Meaning: The quote by Tom Paulin touches on the differences in international response and support for various political movements and leaders. In this quote, Paulin contrasts the sympathy and support for Nelson Mandela and the anti-apartheid movement with the lack of force against the British government in response to the situation in Palestine and the leadership of Yasser Arafat.

The first part of the quote, "This sympathy is not translated into force against the British government," suggests that despite the sympathy and understanding for the Palestinian cause, there is a lack of meaningful action or force exerted against the British government in response to its policies and actions in the region. This may be seen as a commentary on the international community's reluctance to take concrete measures to address the situation in Palestine and hold the British government accountable for its role in the conflict.

Paulin then draws a comparison to the anti-apartheid movement, which had a "high profile" and garnered significant international support. The movement against apartheid in South Africa was a global cause célèbre, with widespread public outcry and activism against the racist policies of the apartheid regime. The comparison highlights the disparity in the level of attention and action between the anti-apartheid movement and the situation in Palestine, despite both being instances of systemic oppression and injustice.

Furthermore, Paulin points to the difference in perception and reception of Nelson Mandela and Yasser Arafat. He suggests that Mandela is viewed as a more engaging and sympathetic figure compared to Arafat. This observation speaks to the role of leadership and personal charisma in shaping public perception and garnering international support for a cause. Mandela, with his message of reconciliation and his personal story of endurance and resilience, was able to capture the hearts and minds of people around the world, whereas Arafat's leadership was more controversial and divisive, leading to varying levels of support and sympathy.

The quote raises important questions about the factors that influence international responses to political movements and leaders. It touches on issues of public perception, media representation, and the role of charismatic leadership in shaping global solidarity and action. It also hints at the complexities and nuances of geopolitical dynamics, where certain causes and leaders may receive more attention and support than others, often influenced by historical, cultural, and geopolitical factors.

In conclusion, Tom Paulin's quote provides a thought-provoking commentary on the disparities in international support and action for different political movements and leaders. It highlights the challenges and complexities in mobilizing global solidarity and force against injustice and oppression, and invites reflection on the factors that shape public perception and the response to political conflicts.