The Palestine thread

[seafoid]

When is the last time a Jew in Israel was killed by a suicide bomb, BDB ?

There's a great big wall that has a lot to do with that. 


When was the last time an Irish child was murdered by a British soldier? The two are exactly the same. Murder of innocent civilians is murder of innocent civilians. You hypocrite.

Israel is fucked, BdB. Especially considering the sub intellect required to find what you post as supportive. Your side treats humans like vermin and is shit scared of the ordinary joes of the world seiing israeli apartheid for the moral sludge it is. I think your links to memri and camera say more between the lines than you understand- Israel has already lost the information war and zionist jews are really concerned they are going to lose the goys. Calling people antismites won't save herzlcs dream. This is the real world and nobody owes israel anything.

[Hardy]

[Ball DeBeaver]

When is the last time a Jew in Israel was killed by a suicide bomb, BDB ?

There's a great big wall that has a lot to do with that. 


When was the last time an Irish child was murdered by a British soldier? The two are exactly the same. Murder of innocent civilians is murder of innocent civilians. You hypocrite.

Israel is fucked, BdB. Especially considering the sub intellect required to find what you post as supportive. Your side treats humans like vermin and is shit scared of the ordinary joes of the world seiing israeli apartheid for the moral sludge it is. I think your links to memri and camera say more between the lines than you understand- Israel has already lost the information war and zionist jews are really concerned they are going to lose the goys. Calling people antismites won't save herzlcs dream. This is the real world and nobody owes israel anything.

I take it your medication has kicked in. 

[seafoid]

When is the last time a Jew in Israel was killed by a suicide bomb, BDB ?

There's a great big wall that has a lot to do with that. 


When was the last time an Irish child was murdered by a British soldier? The two are exactly the same. Murder of innocent civilians is murder of innocent civilians. You hypocrite.

Israel is fucked, BdB. Especially considering the sub intellect required to find what you post as supportive. Your side treats humans like vermin and is shit scared of the ordinary joes of the world seiing israeli apartheid for the moral sludge it is. I think your links to memri and camera say more between the lines than you understand- Israel has already lost the information war and zionist jews are really concerned they are going to lose the goys. Calling people antismites won't save herzlcs dream. This is the real world and nobody owes israel anything.

I take it your medication has kicked in. 

You know, in the 1950s  supporters of Israel used to talk about culture and progress and now they deny apartheid and dehumanise Palestinians. It has been some fall really. 

[seafoid]

the board is very quiet now, isn't it, with the all Ireland over and Banty gone

[Mike Sheehy]

When is the last time a Jew in Israel was killed by a suicide bomb, BDB ?

There's a great big wall that has a lot to do with that. 


When was the last time an Irish child was murdered by a British soldier? The two are exactly the same. Murder of innocent civilians is murder of innocent civilians. You hypocrite.

Israel is fucked, BdB. Especially considering the sub intellect required to find what you post as supportive. Your side treats humans like vermin and is shit scared of the ordinary joes of the world seiing israeli apartheid for the moral sludge it is. I think your links to memri and camera say more between the lines than you understand- Israel has already lost the information war and zionist jews are really concerned they are going to lose the goys. Calling people antismites won't save herzlcs dream. This is the real world and nobody owes israel anything.

I take it your medication has kicked in. 

You are wasting your time talking to this boozed up anti-semite.

[seafoid]

Hilarious stuff lads. Bring in alcoholism and homosexuality.

Are they supposed to be insults? And isn't it great PR for the board as well?

It was a technique which the Zionists were to employ throughout their struggle. The technique of promoting damaging personal attacks on those who stood in their way rather than trying to counter their arguments."
"Such non conformists were subtly made aware that their jobs might be at risk, their books unpublishable, their preferment out of the question, their public reputations vulnerable if they did not renounce the heresy of anti Zionism "Publish it not, Mayhew and Adams, 1975

[Ball DeBeaver]

If you don't like what is posted, then gurn yer lamps out to the mods. Look down to the right. See where it says "Report to moderater", fill yer boots.

The one thing I will never do on this thread, is report anyone for anything they post. If you're big enough to dish it out, then expect to get it right back at ya.

[Ball DeBeaver]

So called Land Grabs


We read in the international press the complaints against Israel for demolishing Arab homes, but little
background or context is ever given.

First, according to international treaties, in Judea and Samaria, the land is divided in areas "A", "B" and C". Let's just read for a moment what these area actually are.

Definition of Land Areas

Area 'A': Full Palestinian control; mainly urban areas (cities and towns)
     17.2% of total area, 55% of Palestinian population

Area 'B': Palestinian civil and Israeli security control; mainly populated rural areas
    23.8% of area, 41% of the population

Area 'C': Full Israeli control; communities, community access roads, buffer zones (near communities, roads,
strategic areas and Israel) and almost all of the Jordan Valley 
    59% of area, 4% of population

Ownership of the Land in Judea and Samaria

There are 4 types of ownership:

•State lands--35%
•Privately own Jewish land--5%
•Privately owned Arab lands--30%
•Undefined ownership--30%

Basically, the communities in Judea and Samaria have been established ONLY on State lands or privately owned
Jewish land.

However, the Palestinians are being encouraged by their leaders to move into area "C", albeit illegally. and then claim ownership.

This is a land grab, pure and simple.

The international media has accepted the Palestinian narrative about land ownership, but ignored the fact that in many cases this "ownership" is actually the occupation of land that does not belong to them and into which, even according to international law, they have come illegally.


http://www.cohav.org/land-grabs.html


Never mind the source boys, is it true, or is it not?

[dec]

State lands--35%

How did the Israeli state come to own 35% of the West Bank/Judea and Samaria?

[Ball DeBeaver]

Irish ties to Israel hurt by NGO funding

By ALEX RYVCHIN

10/17/2012 22:34

The Irish government is either oblivious to Trócaire's extensive anti-peace activities, or knowingly carrying on a long tradition of anti-Israel bias.
Photo: Reuters
This week, officials from Ireland are traveling to Israel for high-level talks. At the top of the agenda should be the damaging policies conducted by Trócaire, one of the major recipients of Irish taxpayer largesse.

Founded by the Bishops of Ireland, Trócaire is the official overseas development agency of the Catholic Church in Ireland and a major recipient of funds from Irish Aid with an annual budget of some ¤56 million.

In contrast to the humanitarian label, Trócaire is also a major contributor to and unwitting participant in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

Amid the organization's materials showing impoverished African children and grateful aid recipients from the third world are political attacks in the form of calls to boycott Israeli products from the West Bank. In a recent op-ed in the Irish Times, Trócaire's executive director, Justin Kilcullen, urged Ireland to adopt a total ban on "illegal settlement goods" and to "push European counterparts for similar action."

Beyond the central moral issue raised by an aid organization interceding politically in a complex and multifaceted conflict, Trócaire's role as a key enabler of anti-Israel campaigns raises important questions. If boycotts are a legitimate means of influencing the policies of foreign governments, why is there no call to boycott Syria following the deaths of tens of thousands of people in Assad's bloody war against his own people? And why is there no Trocaire-led boycott of China, or of many other countries plagued by violent attacks and terrorism. In fact, why is Israel the only country that Trócaire targets in the entire Middle East?

The answer may have something to do with the fact that Trócaire's "Occupied Palestinian Territories/Israel Programme Officer," Garry Walsh, was previously employed as the National Coordinator for Ireland Palestinian Solidarity Campaign – an openly partisan and biased organization far removed from any humanitarian objectives. The appointment of Walsh to lead the campaign against Israel has completed Trócaire's transformation from a legitimate aid organization to anti-Israel lobbyist, and has led to the loss of all credibility and influence to comment on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Trócaire's track record illustrates the growing influence of bias and politics, at the expense of assisting people in need. For example, in 2007, Trócaire joined Badil (a militant anti-Israel NGO) in a "Call to Action," to advance boycotts divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel and invoking offensive rhetoric aimed at the Jewish community. Trócaire is also involved in campaigns to commemorate the Palestinian "nakba" (meaning catastrophe, and referring to the failure of the Arab side in the war of 1948) reinforcing the image of Palestinian victimhood resulting from Israeli independence.

Trócaire's executive director, Justin Kilcullen, produced a highly distorted report on Gaza which falsely blames Israel alone for the conflict, erasing Hamas mass terror.

Apparently, the Irish government is either oblivious to Trócaire's extensive anti-peace activities, or the current government is knowingly carrying on a long tradition of Irish anti-Israel bias. In the past financial year, the group received ¤18.5 million from Irish Aid, the government's assistance program for developing countries, all at the expense of the Irish taxpayer.

SADLY, TRÓCAIRE is but one example of Irish government funding for an NGO whose damaging political agenda is hidden in the language of human rights. Irish Aid also supports Al-Haq, which calls itself a "human rights organization," yet a closer look at the group reveals another goal: targeting Israel in the political war. The group has suggested "flooding the Israeli Supreme Court with petitions in the hope of obstructing its functioning and resources." It commences spurious legal proceedings in foreign courts attacking freely elected Israeli politicians, and has even sought to manipulate the UK judicial system to sabotage economic ties between Britain and Israel.

Like Trócaire, the motives of the group are betrayed by its leadership. Al-Haq is headed by Shawan Jabarin, one of the alleged "senior activists of the Popular Front terrorist organization" according to the Israeli High Court. And like Trócaire, the group receives substantial support courtesy of the Irish taxpayer. In 2009 alone, Al Haq received $186,689 from Irish Aid.

An Irish taxpayer might well ask why on earth their government has seen fit to fund "humanitarian" organizations headed by radical ideologues and alleged members of terror groups.

What is even more perplexing is that in funding groups such as Trócaire and Al-Haq, the Irish government is supporting organizations which completely undermine its very own policies.

Officially, the Irish government has rejected the unconscionable movement of boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel. Yet Irish Aid continues to give money to groups that actively campaign for BDS – a strategy that politicizes human rights, adds fuel to the conflict and, to be clear, seeks nothing less than the ultimate destruction of Israel.

One leading boycott activist – Ahmed Moor – revealed the true aims of the movement, when he declared: "Boycotts, divestment and sanctions does mean the end of the Jewish state.... Ending the occupation doesn't mean anything if it doesn't mean ending the Jewish state itself."

So on the one hand, the Irish government says that it advocates a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the realization of a two-state solution. Yet at the same time, it provides large funds to organizations involved in a campaign which seeks the destruction of a democratic, sovereign state.

The Irish government supports a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. This is how lasting peace will be achieved. This is how Israel will realize its dream of peaceful co-existence with its neighbors, and Palestinians can achieve statehood.

In contrast, as the examples of Trócaire and Irish Aid funding for Al Haq illustrate, the abuse of public funds for destructive and discriminatory activities shows the need for a systematic and independent review of these important issues.



http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=288273

Don't bother shaking your box at me again.

[seafoid]

If you don't like what is posted, then gurn yer lamps out to the mods. Look down to the right. See where it says "Report to moderater", fill yer boots.

The one thing I will never do on this thread, is report anyone for anything they post. If you're big enough to dish it out, then expect to get it right back at ya.

Homophobia is not manly.
If you have a point you should be able to make it without slurring the gay community.

Surely Israel can do better than you. 

[seafoid]

So called Land Grabs


We read in the international press the complaints against Israel for demolishing Arab homes, but little
background or context is ever given.

First, according to international treaties, in Judea and Samaria, the land is divided in areas "A", "B" and C". Let's just read for a moment what these area actually are.

Definition of Land Areas

Area 'A': Full Palestinian control; mainly urban areas (cities and towns)
     17.2% of total area, 55% of Palestinian population

Area 'B': Palestinian civil and Israeli security control; mainly populated rural areas
    23.8% of area, 41% of the population

Area 'C': Full Israeli control; communities, community access roads, buffer zones (near communities, roads,
strategic areas and Israel) and almost all of the Jordan Valley 
    59% of area, 4% of population

Ownership of the Land in Judea and Samaria

There are 4 types of ownership:

•State lands--35%
•Privately own Jewish land--5%
•Privately owned Arab lands--30%
•Undefined ownership--30%

Basically, the communities in Judea and Samaria have been established ONLY on State lands or privately owned
Jewish land.

However, the Palestinians are being encouraged by their leaders to move into area "C", albeit illegally. and then claim ownership.

This is a land grab, pure and simple.

The international media has accepted the Palestinian narrative about land ownership, but ignored the fact that in many cases this "ownership" is actually the occupation of land that does not belong to them and into which, even according to international law, they have come illegally.


http://www.cohav.org/land-grabs.html


Never mind the source boys, is it true, or is it not?

How can Israel own state land in the West Bank? 
Is the West Bank part of Israel? Yes or no ?

[seafoid]

How the Occupation Became Legal
Eyal Press


http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/jan/25/how-occupation-became-legal/


This is the second in an NYRblog series about the fate of democracy in different parts of the world.

Shark de Mayo/thelawfilm.com
Justice Meir Shamgar

In 1979, a group of Palestinian farmers filed a petition with Israel's High Court of Justice, claiming their land was being illegally expropriated by Jewish settlers. The farmers were not Israeli citizens, and the settlers appeared to have acted with the state's support; indeed, army helicopters had escorted them to the land—a hilltop near Nablus—bringing along generators and water tanks. The High Court of Justice nevertheless ordered the outpost dismantled. "The decision of the court... proved that 'there was justice' in Jerusalem and that Israel was indeed ruled by Law," exulted one Israeli columnist.

But the frustration of the settlers did not last very long. As revealed in The Law in These Parts, an engrossing new Israeli
documentary making its American debut at the Sundance Film Festival, just hours after the ruling was handed down, Ariel Sharon, a keen supporter of the settlement project who was then Israel's Minister of Agriculture, organized a meeting to discuss how to circumvent it. Alexander Ramati, then a legal advisor to the West Bank military command, raised his hand to tell Sharon about an Ottoman concept known as "Mawat land." The Ottomans, who had controlled Palestine until World War I, had used the term to designate land far enough from any neighboring village that a crowing rooster perched on its edge could not be heard. Under Ottoman law, if such land was not cultivated for three years it was "mawat"—dead —and reverted to the empire. "With or without your rooster, be at my office at 8:00 in the morning," Sharon told Ramati, who was soon crisscrossing the West Bank in the cockpit of a helicopter, identifying tens of thousands of uninhabited acres that could be labeled "state land" and made available to settlers, notwithstanding the Geneva Convention's prohibition on moving civilians into occupied territory.

In the years that followed, a string of new settlements was built on this territory, eventually prompting another challenge before the Israeli High Court. This time, the Court denied the challenge, ruling that settlement construction was permissible while Israel served as the temporary custodian of the territory. This provided a legal basis for land expropriation that has since enabled hundreds of thousands of Israelis to relocate to the West Bank.

Surprisingly little is known about the legal apparatus that has enabled and structured the occupation. Filmed in nine days but based on years of archival research, The Law in These Parts aims to expose it. Even before the 1967 Six-Day War, the film reveals, officers in the army's legal corps drew up guidelines for a separate system of laws that could be applied to territory under IDF control, rules they were convinced could strike a balance between order and justice. But by the time the first

Palestinian Intifada erupted in 1987, detention without trial and convictions based on secret evidence had become standard operating procedure in the military courts entrusted with this task. One reason Israel did not simply extend its own laws to the West Bank and Gaza Strip was that doing so would "imply certain things you may not want," an official in the film explains – in particular, that Palestinians living in the occupied territories were citizens with the same rights as Israelis. (In contrast, Jewish settlers in places like Hebron were spared the military justice system and granted access to civilian courts in Israel.) Director Ra'anan Alexandrowicz, an Israeli known for his meticulously researched documentaries, initially planned to make these Palestinians the film's protagonists. Instead, the documentary focuses on the handful of Israeli legal officials who, working largely in the shadows, set the ground rules for an occupation now in its forty-fifth year.

The architects of this parallel justice system believed that what they were designing was enlightened and progressive, a sentiment some viewers of the film may initially be inclined to share. At the insistence of Meir Shamgar, an elderly man with an august bearing who served as Israel's Military Advocate General from 1963 to 1968, it was agreed soon after the Six-Day War that Palestinians could appeal cases to Israel's High Court of Justice. Shamgar, who later served as the High Court's president, notes that international law did not require Israel to grant Palestinians such access and expresses considerable pride in this. "I hope other countries will emulate the practice," he says.


Like all the people interviewed in the film, Shamgar is seated in a black leather chair set behind a desk that is mounted on a stage, an arrangement that makes it easy to imagine him in court, with the gavel – and the power to mete out judgment – in his hands. In the film, of course, this power actually rests with Alexandrowicz, a deft interviewer who patiently draws out his subjects but is not shy about airing his opinions – as, for example, after an exchange with Shamgar about a High Court case in which a Palestinian living near Hebron challenged the expropriation of so-called "state land." It was Shamgar who presided over the case and who ruled that while international law barred Israel from assuming ownership of the territory, building temporary outposts was permissible. Half-a-million Israelis now live in these "temporary" settlements, notes Alexandrowicz. "Look, I don't think this is connected to Supreme Court rulings," says Shamgar, attributing what happened to politics. But Alexandrowicz points out that international law "clearly forbids transferring population from the occupying state to the occupied area." He asks Shamgar, "Why didn't the court see this as something it needed to stand up against?" Shamgar glances to the side, a trace of exasperation ruffling his face. "That is a question after the fact," he says.

"Justice Shamgar doesn't see the connection between Supreme Court rulings and our settlements in the occupied territories," Alexandrowicz then says in a voiceover. "But I, the person documenting, see a connection, and I present the rulings and events as I understand them. Because in the world of the film, I rule on what reality is." As the statement suggests, The Law in These Parts makes no claim to being objective: as the narrative unfolds, it becomes increasingly apparent that the film is putting its subjects on trial before the audience. In another scene, Alexandrowicz interviews a former military judge about a case involving a Palestinian arrested without being told what he'd done wrong. To protect Israel's sources in the territories, Palestinians often could be shown only a "paraphrase" of the charges against them, the judge explains. And what if the security forces made unreliable accusations? "As a rule, I didn't doubt what they said," says the judge. This revealing admission was extracted from an interview that lasted more than three hours. "The viewer is only hearing a 'paraphrase' of my interview," says Alexandrowicz. Here as elsewhere, he slyly anticipates (and thus potentially defuses) the charge that his view is biased, while implicitly raising the same question about the supposedly neutral officials who held sway in courtrooms where the disparity in power, and the absence of objectivity, was far more glaring.

Alexandrowicz's unsparing inquiry is targeted at Israelis and foreign observers, who trumpet the achievements of Israel's democracy and the High Court's willingness to restrain abuses even at the occasional expense of security. The Law in These Parts does not deny that the High Court has successfully put a stop to some abuses in the territories—most notably in a 1999 ruling that barred various methods of physical interrogation (shaking, hooding, and shackling detainees) practiced for years with impunity. Like the 1979 decision on settlements, it infuriated some Israelis on the right, particularly since it came a few years after a wave of suicide bombings. On other occasions, the High Court has issued rulings—requiring, for example, that Israel re-route its security barrier to expropriate less Palestinian land—that the army has refused to enforce. But the film disquietingly suggests that these occasional displays of independence may only serve to foster the illusion of justice even as separate laws for settlers, house demolitions, restrictions on free movement and a host of other unjust policies obtained "a legal seal of approval," as Ilan Katz, who served as Deputy Military Advocate General from 2000 to 2003, puts it in the film. The Knesset could easily have passed a law barring Palestinians from petitioning the High Court, notes Katz. Why didn't it? "Because many times the Supreme Court is convenient for the security forces," he says.

The Law in These Parts appeared in Israel during a period in which many of the organs of an independent civil society – including the civil court system – have been under attack. The repressive climate may explain why the film has generated enormous interest in Israel, screening in more than 100 locations and receiving the prize for best documentary at the 2011 Jerusalem Film Festival. Of course, the warm reception also underscores a paradox: while many Israelis seem open and even sympathetic to critical examinations of the occupation, no political constituency has emerged to challenge the creeping colonization of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, which has continued to advance under the Netanyahu government. The film's subjects have been more sparing with their praise – with one notable exception, a former military judge named Jonathan Livny who has attended some screenings and spoken admiringly about it. At one point in the film, Livny is openly critical of the military courts: "As a military judge, you don't just represent justice," he says. "You represent the authorities of the occupation, vis-à-vis a population that sees you as the enemy... It's an unnatural situation. As long as it's only temporary, fine. But when it goes on for 40 years? How can the system function? How can it be just?"

It is the closest any of the film's subjects come to admitting to a troubled conscience, and it made me wonder whether the experience of being cross-examined in the studio had forced Livny to grapple with the compromises he'd made. "Yes," he told me when I reached him recently by phone, "it's become an educational moment in my life. It enabled me to sit for three hours and really look inwardly and go through a process of understanding and come to grips, through the questioning, with my emotions, my feelings, with trying to understand the role I played." I asked him if he ever looked back and thought he should have followed the lead of the hundreds of Israeli soldiers who refused to serve in the occupied territories. "Never," he said. "Because I realized that if I wouldn't do it and somebody else would be in my place, that person would not even have the qualms that I showed." Many of his colleagues viewed the settlements favorably, he told me. Some even lived in them. Few understood Arabic, which he spoke fluently.
Still, he said, he regarded the system in which he'd served as a place where cultivating respect for the rule of law was impossible. "It is a kangaroo court."

We spoke in early January, a week after Israel's High Court ruled on a petition challenging the right of Israeli companies to mine in eight quarries situated across the Green Line. The materials are sold overwhelmingly to Israelis —"looting the West Bank," in the words of Dror Etkes, a researcher formerly with the organization Yesh Din, which submitted the complaint—in seemingly clear violation of a provision of the Hague Convention requiring an occupying power to serve only as the "administrator" of such resources. The High Court rejected the challenge, ruling that the occupation has gone on for so long that the situation has acquired certain "unique characteristics." About this, at least, Ra'anan Alexandrowicz might agree.

[seafoid]

Back to the future

Radio RSA: The Voice of South Africa
In 1988, Wasburn's students analyzed five weeks of nightly radio broadcasts from Radio RSA ("The Voice of South Africa"), the South African government's international radio service, which sought to improve world opinion of the apartheid regime.
Fanus Venter, then head of Radio RSA, referred to its mission as "the ultimate public relations challenge."

According to Venter, the main objective of the station is to foster understanding of South Africa's unique situation in the world and to counteract the untruths and the halftruths about the nation which has been spread worldwide. To this end, the [South African Broadcasting Corporation] claims that Radio RSA presents balanced and objective information which enables its audiences to make a more accurate assessment of South African affairs against a background of what it describes as inaccurate and often one-sided coverage given events in South Africa by foreign media.
The study took forty-five hours of Radio RSA broadcasts and categorized the narrative into six interrelated propaganda themes, which I summarize below.

1. Brand South Africa

The most common theme sought to deflect from the apartheid issue and instead focus on "positive" traits shared between South Africa and other Western nations:

Theme 1. South Africa is an unusually complex, modern society with a pro-Western government, a vital capitalist economy, vast natural resources, and a rich cultural life with ties to Western Europe. While the nation faces serious, continuing problems of race, exclusive focus on this single aspect of South African society, by the media of other countries, has produced a highly distorted and misleading international image of the nation.
[...]
[T]he view of South Africa as a modern, productive society with strong cultural links to the West, working to achieve greater participation for all of its citizens in national political and economic life through gradual reform, is introduced in a piecemeal fashion. Nevertheless items depicting day-to-day life in South Africa, music, literature, art, business, science, flora and fauna all carry Radio RSA's most important message: contrary to the image of South Africa constructed by the international media, and despite admitted difficulties, South Africa is a vital, progressive state with much to admire and is deserving of support from the West.

Wasburn explained how something seemingly innocuous, such as focusing on South Africa's achievements and rich culture, sought to mask the country's crimes through an "apolitical" filter:

The accusation that a nation is insensitive to human rights or is militarily adventurous calls for the construction and presentation of a national image inconsistent with the labeling. The distinction between issue-specific and what will be termed thematic counterpropaganda is not hard and fast. However, it does clarify how manifestly nonpolitical material can be employed as a form of counterpropaganda.

Even the most cursory glance at the programming schedules of the major international broadcasting organizations reveals that a substantial amount of broadcast time is devoted to the transmission of materials such as music, sporting events, verbal travelogues, cultural affairs, business, and features purporting to depict daily life in the nation.

Although lacking obvious political content, numerous analysts have contended that such cultural materials can effectively promote particular values and national images that serve political and economic interests. Benevolence–malevolence is a common cognitive dimension of international images attributed to nations. A likely reason for allocating time to materials lacking obvious political intent is that they can cultivate a more benevolent image of a nation. Such materials do not evoke the resistance aroused by assertions that deal explicitly with political events, conditions, policies, principles, or other potentially
controversial matters.

The goal of such strategy is to disprove that Country X is a "bad" country by demonstrating that it produces some "good." If the country does good, then criticism of the country as "bad" cannot be correct. This assists us in parsing the strategy behind campaigns such as pinkwashing. Of course the flaw is that good actions do not offset bad ones, and criticism of a nation's actions are not offset by positive labels ascribed to the country as a whole. The branding theme seeks to determine whether a country is inherently good or bad, thus deflecting criticisms of what the country's government is doing.

2. Singling out South Africa

Theme 2. South Africa is wantonly and hypocritically singled out as a nation that oppresses its people. The government of South Africa is committed to democratic development. To this end, it is working to promote economic advancement, literacy, order, and stability, all of which are social preconditions for the maintenance of political liberties. The great threat to continuing social improvement in South Africa comes from revolutionary forces that are committed to violence and attempt to disrupt peace and legal order.
Radio RSA cited an opinion piece by British writer and commentator Simon Jenkins, who at the time had just returned from trips to Israel and South Africa.
Jenkins's piece, titled "People Who Live In Glass Houses: Before the British Begin to Criticise Other Nations on Human Rights, They Should Go to See Ulsters' Peace Wall," was published in the Sunday Times on February 28, 1988.

Radio RSA quoted from the piece two days later:
"The past week saw media attention being paid to the violence in Northern Ireland, Israeli soldiers beating Palestinians, the reporting of uprisings in the Soviet Union as well as the news of the restrictions placed on organizations in South Africa ... (I was) shocked by the complexity of the problems in Israel and South Africa, many of which were inherited from British policy decisions. (I was) impressed, however, by the efforts being made to overcome these problems. (I do) not believe that either Tel Aviv or Pretoria takes any more delight in increasing the permanent emergency powers than does the British government in extending its own increasingly permanent emergency powers."

3. There are prominent and successful blacks in South Africa. Blacks are better off here than elsewhere.

Theme 3. South Africa has undertaken major programs to improve black–white relations—particularly through increasing black participation in the management of the South African economy.
This theme attempted to counter accusations of racism by demonstrating a commitment to improving the situation of blacks in South Africa.
For example, the director of the International Executive Service of South Africa discussed a program to develop small, black-owned businesses in Soweto (March 9, 1988) and the director of South Africa's Urban Foundation described how the South African business community has tried to respond to the social needs of black South Africans (February 19, 1988).
Moreover, Radio RSA cited studies proving black success in South Africa.
"Contrary to much international criticism that blacks in South Africa lack opportunities, a recent survey shows that increasing numbers of black businessmen are reaching the top in the executive field with local companies.
"(Voice of Trevor Woodburn, head of the Woodburn-Mann consulting organization that conducted the survey) I was absolutely shocked to find that we, in fact, have placed far more blacks at the senior executive levels than most of the consultants around the world—in countries like Britain, Australia, Canada, for example, or even Italy or Germany..."

4. South Africa wants peace and good relations with its neighbors

Theme 4. South Africa maintains a policy of peaceful co-existence and helpfulness toward the other nations of Africa.
Example:
"A spokesman for the South African Department of Foreign Affairs said the positive areas of cooperation between South Africa and Mozambique are often overlooked by the international community. A group of diplomats had been invited so that they could be shown an aspect of the cooperation that existed. The spokesman said it was significant that representations of countries such as Canada and Australia, which have been so vociferous in their criticisms of South Africa, had failed to use the opportunity to see the true state of affairs." (March 5, 1988)
As well, Radio RSA boasted that South Africa's "economic strength" and "agricultural and technical know-how" could benefit less-developed countries in Africa:
"South African presence in central Africa has been criticized by the Nigerian government, according to two articles in the Johannesburg press yesterday. But South Africa's aid to the development of agriculture in Equatorial Guinea will achieve wider acceptance of the fact that South Africa, with its economic strength and depth of agricultural and technical knowhow, is well placed to contribute significantly to development in Africa." (February 10, 1988)

5. BDS is "counterproductive"

Theme 5. Efforts by foreign states to influence South Africa's domestic policies through the imposition of negative economic sanctions are both futile and counterproductive. South Africa's economy is fundamentally sound. A slide backward into recession, unemployment, and falling real income would worsen social problems. The nation's social-political difficulties are complex and can be solved best by its own people.
Critics of BDS against South Africa often claimed that reforms were under way but could be hindered by negative actions that forced white South Africans to react defensively and "circle the wagons"—often referred to by its Afrikaner term as the "laager" mentality.

Moreover, BDS would hurt the population it sought to help:
"The London branch of the Washington based International Freedom Foundation has issued a publication that questions whether massive disruption of the South African economy is either in the interest of, or supported by, the blacks in South Africa. Entitled Understanding Sanctions, it analyzes opinions held by black South Africans and finds that opposition to sanctions encompasses all sectors, including trade unionists, church and tribal leaders, and the ordinary black population. It say disinvestment hurts no one except those too poor to do anything about it, and that means the vast majority of the black population of South Africa. The publication concluded that for positive reform to accelerate, the West has to take moral courage and positive action in the form of investment in South Africa." (February 19, 1988)
The International Freedom Foundation, cited above, was a DC-based think-tank covertly funded by the South African government to promote the government's interests.
6. South Africa resides in a tough neighborhood; South Africa is an asset to the West.
Theme 6. Political and economic instability is widespread across southern Africa. The chief sources of such problems are tribalism, incompetence, crime, corruption, and, most important, foreign interference. South Africa deserves Western support because of its potential as a major stabilizing force on the subcontinent.
With the assertion of this theme, South African national image construction comes full circle. It has moved from the defensive position that criticisms of South Africa's domestic and foreign policies are based, for the most part, on misunderstanding are hypocrisy, to the offensive position that criticism and negative sanctions should be replaced by various forms of support for South Africa from the West.
To pursue this offensive strategy, it was first necessary to establish that factors, other than the activities of South Africa itself, were responsible for the region's political and economic problems...[N]umerous items appeared in the top-of-the-hour newscasts that dealt with lack of cooperation, incompetence, and corruption in other African nations and even in Africa's international organizations...
The position that the Republic of South Africa contributed to such stability as there was in southern Africa, rested on many of the same items presented in support of Theme 4, which expressed South Africa's helpfulness toward the other nations of the continent. Additional items also were presented that expressed South Africa's importance to the overall economy of Africa.
Invest, don't divest
An additional argument stressed in both themes 5 and 6 called for investment, not divestment or sanctions, as a positive and constructive solution for South Africa:
"Investment, not sanctions, is the only way in which Europe (can) contribute towards a peaceful resolution of southern Africa's problems. South Africa needs assistance in its struggle for stability, not avoidance or neglect." (March 12, 1988)
And, as previously quoted:

"[D]isinvestment hurts no one except those too poor to do anything about it, and that means the vast majority of the black population of South Africa...[F]or positive reform to accelerate, the West has to take moral courage and positive action in the form of investment in South Africa." (February 19, 1988)