If Israel Wants to Talk About South African Apartheid…

You just have to shake your head over the Israeli government’s newly launched world-wide public relations campaign to discredit Richard Goldstone, the South African judge whose UN-commissioned investigation concluded that both Israel and Hamas committed war crimes during Israel’s 2008 invasion of the Gaza Strip. The daily Yedioth Ahronoth reported somewhat breathlessly on May 6th that the Israeli foreign ministry regards information unearthed by its journalists as “explosive” in its potential to discredit Goldstone: under apartheid, according to the paper, Goldstone sentenced black South Africans to death.

I was dismayed and appalled to learn that Goldstone, whom President Nelson Mandela appointed to the International Criminal Tribunal, had sent powerless people of color to be murdered by the apartheid state. Still, we opponents of the death penalty are accustomed to being disappointed by political leaders who fear to voice anything but support for the death penalty.

But this is the Israeli government voicing (according to Yedioth Aronoth, instructing its diplomats around the world to voice) what seems more like glee than disappointment over Goldstone’s past as a hanging judge. This is the same Israeli government that, while Goldstone was signing death warrants in the 1980s and 1990s, was selling the white minority government of South Africa hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military technology and weaponry with uses ranging from the battlefield to the rebellious black townships.

The military relationship was formally launched in 1976 with agreements signed during a high visibility state visit to Israel by South African Prime Minister John Vorster, who had been jailed for 20 months during World War II by the British for collaborating with the Axis. Three years later, in the wake of a blast in the Indian Ocean widely believed to have been an Israeli-South African nuclear test blast, the CIA noted (in a report declassified in 1990) that “Israelis have not only participated in certain South African nuclear research activities over the last few years, but they have also offered and transferred various sorts of advanced nonnuclear weapons technology to South Africa.” In the early 1990s I obtained and reported on documents indicating that Israel had provided South Africa with tritium that could be used in the development of an advanced nuclear weapon, while itself obtaining from South Africa yellowcake uranium for use in its nuclear program. During the Reagan Administration a State Department advisory committee on South Africa issued a report suggesting that Israel was passing US military technology to South Africa.

In 1977 the United Nations established a total embargo on military dealings with South Africa. Israel violated that embargo until the fall of the apartheid regime in the early 1990s. Israel’s supporters in the United States variously attacked those who mentioned arms sales and denied or justified the arms dealing. In a 1988 meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, the Congressional Black Caucus handed Shamir a letter stating: “We are deeply disappointed that Israel has not joined in the concerted international effort to impose sanctions against the apartheid system.” That same year then Representative Robert Toricelli (D-NJ) said that Israel was now more secure than it had been and therefore should no longer be selling weapons to states like Iran, Chile and South Africa. Add to that list the dictatorships of Argentina and El Salvador, the Noriega government in Panama and the murderous Guatemalan governments which used Israeli weapons and technical expertise in their genocidal wars that are believed to have killed over 400 ,000 indigenous people.

Judge Goldstone meanwhile, was making the reputation that brought him to Nelson Mandela’s attention as leader of a commission whose findings resulted in the prosecution of regime officials and as a judge who, singularly, visited some of the black political prisoners who appeared in his court.

The relative moral valuation of the death penalty, apartheid  and the Israeli occupation (not to mention the extrajudicial executions characterizing the latter two) could, I suppose, be intellectually engaging — until one reduces them to the dynamic of powerful minorities wielding the power of life and death over their powerless disenfranchised subjects. But what baffles me is how the international industry of Goldstone disparagement, now about to receive fresh inputs, is supposed to morally purify Israel’s invasion of the Gaza Strip.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Guest Contributor

Articles by guest writers.



  1. Jon, the simplest argument against the death penalty is the cost. Death penalty trials, two trials plus a “super due process” that accrue to costs five to seven times higher than life in prison.

    Yes Jon it’s great we have the deterrent of the death penalty as it’s especially powerful to deter these people, if we can stop them from killing themselves first. It sure didn’t stop the IRS attack, VA Tech, Christmas Day bomber, or Captain Hassan.

    Since you admit that the fear of executing innocents requires some extra due process to protect false convictions, I doubt you want to curtail the review process. So, considering the great expense, why do you prefer Shows and “pageants of jurisprudence” to cost effective, efficient and effective gov’t?

  2. Actually, I oppose the death penalty because innocent people will inevitably be executed, no matter how great the safeguards. I essentially posed two questions: 1) Why shouldn’t the community, acting through laws enacted democratically, be allowed to seek death for those who commit premeditated murder and treason in wartime? 2) What if McVeigh’s execution has deterred copycats? If innocent lives have indeed been saved, would that outweigh the death of one criminal? I was, in effect, playing devil’s advocate — against myself. The reason I bothered to do this is because I wanted to see how other commenters dealt with the moral and utilitarian issues these questions raise.

    I’m glad to see you oppose the death penalty on cost grounds. We can add this to the short list of things leftists don’t want to spend other people’s money on.

  3. Arguing from the left, I find cynical appeals to be the best way to bridge the divide. The issue of innocents essentially persists for both of us.

    Again, I seldom hear conservatives worry about externalities borne by gov’t on behalf of connected corporations. It’s funny how little this stuff gets discussed.

    I seldom find myself opposed to any issue, but more interested in how it’s implemented. The sports world offered an interesting case study. The NFL Defensive Rookie of the Year was stripped of his title for steroid use and a re-vote issued. Surprisingly, he won the re-vote.

    A columnist I respect voted to keep his vote the same. His point was, what about all the others who tested positive? If we open that door let’s open it for everyone. I disagreed with his vote but totally agreed with his rationale.

    Sports is interesting, at least there most everyone is earnest. Sadly we can’t say the same about politics.

  4. RE: “If Other Tragedies Like Oklahoma City Have Indeed Been Averted Because McVeigh Was Done To Death, Then I Would Say His Execution Was A Blow For Civilization, Rather Than An Uncivilized Act.” – Jon Harrison
    MY COMMENT: I suspect that “Other Tragedies Like Oklahoma City” have been made MORE LIKELY by McVeigh’s execution. I Can’t Prove It, But I’m Convinced* That McVeigh’s Execution Gave Cause To Others Of His Mindset. I Believe, In Other Words, That It Had A Causative Effect.
    If Other Tragedies Like Oklahoma City Have Indeed Been made more likely** Because McVeigh Was executed, Then I Would Say His Execution Was A Blow to Civilization, Rather Than A civilized Act.
    * Let’s just call it my “human intuition”!
    ** As the omnipotent George W. Bush posited, this determination (like any assessment of his presidency) can only be made at the very end of human existence (or End Times™). Any assessment prior to that time is premature and therefore absolutely meaningless! “Judge not (prematurely) lest ye be judged (prematurely).”

  5. How many American office buildings have been blown up by homegrown terrorists since McVeigh’s execution? Since his apprehension? Answer: zero.
    Crazies (like the guy who flew his plane into an IRS building) will not be deterred. But cold, calculating fanatics like McVeigh (people who, generally speaking, are capable of doing far more damage) have been.

Comments are closed.