this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
53 points (100.0% liked)

askchapo

22765 readers
454 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I'm not old enough to remember. I known the basics of the armed struggle of the ANC, bantustans, Cuba in Angola, etc. But not enough to compare it to Israel today. My general suspicion is Israel is worse but the US is way more committed to backing Israel than it was apartheid South Africa. I'm mostly want to gauge how the anti-apartheid movement was going then compared to now. Any resources or personal experiences.

all 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] aaaaaaadjsf@hexbear.net 29 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I wasn't alive when apartheid ended, but your general suspicion is correct. The United States is way more committed to backing Israel than they backed apartheid South Africa. At the time apartheid ended in South Africa, South Africa was an international pariah state sanctioned by almost every other country, including the United States, under the Reagan administration even. No foreign goods or technology, no ability to participate in international sporting events. Economically the country was broken, militarily it had suffered defeats abroad in the border wars and had outdated equipment that was no match for the superior Soviet and Cuban equipment it's adversaries had. The situation was untenable, and the country was on the brink of civil war.

So F.W de Klerk made the decision to release Nelson Mandela from prison and allow the ANC to participate in elections open to all. This was not done out of the kindness of his heart, but for pragmatic reasons, to try ensure "a new dispensation for the Afrikaner" in Mandela's words. Apartheid was no longer viable, the country was on the brink of civil war. There were lots of negotiations at this time between the apartheid regime and the tripartite alliance (ANC, COSATU, SACP), and the leader of the the South African Communist Party, Chris Hani, was even assassinated by a Polish nazi. There was lots of rabble housing in which the AWB (Afrikaner neo nazi group) and IFP (Zulu nationalist party, made deals with the apartheid regime in the past) engaged in political violence, with ANC-IFP clashes being especially bloody. But overall, apartheid ended as peacefully as it possibly could have, and while there are many problems with modern day South Africa, I can say that on some level, I am proud to be South African.

However, the situation was no where near as polarised as the current situation between Israel and Palestine. South African Air Force planes never bombed homelands/bantustans with the intention to kill tens of thousands of civilians, and South Africa never received the complete US backing that Israel has militarily. In fact, South Africa was only able to obtain nuclear weapons and advanced technology necessary for domestic arms manufacturing from Israel itself. The nuclear weapons situation in particular led to a rare act of co-operation between the USSR and USA, in which a Soviet spy broke the details of upcoming nuclear tests, and an American spy plane (in the SR-71) flew over to verify the information.

Further, thanks to Cuban and Soviet support, South Africa's adversarial countries that they went to war with had superior equipment when compared to the South African army's outdated equipment. Better MiG fighter jets, better air defence systems and better tanks. None of Israel's adversaries are in such a position. However, the anti apartheid movement itself, in the ANC, PAC, SACP, etc, was no where near as militarized as Hamas or Hezbollah currently are. They carried out many attacks, but nothing on the scale of October 7 or Hezbollah's rocket campaign against Israel. Most of the militaristic fighting of that nature took place in the border wars.

In short, I can't see Israeli apartheid ending in the same way that South African apartheid did. The conditions are just too different. The polarization between Palestinians and Israelis is on a different level given the current genocide in Gaza, and the USA is so heavily invested in Israel in a way that it was never invested in apartheid South Africa. Israel's nuclear weapons programme is also far more advanced than South Africa's ever was. South African nuclear weapons had no viable delivery method aside from outdated fighter jets from the 1950s, the RSA ballistic missile programme was a smokescreen and paper tiger that was intended to be a trump card in negotiations. Israel have intercontinental ballistic missiles and stealth fighter aircraft, and have publicly spoken about bringing the rest of the world down with them (Samson option).

[–] ZWQbpkzl@hexbear.net 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Thank you. When did US opinion about South Africa change, both publicly and politically? I don't believe South Africa was always a pariah to the US but maybe it the US was always conflicted about it?

[–] aaaaaaadjsf@hexbear.net 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Anti apartheid sanctions were passed pretty late in the USA, around 1986. Nelson Mandela was elected in 1994. Reagan tried to veto the anti apartheid bill, and got then South African foreign minister Pik Botha to call US politicians on the fence about the veto. This backfired and Reagan's veto was overruled, and the anti apartheid legislation passed. However, South Africa was subject to a voluntary arms embargo by the United Nations security council since 1963, an embargo the US voted in favour of. Only the UK and France abstained. This is why South Africa had such outdated military equipment by the end of apartheid, their newest fighter aircraft at the time were both of UK and French design, in the Buccaneer and Mirage respectively. This is probably a reason for the abstention. South Africa later attempted a domestic modernisation programme on some of it's weapons using Israeli technology. (The Atlas Cheetah is the best example of this). However the US did covertly support apartheid for many years.

[–] MF_COOM@hexbear.net 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

This is a scene from Lethal Weapon 2, a tentpeg blockbuster movie in which reps from the South African state are not only the villains but are immediately understood to be villains by our heroes simply by the fact that they uphold the values of the state.

Not until it's (even remotely) conceivable that a household name hero in a summer blockbuster will emphatically yell "free Palestine you dumb son of a bitch" are we anywhere near the level of ideological success in the west as apartheid activists had.

[–] ZWQbpkzl@hexbear.net 7 points 1 month ago

Yeah but that's 1989. I'm not under the delusion that Israel is going to end in a couple years. I guess more specifically, I'm wondering when did it become normal to be anti-apartheid. In the US that is.

[–] FourteenEyes@hexbear.net 12 points 1 month ago
[–] Redcuban1959@hexbear.net 8 points 1 month ago

@aaaaaaadjsf@hexbear.net can probably give you a better answer about Apartheid South Africa compared to Israel.

[–] RNAi@hexbear.net 7 points 1 month ago

Related question: Did the fall of the Soviet Union speed up or down the fall of Apartheid?