Nino: "Rachamim is not even handed when it comes to 'struggles' {sic}, believeing some to be more worthy than others.": Well of course Nino, that is a pretty ridiculous statement on the face of it. If one is struggling say, for the right to pedophelia like NAMBLA, that should be abhorred to no end. On the other hand, the US struggle for Civil Rights a la MLK was highly admirable.
"In the case of Aparthied Rachamim seems to think it was better to sit back and not resist.": "Resistance" can certainly be passive and non-violent...as in say...the ANC pre Mandela 1960? Violent Resistance is enshrined in International Law when it is a National Resistance but for it to take place there must first be a national entity. In other words, "Palestinians" have no right to resist since they have never had a nation. What are the resisting? Jews? Zionism? Their own statehood?
In addition, International Law expressly forbids the use of terrorism. Contrary to what some fantasists imagine International Law does expressly address what does and does not constitute terrorism to a very high degree. A recent argument made in this forum stated that since IHL does not specifically define "terrorism," although it DOES certainly define specific terrorist acts, one cannot claim that terrorism is absolutely illegal. NONSENSE. If one partakes in one of those specifically defined acts they can rest assured that have made themselves vulnerable to prosecution if only in theory thanks to the pussyfooting International Community.
People of Colour in S. Africa surely had the right to fight for their right to full and equal civil rights if not for actual self determination (which is another altogether separate and very debatable subject that I will not tangle with now). Had they relegated their violence to governtmental, i.e. Internationally Legal Targets, I and many others would be lauding the ANC in its entirety. Instead they chose, under the influence of Mandela, to take their "struggle" to the streets of the cities and towns of S. Africa and in that vein managed to inflict irreprable hurt and damage to untold numbers of S. Africans of every colour and creed.
Attacking an Army Base is quite different from attacking a pub, or setting a car bomb in a downtown street.
"Should state brutality be met with the turning of the other cheek?": One must first find a consensus for the definition of state sponsored brutality. If you argue that a Security Barrier conssiting of 97% chainlink that has led to a 90 odd percent drop in attacks is brutal just by existing, or by causing a 20 minute wait to transit it, I will argue that the public benefit outweighs the brutality by an extremely large measure. If you argue that building villages on publicly owned land in an area where only the ancestors of those villagers have ever held sovereignity, I will argue you make no sense. See Nino, you have to be a tad bit more specific.
"Hang Mandela tshirts.": I think it would certainly be fitting justice. I am sure that if you asked the people he left widowed or parentless that they too might echo the sentiment. I also feel he has the absolutel right to due process which is a heck of alot more than he EVER offered the victims of his orchestrated brutality.
"Symbiotic relationship with Israeli Govt. support of Apartheid Era S. Africa.": Not at all Nino. Israeli support was tactical rather than ideological. Israel of course is a multi-coloured society. Indeed, most of us are darker than white so to suggest an ideological sympathy is ridiculous.
I still remember being examined by COs for our physical appearance whenever deployed as Advisors, Observers, or simply as students. In my case it was former Rhodesia but I had mates that went to S. Africa and in fact Rhodesia was a bit worse than S. Africa in terms of racism. I never met a single Israeli, in the govt. or out who ever liked what Apartheid or that govt. did but tactical alliances are based on need, not so much desire or shared ideals.
You are correct, I would NOT allow anyone or anything to brutalise me for my ethnicity or indeed ANY reason but then I do not find Checkpoints and ID Checks to be brutal. You know, over on Mindanao there is a Checkpoint in every direction, every few klicks. I gladly transit them, if a bit on edge in case govt. forces have been replaced by the guerillas or bandits. I do not mind the legitmate checks and feel they add to the public's sense of security if not in reality (in Israel they are actually real factors in the battle against terror, too bad it is not true everywhere but then most nations do not devote so much of their GNP towards defence related issues).
I was waiting for this. I'm only surprised they're not communists or neo-nazis. 
Did he really say this?
