"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 Palestinians.” - Nelson Mandela
Nelson Mandela stood as the symbol of the anti-apartheid movement build on the belief of equality of all of mankind, regardless of race. With his passing on Thursday, December 4, 2013 the world is less, yet his fight for human rights lives on through his words, his actions, his resistance.
In the post Apartheid world, Mandela championed the Palestinian right to self determination. He saw the parallels between South African Apartheid and the Palestinian cause. He stated, "the so-called ‘Palestinian autonomous areas’ are bantustans. These are restricted entities within the power structure of the Israeli apartheid system.” Let's be honest with ourselves, the brutal military occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem is nothing short of Apartheid and fulfills the criteria set out by the 1973 International Convention of Apartheid. While none of us would support the Apartheid practiced in South Africa, as a nation, we fail to denounce the brutality and oppression practiced by the State of Israel. Our unequivocal support and BFF status of the State of Israel makes us participants, not mere observers, in a crime against humanity.
I don't advocate for armed resistance, but who determines the nature of resistance? Is it the oppressor or the oppressed? Mandela understood the nature of oppression and the heart of the oppressor. He believed that the method of resistance in the pursuit of equality, justice and freedom is borne by the oppressor, not by the population it oppresses. In 1964, at the Rivonia Trial, he stated, “Firstly, we believed that as a result of Government policy, violence by the African people had become inevitable, and that unless responsible leadership was given to canalize and control the feelings of our people, there would be outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of this country which is not produced even by war. Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or to defy the Government. We chose to defy the law. We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the Government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer violence with violence.”
Self-determination is a basic, fundamental human right. It is not something that one bargains for, nor earns. It is an inherent, moral obligation afforded to all, regardless of race, creed, gender or ethnicity. Although Gandhi committed himself to passive resistance, he did not rule out violence as a legitimate expression of revolt. He understood its necessity in certain circumstances, stating “where choice is set between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence ... I prefer to use arms in defense of honour rather than remain the vile witness of dishonour…” When a persecuted population is ruled over by a despotic regime that has denied their fundamental basic human rights, what options are they left with? How can negotiate human rights? At what point does resistance move from passivity to armed revolt?
I am not suggesting or supporting armed violence. With that said though, I do understand its origin. How can one remain passive when after decades of repression, where no effort has been made to negotiate in good faith, in the interest of equality, justice and freedom?. When the oppressor denies the intrinsic right of self-determination to a population that has been systematically humiliated, violently injured, killed and rendered homeless, they ordain the architecture of the resultant resistance. When civil disobedience is met with arbitrary arrest, violence perpetuated by agents of the oppressor in order to quash the unalienable rights of a people, all that flows from that point on is borne by the oppressor.
While we hold a moment of silence in honour of a remarkable man, let us remember, “we know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians; without the resolution of conflicts in East Timor, the Sudan and other parts of the world”.