General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNetanyahu missing Mandela memorial for cost reasons
Netanyahu had notified the South African authorities that he would fly in but cancelled his plans at the last minute due to the costs involved -- around 7.0 million shekels ($2 million) for his transport and security alone, pubic radio and the Haaretz daily reported.
"The decision was made in light of the high transportation costs resulting from the short notice of the trip and the security required for the prime minister in Johannesburg," Haaretz reported.
The Israeli leader has been in the spotlight recently with revelations that taxpayers dished out almost $1 million last year to maintain his three residences.
The media highlighted a bill of 17,000 euros ($23,000) for water to fill a swimming pool at his villa in Caesarea in the country's north.
http://www.france24.com/en/20131209-netanyahu-missing-mandela-memorial-cost-reasons
postulater
(5,075 posts)BeyondGeography
(39,377 posts)rurallib
(62,432 posts)couldn't believe they elected that putz again after removing him once.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)There is no cause for a world leader to use this excuse. It's like he's pandering to the extreme right wing of Fox News who think Mandela is a terrorist.
CherokeeDem
(3,709 posts)He's not worthy to be there to begin with.
But then this is not about Bibi... so why would he want to go?
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,834 posts)riverwalker
(8,694 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Behind the Aegis
(53,967 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)he ought to go, IMHO.
malaise
(269,103 posts)the treatment of the Palestinians as apartheid so why would Bibi show up.
Good riddance.
2naSalit
(86,691 posts)the guy's a bigot and an asshole of the first degree... not surprised he'd need a lot of security there. And there are probably more people relived that he's not going to show than are disappointed. He would try to grab all the attention, which is probably the real reason why, nobody would be willing to play along. If it's not all about bibi, he's not going.
Understand too that cost has never been a concern before... it's often American taxpayer $$ he's burning anyway.
He can stay home and sulk.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Nelson Mandela has already been mourned by many Jews around the world. And for good reasons. When Mandela was released from prison by de Klerk, he showed statesmanship and reconciliation rather than revenge.
But his biography reveals that he was an enemy of the Israeli people.
A post-apartheid Pretoria that joins in boycotting Jerusalem is one of the more powerful victories for the boycott and divestment campaign. And its Nelson Mandelas legacy.
Historically, black leaders in South Africa such as Desmond Tutu viewed the Jews as a part of the capitalist camp, and therefore exploitative of the blacks. Neo Mnumzama, chief representative of the ANC (Mandelas party) at the United Nations, called Zionism an ally of apartheid and an accomplice in the perpetuation of the crimes of Pretoria against the South African people.
In Mandelas twisted version, Israel and South Africa - both, in his view, under apartheid rule - were small bastions of Western interests surrounded by a larger and non-Western people; both governed hostile majorities, using force and denying rights to subjugate them; both were run by nationalistic, racist governments unwilling to grant rights to these people but anxious to exploit labor.
Mandela always made it clear that those who are the enemies of the Jews are not necessarily his enemies.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/14199#.UqUxL5G9XOE
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)There were exchanges of conventional weapons and cooperation on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Secret South African documents reveal that Israel offered to sell nuclear warheads to the apartheid regime, providing the first official documentary evidence of the state's possession of nuclear weapons.
The "top secret" minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show that South Africa's defence minister, PW Botha, asked for the warheads and Shimon Peres, then Israel's defence minister and now its president, responded by offering them "in three sizes". The two men also signed a broad-ranging agreement governing military ties between the two countries that included a clause declaring that "the very existence of this agreement" was to remain secret.
The documents, uncovered by an American academic, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, in research for a book on the close relationship between the two countries, provide evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons despite its policy of "ambiguity" in neither confirming nor denying their existence.
The Israeli authorities tried to stop South Africa's post-apartheid government declassifying the documents at Polakow-Suransky's request and the revelations will be an embarrassment, particularly as this week's nuclear non-proliferation talks in New York focus on the Middle East.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)I was under the impression it was joint development. It never occurred to me they would sell nuclear weapons. Stunning...
Thanks
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)are the policies of the then and current Israeli government...as do many others. Of course they are all accused of anti-Semitism and hating Jews in general if you dare to share your disagreement of Israeli government policies and practices.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Both regarded themselves as racial and religious minorities surrounded by a hostile population that would exterminate them or drive them out if given a chance.
During the Boer War, the British rounded up the Afrikaners and put them in concentration camps as a method of countering the Boer's guerrilla tactics.
The camps had originally been set up by the British army as "refugee camps" to provide refuge for civilian families who had been forced to abandon their homes for whatever reason related to the war. However, when Kitchener succeeded Roberts as commander-in-chief in South Africa on 29 November 1900, the British army introduced new tactics in an attempt to break the guerrilla campaign and the influx of civilians grew dramatically as a result. Kitchener initiated plans to
flush out guerrillas in a series of systematic drives, organised like a sporting shoot, with success defined in a weekly 'bag' of killed, captured and wounded, and to sweep the country bare of everything that could give sustenance to the guerrillas, including women and children.... It was the clearance of civiliansuprooting a whole nationthat would come to dominate the last phase of the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War#Concentration_camps_.281900.E2.80.931902.29
Cha
(297,428 posts)The media highlighted a bill of 17,000 euros ($23,000) for water to fill a swimming pool at his villa in Caesarea in the country's north."
2naSalit
(86,691 posts)are "fungible" = they can be appropriated for anything, completely unspecified use of our "aid" money. I can imagine where most of it goes.
Welfare Queens!
Time to pull the Big Gulp sized straw from their mouth?
Edited to add: Ooops! I forgot to include my citation for that table...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_States_relations
Cha
(297,428 posts)say.
But I think we could just undo some sequestration strangulation with all that cash.
Cha
(297,428 posts)gall.
Cha
(297,428 posts)JI7
(89,259 posts)uponit7771
(90,347 posts)... asshole
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)their diminished or lost ability to test their nukes and weapons of mass destruction in SoAf?
malaise
(269,103 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)Racist bastid is more like it
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)so yeah best for everyone that he not attend. Especially their current apartheid- lite policies .
And , yes Bibi did find the money to attend Thatcher 's funeral.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)I'm not surprised. He's a first class asshat.