to intervene, reflecting its increasingly internationalized outlook.
Islamic State in Khorasan province (ISKP) waited until the end of November to put out a statement regarding the attack, but used the opportunity to denounce the Afghan Taliban, Hamas, and Muslim countries in general for failing to unite under a caliphate before confronting Israel.

The most detailed response came from AQIS, including a press release, detailed statements by three key leaders, and a special issue of its Urdu-language flagship magazine Nawai Ghazwat Hind (NGH).

In contrast, ISKP remained silent on the attack until late in the year, only publishing a statement on November 27. The Afghan Taliban, amid their transition from an insurgency to a state actor, issued only brief, formal statements. Given their efforts toward statehood, this minimalistic approach is noteworthy.

The TTP, similar to AQIS, extensively covered the conflict with three statements, a podcast, and special issues of their Urdu- and Pashto-language magazines. Despite utilizing the opportunity to advance a local agenda, the TTP, like the Afghan Taliban, maintained a relatively cautious response. In particular, the TTP attempted to convey that, unlike in the past, it should not be considered a threat to the international community, with its only target being Pakistan itself.

A comprehensive analysis reveals the responses of these four groups to the Israel–Hamas War provides a deeper understanding of the intricate global dynamics that are shaping the jihadist landscape in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Similar to AQIS, the TTP voiced its support for Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel the day of the attack, portraying it as a significant triumph (X/@SamriBackup, October 7, 2023). The message was aimed primarily at rallying support for the TTP’s conflict against Pakistan’s security forces, drawing inspiration from the Hamas attack. It underscored the notion that steadfastness in armed struggle can overcome any enemy, irrespective of each side’s military strength.

Amid escalating Israeli airstrikes on Gaza, the TTP issued multiple statements condemning Israel’s actions. On October 18, for example, TTP spokesman Mohammad Khorasani censured the international community, especially the United States, for failing to stop Israel, accusing them of complicity in the bloodshed (X/@IhsanTipu, October 18, 2023). Khorasani urged Muslim leaders, organizations, and individuals to intensify efforts to prevent Israeli operations in Gaza.

A special October 22 episode of the TTP’s Umar Media-connected Pasoon podcast featured leadership council member and influential ideologue Qari Muhammad Shoaib Bajauri discussing the conflict (X/@abdsayedd, October 22, 2023). Bajauri claimed that Muslim rulers were US puppets, and therefore are afraid of American retribution. He likewise argued that Israel was fully dependent on US support. The TTP also extensively covered the conflict in the November issue of its Urdu- and Pashto-language magazines, lauding the attack as a major victory for Hamas (X/@abdsayedd, November 2, 2023; X/@khorasandiary, November 16, 2023). The publications held the United States responsible for civilian casualties in Israel’s attacks. In the same vein, the magazines inspired supporters to oppose the Pakistani army, which was branded a US puppet, partially for its role in the post-9/11 US-led Global War on Terror. An article in the Pashto magazine further underscored the importance of participating in the ongoing war in Gaza for militants from Pakistan and Afghanistan.

A notable aspect of the statement from Haqqani—who also serves as the chief justice in the Taliban government—was his appeal to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to take action against Israel, branding its actions in Gaza as war crimes. In this sense, Haqqani’s statement was a rare expression of the Taliban’s acceptance of the international system. Mujahid, for his part, criticized the international community and human rights organizations for their perceived inaction in response to Israel’s attacks, categorizing the Israeli operations in Gaza as a “war crime” and a “grave violation of human rights.”

A key element of Mujahid’s statement was levelling his own critique of the international community’s criticism of the Taliban’s government. Using Israel’s actions in Gaza as a counterpoint, he questioned the validity of complaints against Afghanistan’s handling of women’s rights and other human rights issues. Mujahid opined,

Why [do] those countries and organizations [which choose to exploit] human rights violations, especially those concerning women and children, in sovereign states to justify interference, remain silent on human rights violations and oppression against women and children in Gaza, instead [choosing to support] the occupiers?

The central op-ed within the magazine offered a comprehensive religious analysis of statements made by the Afghan Taliban’s Haqqani and Mujahid. The purpose was to substantiate ISKP claims about the Taliban’s ties to the United States and portray the Taliban as an apostate group. ISKP specifically emphasized Haqqani’s appeal to the ICJ as a decisive factor that undermines the religious legitimacy of the Taliban.

ISKP also criticized Hamas and nearby Muslim countries, including Iran and Qatar, who are perceived as supporters of Hamas. ISKP’s position is that the sole solution to the liberation of Muslim regions, including the Levant, is the dismantlement of the current state systems and the establishment of a caliphate. ISKP’s underlying message is that the existing government of Muslim countries should be overthrown first, before confronting Israel directly.

ISKP urged Muslims to cease their support for Hamas and asserted that it is not an Islamic organization but a nationalist party motivated by national interests rather than properly religious objectives. Furthermore, the group criticized Hamas by arguing that if it were genuinely Islamic, it would have implemented strict sharia law in the areas under its control and would not have fought with Islamic State (IS) in the border areas between Gaza and Egypt.

Cyrano wrote: ↑01 Feb 2024 15:19 Many commentators like Col MacGregor, Scott Ritter et al have repeatedly made comments that the Oct 7 attack by Hamas was either justified or that Israel has cooked up evidence, they routinely take Hamas numbers at face value and make a show of defending civilians.

The same guys who criticized AFU for using civilians as human shields don't use the same principle when it comes to Hamas.

Hard to say what's motivating them beyond being anti-establishment all the time.

IndraD wrote: ↑08 Feb 2024 19:35

Cyrano wrote: ↑01 Feb 2024 15:19 Many commentators like Col MacGregor, Scott Ritter et al have repeatedly made comments that the Oct 7 attack by Hamas was either justified or that Israel has cooked up evidence, they routinely take Hamas numbers at face value and make a show of defending civilians.

The same guys who criticized AFU for using civilians as human shields don't use the same principle when it comes to Hamas.

Hard to say what's motivating them beyond being anti-establishment all the time.

exactly my thoughts, likely they get money from Ru-iran. Also a reminder in war first casualty is the truth and our sentiments get expolited by scum like them.

Deans wrote: ↑08 Feb 2024 11:29 https://rpdeans.blogspot.com/2024/02/ga ... d-war.html

Part 3 of my blog on the Gaza war. No politics, only military stuff.

According to the reports, these are cables from the companies AAE-1, Seacom, EIG and TGN. This is causing serious disruption of Internet communications between Europe and Asia, with the main damage being felt in the Gulf countries and India.
...

Lisa wrote: ↑13 Mar 2024 23:02 ^ To the best of my knowledge there is no such provision under Article 1 of US constitution. I think furthermore that this individual is misunderstanding the War Powers Resolution and it scope/intent.

Jared Kushner Calls Gaza Seaside Property 'Very Valuable,' Suggests Israel 'Move the People Out Then Clean It Up'

In an interview with Harvard University, Trump's top White House adviser described a potential Palestinian state as 'a super bad idea,' and suggested Israel 'bulldoze something in the Negev' to house displaced Palestinians so it can reconstruct Gaza and 'finish the job'

Jared Kushner Says Gaza’s ‘Waterfront Property Could Be Very Valuable’

Jared Kushner has praised the “very valuable” potential of Gaza’s “waterfront property” and suggested Israel should remove civilians while it “cleans up” the strip.

The former property dealer, married to Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka, made the comments in an interview at Harvard University on 15 February. The interview was posted on the YouTube channel of the Middle East Initiative, a program of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, earlier this month.

Kushner was a senior foreign policy adviser under Trump’s presidency and was tasked with preparing a peace plan for the Middle East. Critics of the plan, which involved Israel striking normalisation deals with Gulf states, said it bypassed questions about the future for Palestinians.

Jared Kushner Suggests Israel Should Move Palestinians out Of Gaza and 'Clean It Up'