A New Article by William Hanna on Apartheid in Israel

Hi all,

we have talked about Israeli apartheid in different articles we published this summer. We quoted David Sheen many times. He talks about the War of Israel against Africans. Many articles were also shared on facebook about this matter.

William Hanna compares the Apartheid in Southafrica with the Apartheid in Israel… and he concluded that it is much worse than the first one.

Thanks for sending us your comments about it

Dr. phil. Milena Rampoldi
Editorial Team of ProMosaik e.V.

Afrikaner Apartheid’s crimes Were Infinitely Less
Barbaric Than Those being Perpetrated by Apartheid

The Height of Hypocrisy: Allowing
Apartheid Israel to Participate in the 2014 World Cup
“We know too well that our freedom is
incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.”
Afrikanerdom was born in 1652 with the
establishment of a Dutch East India Company settlement at the Cape of Good
Hope’s Table Bay (
which served as a stopover for ships during their six-month journey to the East
Indies where the company’s lucrative spice trade was based. Following the
French Revolution and ensuing European wars, Britain’s occupation — to maintain
a safe shipping route to India — became permanent at the 1814 European peace
conference with a British £6 million compensation payment to the Dutch.
Resentment over British domination eventually led to
the Great Trek of 1836 when more than 12,000 Boers (
migrated northwards in separate groups to establish independent republics. Some
Voortrekkers settled in the Transvaal under constant threat from Ndebele
warriors while others were lost to malaria and African native resistance en
route to Mozambique’s Delagoa Bay. Of those who trekked to the Natal, many were
massacred by Zulu warriors, an event that was later avenged at Blood River (
with the Boer republics of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State being
established in 1852 and 1854.
The 1866 discovery of gold in the Transvaal witnessed
an influx of foreigners that heightened rivalry to exploit the land
s mineral wealth with the British attempt to annex the
Transvaal ending in defeat at Majuba Hill in the First Boer War of Independence
in 1880. Despite the peace treaty of 1881, the Transvaal remained a target for
the rapacious multi-millionaire “Randlord” and Cape Colony Governor, Cecil
Rhodes, whose 1895 failed raid (
with cohort Leander Starr Jameson as well as other subsequent incidents
eventually led to the Second Anglo-Boer War.

had been Barney Barnato, a Jew, who
eventually sold his business
for £4 million to Rhodes who became the richest man in the
world on the back of cheap Black labour thanks to the notorious Masters and
Servants Act otherwise known as “Every Man to Wallop his Own Nigger Bill.”
Rhodes was an avowed racist who believed that Anglo-Saxons should exploit all
areas inhabited by “the most despicable specimens of human beings.” It is no
surprise that Theodore Herzl, the father of modern Zionism, wrote to Rhodes
requesting that he use his influence with the British government to help
establish a Jewish state.
After being financed by bankers N. M. Rothschild &
Sons, Rhodes purchased and amalgamated many diamond mines into the De Beers
company whose ownership was subsequently wrested in 1927 by Ernest Oppenheimer
who went on to found the Anglo American Corporation and thereby consolidate
monopoly over the world
s diamond industry (
When in the late 1930s Oppenheimer converted from Judaism to Anglicanism,
cynical observers suggested it was to facilitate the continued sale of
industrial diamonds to Hitler
s Germany. His
involvement in other controversies included price fixing, antitrust behaviour,
and an allegation of not releasing industrial diamonds for the U.S. war effort.
The cocksure British campaign began in 1899 with the
belief that it would be over by Christmas. Though less than two-thirds of the
70,000 civilian Afrikaners who took up arms were actually active at any given
time, they still proved a worthy match for the better equipped British force of
450,000. British writer Rudyard Kipling reported that the British were taught
no end of a lesson by the Boers who captured the world
s imagination and were joined by volunteers from many
countries who desired to fight British imperialism.
The Boers’ guerrilla hit-and-run tactics cost the
British over
£200 million with 20,000 wounded and 7,000 killed.
s inability to quickly end the war forced
Commander-in-Chief Kitchener to isolate the guerrillas by employing a scorched
earth policy. Thirty thousand farmsteads were destroyed and entire villages
burnt to the ground. The 60,000 made homeless, mostly women and children, were
then “concentrated”

in ill-equipped camps where 26,000 of them
died. The Germans, the Japanese, and now the barbaric Israelis — Gaza and the
West Bank are concentration camps for 4.5 million Palestinians — may have
perfected the “concentration” concept, but the innovators were the British. The
fact that those who died in the camps represented ten percent of the entire
Afrikaner population while those who died in actual battle numbered only 4,000,
is testament to

the British atrocity. After having
accepted defeat, the Afrikaners settled for peace and allowed the Transvaal and
the Orange Free State to become parts of the Union and British Empire.
Though debate over whether to fight alongside the
British in World War I was cause for dissension amongst Afrikaners, South
Africa did participate in significant military operations against Germany.
The post-war depression, severe droughts, and crop
failures forced many Afrikaners to work in the cities and mines as underclass
labourers thereby heightening the racial tension which in those days was
between Afrikaners and Britons rather than Whites and Blacks. Enforced
anglicisation of Afrikaner culture resulted in the establishment of the
Afrikaner Broederbond secret society in 1918 (
to counter Britishness and entrench Afrikanerdom.
There was a further influx of foreigners of whom many
were part of general Jewish exodus from an increasingly anti-Semitic Central
Europe that led to the wider diaspora in London, New York, and Johannesburg.
Anti-Semitic Afrikaner sentiment took different forms including the caricature
of “Hoggenheimer,” a silk-hatted and bloated character with accentuated Semitic
features who came to personify the hated capitalist in both national socialist
and communist propaganda. The “Hoggenheimer”
had been based on a West End musical The Girl from Kays that opened in
1902 at London
s Apollo Theatre. About an alluring dancer who beguiles
a South African millionaire, the show lampooned the “Randlords” who
flaunted their wealth with mansions in Park Lane and Belgravia while their
exploited Black workers in South Africa were confined to compounds like
animals. The rise of Jewish mining magnates increased anti-Semitism with
editorial views suggesting that the Boer war had been fought to serve the
interests of a small group of international financiers who were mainly German
in origin and Jewish in race. In keeping with what had been a recurrent — but
not entirely false — theme throughout history, Jews were openly accused of
controlling the economy to the detriment of the rest of the population.
With Broederbond support the National Party won the
1948 general election and started enacting Apartheid — literally Afrikaans for
“apart-hood” — legislation that required all South Africans to be classified by
race as “black”, “white”, “coloured”, and “Indian”: that mandated strict
segregation in residential areas, public places, and transport; and that
prohibited mixed race sexual relations and marriage. In 1970 non-white
political representation was abolished with black people being deprived of
their citizenship and instead becoming citizens of one of ten tribally based
self-governing homelands called Bantustans of which four were nominally
independent states. With the entrenchment of Apartheid, the Broederbond became
so powerful that it continuously provided the country’s Prime Ministers and
governments to the extent that virtually every member of the Cabinet was also a
member Broederbond Executive Council. It was impossible for any member of the
National Party to become Prime Minister without having first been a member of
the Broederbond.
While South African Jews were concerned over this newly
intensified race differentiation scenario, they soon realised that the
government would not risk creating a bigger demographic problem by isolating a
white minority, even if that minority was Jewish. So within a couple of years
most Jews — including Auschwitz survivors — felt safe and even supportive of
Afrikaners whose Nationalist Party government pursued policies reminiscent of
s Nuremberg laws against Jews. Jews pursued a
deliberate policy of “neutrality”
“rocking the boat”

so as not to endanger the Jewish
population and it was not uncommon to hear Jews speak of Blacks with the same
derisive manner as was used by Nazis to describe Jews. 
Jews had no qualms about enjoying the benefits
Apartheid’s exploitation of Blacks and the Zionist Federation and the Jewish
Board of Deputies regularly honoured Jewish men such as Percy Yutar who was
hailed as a “credit to the community”
an example of Jews

contribution to South Africa. Yutar, who
was elected president of Johannesburg
largest orthodox synagogue, was the attorney who in 1963 successfully
prosecuted Nelson Mandela for sabotage and conspiracy against the state. A
small number of Jews, however, notably Joe Slovo, Albie Sachs, Harry Schwarz,
and Helen Suzman — the latter being for many years the only member of
parliament to oppose apartheid — did feel that silence with regard to racial
oppression was tantamount to collaboration and as a consequence of openly
opposing the system, they were regarded as enemies of the state and pariahs
amongst their own people.
Afrikaner Apartheid, however, was doomed because
Afrikaners, unlike Israelis, lacked a holocaust that would have accumulated the
amount and kind of international sympathy that would condone continued
Afrikaner human rights violations; Afrikaners lacked a dedicated worldwide
network of lobbyists who could bribe Western politicians and suppress negative
public opinion about their crimes; Afrikaners lacked the financial clout that Jews
enjoy in the economies of many Western nations; and Afrikaners lacked the
benefit of U.S vetoes to block UN Assembly resolutions condemning their
So Please Consider The Following . . .
The World’s reaction to Afrikaner Apartheid was to impose
trade embargoes, sanctions, and boycotts that included sporting events. When
trade sanctions prevented the legal import of South African agricultural
products, such products were sent by air to Israel from where they were
re-exported as being of Israeli origin to end up in major European retailers
such as Britain
s high street giant, Marks & Spencer (M&S).
M&S was run by successive generations of the Sieff family whose
collaboration with Chaim Weizman and Zionism had been long and inexorable.
Marcus Sieff, stated in his book, Management: The Marks & Spencer Way (Weidenfield
& Nicolson, 1990), that one of the fundamental objectives of M&S is to
aid the economic development of Israel (
Though nuclear Israel uses airstrikes to prevent
nuclear development programmes by other Middle East nations, in 1975 it was
prepared as insurance against further international isolation to provide South
Africa — a rich source of essential yellowcake uranium — with missiles,
advisors, and secret nuclear weapons testing
South Africa, however, decided that the cost of acquiring Israeli nuclear
weapons was too high and nothing came of the negotiations (
So while Apartheid South Africa faced international sanctions, the far more barbaric
Apartheid Israel enjoys a U.S. Free Trade Agreement and an  Association
Agreement with the EC which entitles it to preferential trade treatment for
agricultural and manufactured goods produced in “the territory of the state of
Israel.” In April 2001 the Guardian newspaper reported that “
nobody is in any real doubt that the products have come
from illegal settlements and that their documentation has been falsified.”
In sport, the same double standard applies with
Apartheid South Africa being barred from all international events including the
Olympics, while Israel is allowed to compete in all events including — even
though it is not in Europe — football’s European Championship. So despite being
an irrefutably Apartheid nation guilty of international law violations and
brutal crimes against humanity, Israel is rewarded with preferential treatment
by nations claiming the high moral ground.
When in March 1970 South African police shot and killed
69 protesters in the township of Sharpeville (
the world’s reaction was unanimous condemnation. Equally, the June 1976 Soweto
uprising ( with some
176 fatalities was met with universal outrage. Compare that with world reaction
to the sheer devastation of Apartheid Israel’s Operation Cast Lead (
with 1,400 Palestinian deaths and the recent Operation Protective Edge (
with more than 2,100 Palestinians killed, and you will mostly find cowardly
silence tantamount to conscious complicity by corporate, political, religious
and mass media leaders and organisations whose double standards, hypocrisy, and
toleration of Apartheid Israel’s crimes against humanity exceed all bounds of
common decency and respect for human values..