[Taking the moral high ground despite the horrors of the enemy can
be a winning strategy. ]
[[link removed]]

TO DEFEAT INJUSTICE FOLLOW MANDELA’S, CASTRO’S EXAMPLE  
[[link removed]]


 

August H. Nimtz
October 22, 2023
The Star Tribune
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Taking the moral high ground despite the horrors of the enemy can
be a winning strategy. _

“Treating captured enemy soldiers humanely and with dignity was one
of the hallmarks of Castro’s rebel army,” August H. Nimtz writes.
Above, In this Feb. 26, 1957 photo, Cuba’s leader Fidel Castro
stands in an unknown location in Cuba., Associated Press

 

Never ever would Nelson Mandela's African National Congress (ANC) have
carried out what Hamas did on the morning of Oct. 7, 2023. Defenders
of the Palestinian struggle for self-determination who argue that they
are up against an apartheid-like regime, a la South Africa — and,
thus, can be forgiven for employing "any means necessary" — either
don't know or ignore that inconvenient fact. It took a different kind
of leadership to end that reprehensible state-practice.

Anyone who lived through the most challenging moments of that struggle
and was lucky enough to see its triumph is obligated to tell the
story.

Founded in 1912 to promote political equality for the country's
African population, the ANC broadened its mission when it adopted the
Freedom Charter, a document democratically written by a multiracial
conference in 1955. It declared that "South Africa belongs to all who
live in it, black and white."

But not all members agreed with that perspective. Many broke away in
1958 to form the Pan Africanist Congress. The PAC held that South
Africa should only be for Africans, not unlike what's captured in the
Hamas slogan, "From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free," to
wit, free of Jewish people.

When the PAC took the initiative to challenge South Africa's hated
apartheid-era pass laws in a peaceful protest in March 1960, which
resulted in the deaths of scores of Black participants, some of us
thought it had become the organization to look to for liberation in
South Africa. Martyrs, apparently, for the cause and Black
nationalists to boot.

In response to the Sharpeville Massacre, Mandela and the ANC decided
in 1961 to adopt armed struggle resistance. But, as Mandela explained
at his trial in 1964, they did so reluctantly. The awkwardness of
being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize at almost the same moment wasn't the
only reason why the decision was a difficult one for the ANC. It meant
abandoning a half-century old policy of nonviolence.

Only when it became clear, as Mandela emphasized, that all peaceful
roads to freedom were closed off — what the Sharpeville Massacre
soberly taught — did the ANC opt for armed struggle as one of its
tactics.

Mandela was chosen to head up the new secret unit of the
party, _uMkhonto we Sizwe_, or Spear of the Nation. After traveling
to Ethiopia and North Africa to get guerrilla training (tracked,
unbeknownst to him, by the U.S. CIA), Mandela returned to South Africa
to launch the ANC's sabotage campaign. It consciously targeted state
installations rather than personnel. The ineffectiveness of that
project prompted the organization to begin organizing a guerrilla
army.

One of the inspirations for armed struggle Mandela listed in his
autobiography, "Long Walk to Freedom," Fidel Castro and the Cuban
revolution, had successfully overthrown the U.S.-backed Cuban dictator
Fulgencio Batista on Jan. 1, 1959.

Treating captured enemy soldiers humanely and with dignity was one of
the hallmarks of Castro's rebel army. Taking the moral high ground
despite the horrors of the enemy was for Castro a winning strategy. It
taught the regime's soldiers, especially the rank and file, that they
didn't have to fight to the end. They learned that if they
surrendered, they would not be summarily executed. In fact, they were
often let go after they gave up their weapons.

That policy goes a long way toward explaining why the revolution's
triumph was not the bloodletting that has occurred all too often in
history — and why the Cuban example proved to be attractive to
aspiring revolutionaries like Mandela.

The imprisonment of Mandela and other anti-apartheid fighters in 1964
had a demoralizing effect. Something had to be done, we all felt.
Thus, the origins in 1965 of what came to be called the Boycott,
Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) international anti-apartheid movement. The
moral and political justification for such a campaign required the
explicit consent — which we had — of South African civil society
whose working classes would disproportionately shoulder the impact of
BDS.

We were successful in winning broad layers of the public, particularly
here in the U.S., to the South African cause. Nothing better
registered what we had achieved than Congress's 1986 override of
President Ronald Reagan's veto of its Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid
Act. The example of the ANC was indispensable in our success,
particularly its "South Africa belongs to all" perspective.

In the end, armed struggle was indeed decisive in apartheid's demise.
The defeat the racist regime suffered at the hands of largely Cuban
forces in Spring 1987 in Angola is what forced it to the negotiating
table, paving the way for Mandela's release from prison and the first
free elections in the country in 1994. The Cubans treated the defeated
South Africans in the same humane fashion they displayed with
Batista's troops.

Once Mandela was released from prison in 1990, he was able to
re-establish ethical norms of conduct that had eroded over the years
in his absence. His opposition, for example, to the controversial
practice of "necklacing," the burning alive of suspected police
informers, probably cost him his marriage to his then-wife Winnie
Mandela, who enabled such behavior. Nevertheless, Mandela's vision,
about which some of us had once been skeptical, prevailed — crucial
in the birth of an apartheid-free South Africa.

If the Palestinian people are truly in a fight to end apartheid, then
they at least deserve a leadership of the caliber that successfully
led the struggle to end that hated practice in its original edition.
Anything short of that will be incapable of putting an end to that
vicious bloody cycle that threatens working people of every
nationality, race and faith — yes, Jewish toilers as well — not
only in the Middle East but worldwide wherever similar conflicts
exist. To assume that Hamas is the best the people of Gaza can do is
to sell the Palestinian struggle short.

If the oppressed in South Africa, subject to three centuries of white
settler colonial rule, could deliver the kind of organization it
needed in that moment for its liberation from apartheid, supporters of
the Palestinian people should be confident they can do the same. It's
true, as history has shown, that it takes time — lots of it — to
cultivate an effective revolutionary leadership. The horrors that are
now being visited upon the people of Gaza make that no easier.

But we do the Palestinian people no favor by lowering the bar,
especially in the case of Hamas — an outfit masquerading as
revolutionaries, more devoted to and adept at snuffing out Jewish
lives than liberating Palestinian ones.

For those who seek an actual solution to the subjugation that
Palestinians face, those who realize that righteous indignation is
insufficient, the real lessons from South Africa are worth
consideration.

And for those who seek an answer to millennia-old social oppression,
namely, something more fundamental than ridding the world of only
apartheid-like systems, there is no better place to begin than with
the Cuban Revolution and the precious lessons its toilers have
bequeathed, despite all the challenges it faces. Only because
something more fundamental had occurred on the Caribbean Island
beginning in 1959 could Cuba's toilers play a decisive role in a
world-history drama that unfolded 7,000 miles away.

Atlantic magazine's Jeffrey Goldberg interviewed Fidel Castro for the
Sept. 2, 2010, edition about the threat of war in the Middle East —
a topic more tragically current than ever. After Castro expertly
opined on the deep history of Jew-hatred, Goldberg asked if he thought
"the State of Israel, as a Jewish State, has a right to exist."

In telling contrast to Hamas, Castro replied: "Yes, without a doubt."

_August H. Nimtz is distinguished teaching professor of political
science and African American and African Studies, University of
Minnesota._

* Israel-Gaza War
[[link removed]]
* morality
[[link removed]]
* liberation struggles
[[link removed]]
* Nelson Mandela
[[link removed]]
* Fidel Castro
[[link removed]]
* Hamas
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]