By Michael
Freund
Misrepresenting Mandela
by Michael
Freund
The Jerusalem Post
December 10, 2013
The Jerusalem Post
December 10, 2013
Imagine a
person who planned acts of sabotage and incited violence, resulting in the
deaths of innocent civilians and damage to public property. A man who embraced
brutal dictators throughout the Third World, such as Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi
and Cuba’s Fidel Castro, singing their praises and defending them publicly even
as they trampled on the rights and lives of their own people. A person who
hugged Yasser Arafat at the height of the intifada, hailed Puerto Rican
terrorists who shot US Congressmen, and penned a book entitled, How to be a
good Communist.
Picture
all this and, believe it or not, you will be staring at a portrait of Nelson
Mandela. The death of the South African statesman last week has elicited an
outpouring of tributes around the world, with various leaders and media outlets
vying to outdo one another in their praise of the man. Highlighting his
principled stand against apartheid, and his firm determination to erect a new,
post-racial and color-blind South Africa, many observers have hailed Mandela in
glowing terms, as though he were a saint free of blemish and clean of sin. But
such accolades not only miss the mark, they distort history in a dangerous and
damaging way and betray the legacy of Mandela himself.
Take, for
example, the editorial in The Dallas Morning News, which likened Mandela to
Moses and labeled him “the conscience of the world.” And then there was Peter
Oborne, the UK Telegraph’s chief political commentator, who wrote a piece
entitled, “Few human beings can be compared to Jesus Christ. Nelson Mandela was
one.”
Even
taking into account Mandela’s astonishing accomplishments and harrowing life
story, he is far from being the angel that much of the media is making him out
to be. After all, in 1961, Mandela co-founded Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the
Nation), the armed wing of the African National Congress, which undertook a
campaign of violence and bloodshed against the South African regime that
included bombings, sabotage and the elimination of political opponents.
Indeed, in
his autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom, Mandela justified a car bomb attack
perpetrated by the ANC in May 1983 which killed 19 people and wounded over 200,
including many innocent civilians, asserting that, “Such accidents were the
inevitable consequence of the decision to embark on a military struggle.” His
record of support for the use of violence and terror was such that even the
lefties at Amnesty International declined to classify him as a “political
prisoner” because “Mandela had participated in planning acts of sabotage and
inciting violence.”
No less
distasteful was Mandela’s unbounded affection for international rogues, thugs
and killers. Shortly after his release from prison in February 1990, he
publicly embraced PLO chairman Yasser Arafat while on a visit to Lusaka,
Zambia. The move came barely a month after a series of letter-bombs addressed
to Jewish and Christian leaders were discovered at a Tel Aviv post office.
Three
months later, on May 18, 1990, Mandela decided to pay a visit to Libya, where
he gratefully accepted the International Gaddafi Prize for Human Rights from
dictator Col. Muammar Gaddafi, whom he referred to as “our brother.” While
there, Mandela told journalists, “The ANC has, on numerous occasions,
maintained that the PLO is our comrade in arms in the struggle for the
liberation of our respective countries. We fully support the combat of the PLO
for the creation of an independent Palestinian state.”
The
following month, on his first visit to New York in June 1990, Mandela heaped
praise on four Puerto Rican terrorists who had opened fire in the US House of
Representatives in 1954, wounding five congressmen. “We support the cause,”
Mandela said, “of anyone who is fighting for self-determination, and our
attitude is the same, no matter who it is. I would be honored to sit on the
platform with the four comrades whom you refer to” (New York Times, June 22,
1990).
Even in
later years, he maintained a fondness for those who used violence to achieve
their aims. In November 2004, when Arafat died, Mandela mourned his old friend,
saying that “Yasser Arafat was one of the outstanding freedom fighters of this
generation.”
Now you
might be wondering: why is any of this important? It matters for the same
reason that the historical record matters: to provide us and future generations
with lessons to be learned and pitfalls to be avoided. By painting Mandela
solely in glowing terms and ignoring his violent record, the media and others
are falsifying history and concealing the truth. They are putting on a pedestal
a man who excused the use of violence against civilians and befriended those
with blood on their hands.
By all
means, celebrate the transformation that Mandela brought about in his country,
the freedom and liberties that he upheld, and the process of reconciliation
that he oversaw. But to gloss over or ignore his failings and flaws is
hagiography, not history. And that is something Mandela himself would not have
wanted. In 1999, after he stepped down as South African president after one
term in office, he said, “I wanted to be known as Mandela, a man with
weaknesses, some of which are fundamental, and a man who is committed, but
nevertheless, sometimes he fails to live up to expectations.”
Sure, we
all need heroes, figures who seem to soar above our natural human limitations
and inspire us to strive for greatness. But Mandela was not Superman. He was
neither born on Krypton nor did he wear a large letter “S” on his chest along
with a red cape. He was a flawed human being, full of contradictions and
shortcomings, a man who alternately extolled violence and reconciliation
according to whether it suited his purposes to do so.
And that is how it would be best to
remember him.
The writer served as deputy
communications director in the Prime Minister’s Office of Binyamin Netanyahu.
He is the founder and Chairman of Shavei Israel (www.shavei.org), a
Jerusalem-based group that facilitates the return of the Bnei Menashe and other
“lost Jews” to the Jewish people.
- See more at:
http://israel-commentary.org/?p=8123#sthash.foUFfE1P.dpuf
No comments:
Post a Comment