Zionist Lobby - DA Party - heckles South African Deputy Minister of International Relations

Added on 1 June 2018
South African Deputy Minister of International Relations, heckled by local zionist lobby

I do not hold any rights to this video material

Relevant portions edited & shared here to encourage discussion in the interest of peace and co-operation.

^{Source - YouTube channel, "MyAfrica" - Title, "DRAMA - John Steenhuisen Ordered Out Of Parliament"}

My video is at DLive

---

Added on 1 June 2018

In a speech to the National Assembly, deputy minister of International relations (DIRCO) gave an account of the republic's current international policy in the debate on Vote 1: The Presidency -

The Honourable deputy minister Luwellyn T Landers said,

Our foreign policy principles mirror the past and the future we collectively aspire to as Africans. These are principles upon which our foreign policy pillars rest.

• Promotion and protection of human rights is the thrust of our foreign policy and these rights include political, economic, social and environmental rights.
• Promotion of democracy is an important impetus to finding lasting solutions to the problems of humankind.
• The commitment to justice and respect for international law should guide the conduct of relations between states. The commitment to international peace and the utilisation of internationally-agreed upon and non-violent mechanisms to resolve conflicts.

We move from the premise that our development shall never undermine the aspirations of our partners in the region, in the continent and of humanity, particularly the less-privileged in the world.

He proceeded to report on ongoing preparations for South Africa's hosting of the 10th BRICS summit 25~27 July, which he said were firmly on track. To read more about the summit to be held in Johannesburg, visit BRICS2018 or SABTT for the latest on that.

Landers was plotting the nation's priorities in relation to it's regional and international partners as well as the history the nation shares with oppressed people and the pillars of political and social and economic justice, adherence to law, and the pursuance of peaceful solutions to conflict. All this was a meticulous and skilled work-up to set firmly the nation's stance in relation to recent international events - in particular, the situation in the middle-east.

^{The full recording of debates in the Assembly chamber, is published by YouTube channel, "Parliament of the Republic of South Africa" - Title, "National Assembly, 23 May 2018". Landers' debate is at around 4 hrs 53 minutes.}

Landers ended his debate by reading a letter submitted for publication to the Business Day by Terry Crawford-Brown and published on 23 March 2018 (source). Some members of local media and opposition parties are all-too ready to brand the nation's tough stance on Israel as uncalled-for, or worse. The pro-Israeli opinion has been promoted as a staple for generations. It went hand-in-hand with the propaganda of the swart gevaar (fear of black people) and rooi gevaar (fear of communist take-over) of days long gone. The DA are the last bastions of said propaganda ploys, and the home for people who are gullible in that way.

Moreover, the deputy minister was representing the republic's stance at a time when the Israeli state grows more and more brutal and more and more isolated internationally. As a nation which previously had close relations with Israel (Apartheid and the zionist entity share a birthdate - 1948 - born of the same age and ideology and forever besties).

South Africa in it's bid to take up it's place in the community of progressive nations, aims to shed this reputation and lead other nations in a direction away from racism, occupation, and aggression. This is a tall order indeed, but a footprint left by the late Nelson Mandela compels us to move in this direction. This was the deputy minister's main import in the speech. Domestically, there is a growing dissatisfaction with the slow pace that South Africa is moving toward closing down it's embassy and sending the Israelis packing and back to Tel Aviv. Meanwhile, the zionists continue to murder civilians in the name of a form of racism called zionism. It is a global concern and so too in South African leadership no doubt, that should they not act today, in a few years time, any moves to openly speak out on these heinous crimes will be too little too late. If Tel Aviv has things it's way, opposing them in 2025 will be merely a ceremonial statement, as there will no longer be a Palestinian nation to speak on behalf of.

Why the zionist's hullabaloo?

Source

In his letter, Brown-Crawford suggests that the South African DA Party leader owes the country an explanation. The letter implies there may be a connection between the R6bn Israeli desalination plant, the opposition leaders visit to Tel Aviv, and the party's parroting of statements by the zionist lobby regarding South Africa's withdrawal of the ambassador to Israel. He also suggests that the party's issue with the Cape Town mayor Patricia de Lille, are rooted in her refusal to sign off on the desalination deal. Crawford-Browne suggests that an investigation be launched to ascertain if any foreign funding is being taken by the DA for it's 2019 campaign. As Patricia de Lille faces a legal battle against the DA, and many of the facts behind the reasons for her ousting remain to be uncovered by the processes, the jury is still out on the veracity of these allegations. I have no doubt the nation will soon find out.

Gloves off

What was ironic about the DA's objections were they were so much like the knee-jerk reactions one sees whenever anyone says that Israel is doing anything wrong at all. The efforts to silence any (as they would phrase it) anti-semitic views has to be launched with fury and fire, confuse, obfuscate, detract, blame. Every method is used and every punch delivered on queue.

The DA's recourse is to deny deny deny - It's all lies. This seemed to work, but in the end the entire letter was read into the record. It is freely available in any case for public viewing, and the Israeli propaganda machine has been all over it ever since it's publication. This all seemed like a storm in a cold teacup, but then the next mode of attack came: outrageous name-calling and equally outrageous claims about the deputy minister. The chief whip Steunhuisen is then asked to leave the chamber as he refused to withdraw an insult he threw at the Deputy Minister when he called him a stooge of the Apartheid president PW Botha, and a STRATCOM agent (Apartheid propaganda tool).

It is all-too ironic as the DA calls the Deputy minister a stooge from the Apartheid era, when the DA party roots extend very far back to the Apartheid-era - in fact, deep into the National Party itself. It is true that Landers served in PW Botha's cabinet, but he served at a time the Botha regime was struggling for it's own legitimacy, struggling by violent methods to put down nationwide unrest. It was the late Chris Heunes who convinced the respected party leader of the Labour Party, Reverend Alan Hendrickse, to join a dispensation with the promise that the country was on its way to a new future and fully democratic future. Landers was chairperson of the Labour Party. Their involvement in the system of government and cabinet of PW Botha was not all a bed of roses, nor was it an approach supported by everyone at the time. The ANC in exile and the organisations allied with the ANC inside the country, opposed any collaboration with Botha at the time. The ANC had a pre-requisite: un-ban all organisations, then we can talk. oppositon parties had less of an issue with the new system, except those to the right of the National party. One has to remember that the ANC was in exile, while the Labour party had a local constituency which they saw as deserving of some representation. So when the DA says that Landers was a stooge, it is hard t see how they come to this conclusion when the party they grew out of, had no issues with the man at that time. Rev Alan Hendrickse and Landers would eventually resign from the cabinet, citing the dishonesty and treachery of Botha. Michael Parks in the Times of 25 August 1987 reported:

Botha sees only his own problems, understands only his own needs and acts according only to his own perceptions, Hendrickse said. He described the president as ideologically dedicated to protecting South Africa's white minority, particularly his own Afrikaner people, and unwilling to compromise even when the interests of the whole country are at stake. (the late Rev. Hendrickse upon resigning from the cabinet)

According to the same news report, Botha later referred to the Labour party in the following way:

Botha called them ungrateful and warned that their demands for faster and broader changes might "drive me away" from plans for step-by-step reforms.
"I feel more welcome among the black communities than I do among Coloreds," Botha said, declaring it "scandalous" that the Afrikaners, descendants of Dutch, French and German settlers, should be criticized by the mixed-race Coloreds. (sic)

Younger members of the political establishment should do themselves a favour and read Botha's remarks, and consider what is was like to work alongside a personality like Botha in an effort top advance the country in some small way. It may cause them to have a word with their junior party members and have them tone down the insults and name calling.

Visionaries and Stooges

An honest view of history will reveal that community leaders like the late Reverend Hendricks and Landers may accurately be viewed as visionaries that pre-dated Mandela's era of negotiation. These politicians adopted an approach to change the trajectory of the country that we called collaboration. We did so because the ANC called it that. As we are all reminded ad-nauseum, Mandela and the ANC ushered in a new and peaceful dispensation. In reality, it was the same approach of collaboration, just re-branded as reconciliation and compromise.

Landers must "own his past"
but we cherry pick ours.

The DA for wishes the public to see their party as having been founded by luminaries like the late Helen Suzman, forgetting those of their own who were part of the National and later New National Party. Ranjeni Munusami expressed this a while ago in the Daily Maverick, the lost and revised history of the DA, coming to a soapbox near you.

The DA should refrain from calling out whomever they see as a stooge, because some of us recall when Mandela called to meet with opposition parties, the Labour Party emerged from the talks saying that they would work closely with the ANC and UDF. The forerunners of the DA, then the DP, said they were not comfortable doing so. The Labour Party participated in the first democratic elections under the banner of the ANC, the DP went it alone. Today, the ANC and most of the parties will not sit by and be the stooges of Apartheid Israel, the DA sees no problem doing that.

Long before Mmusi Maimane joined the ANC in SOWETO, Landers and others were following events in politics and doing more than Maimane's colleagues were then doing to oppose Apartheid laws.

So, if we all begin to bring skeletons out of the closet, who would be the most uncomfortable?

Skeletons or no, the present is irrefutable

If it looks like a duck...

Last week, we could see who was doing the heckling for a brutal Apartheid regime. Not far out of character, hardly surprising, and very telling to those who do not realise it yet. When it comes to transparency, the DA are about as transparent as a glass of water to those that know their history, and about as murky as a swamp to those that don't.

Cheers until next time.

---

^{This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons 4.0 International License}

^{I'm one of those steemPunks they warned you about
If this post is older than 7 days, please support one of my recent posts
on oneazania blog     or on the     trumanity blog}

^{I'm also part of a decentralized, contribution-driven, crypto prose & poetry community}

^{Read lots more about subscription pack here
Take up residence at the PoetsUnited discord server}