⇱ Index page

The Internationalist Archive

Mandla J. Radebe is an Associate Professor in the Department of Strategic Communication and the Director of the Centre for Data and Digital Communications in the School of Communication at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa.

For issue #142 of The Internationalist, we excerpt from Radebe's recent release, Apartheid did not die (Inkani Press, 2025). In the following extract, Radebe draws on the words of apartheid’s own architects and the lived experience of South Africans, exposing the deep structural parallels between apartheid South Africa and Israel’s treatment of Palestinians—rooted in systemic segregation, land dispossession, disenfranchisement, and state violence.

As the survivors of apartheid, South Africans have a unique understanding of what apartheid entails. To advance the argument further on the parallels between Israel and apartheid South Africa, let us draw from the dictator Hendrik Verwoerd, who acknowledged these similarities, describing Israel as an ‘apartheid state’. The systemic nature of oppression and exclusion present in both the Palestinian and South African contexts are characterised by segregation, disenfranchisement and human rights violations.

This was the assessment of Israel by Verwoerd, the prime architect of apartheid policies in SA. It should be noted, however, that Verwoerd made this assertion while peeved, in his dismissal of Israel’s vote against SA’s apartheid policies at the UN in 1961. Verwoerd remarked, ‘Israel is not consistent in its new anti-apartheid attitude… they took Israel away from the Arabs after the Arabs lived there for a thousand years. In that, I agree with them. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state’. This candid admission reveals a rare moment of truth and honesty. Verwoerd, feeling betrayed by Israel’s stance, did not hesitate to expose the parallels between the two regimes. Indeed, as the saying goes, there is no honour among thieves. Verwoerd’s successor, John Vorster, echoed similar sentiments. Vorster viewed Israel’s challenges as similar to SA’s, in particular regarding the treatment of its Arab population. He observed, ‘We view Israel’s position and problems with understanding and sympathy’, framing it as an ‘apartheid problem’.

Apartheid SA’s ally and former US President Jimmy Carter, in his 2006 book Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, also made a compelling observation about the situation in the West Bank. He posited, ‘Apartheid is a word that is an accurate description of what has been going on in the West Bank, and it’s based on the desire or avarice of a minority of Israelis for Palestinian land. It’s not based on racism... This is a word that’s a very accurate description of the forced separation within the West Bank of Israelis from Palestinians and the total domination and oppression of Palestinians by the dominant Israeli military.’

Although it is quite astounding that Carter believed apartheid was not racism, his characterisation is nevertheless apt and stresses the structural inequalities and systemic oppression Palestinians face. By using the word ‘apartheid’, he too was drawing a parallel to SA’s apartheid regime. In this book, Carter not only exposes the injustices but also challenges the international community to confront these realities and push for equitable resolutions. This is indeed one of those rare moments when a former US president offers a perspective that proves genuinely valuable in addressing the Palestinian crisis.

The parallels between the two systems of oppression in Palestine and South Africa – characterised by territorial domination, systemic inequality in resource distribution, and the denial of fundamental human rights – points to the universal struggle for freedom, dignity and equality. For many South Africans, standing in solidarity with the Palestinian cause is more than a political statement; it is a continuation of the fight against global oppression and injustice, rooted in shared histories of resistance and the desire for self-determination.

The Palestine Liberation Organisation promptly identified the resemblance between their oppression and that of black people under apartheid rule in SA. SA’s bantustan strategy confined the indigenous African population to a mere 13 per cent of largely barren land, while the white settler minority claimed the vast majority of the country’s arable land, resources and territory for itself. Black people were left with little option but to fight and confront this dispossession of their land, a fight that continues to this day.

Comparing South Africa’s apartheid-era laws and Israel’s current practices reveals a troubling correlation. Israeli actions, including violations of international due process standards such as illegal detentions, ethnicity-based discriminatory privileges (legally distinguishing between Jewish and non-Jewish identities), and the enforcement of repressive laws, are similar to many aspects of apartheid South Africa. For instance, the system of permits and checkpoints in the Palestinian Territories closely resembles South Africa’s Pass Laws, which restricted the movement of African, Indian and Coloured individuals. Under apartheid, passes dictated where people could travel or reside, often limiting their movement to areas deemed acceptable by the government.163 Violations led to arrests and imprisonment, a fate that is all too familiar to those who were found outside designated zones without the necessary documentation.

For many of our parents, permits were a prerequisite for working in urban centres such as Johannesburg, forcing them to navigate a system designed to enforce racial segregation and economic exploitation. Similarly, the checkpoints and permit requirements in the Palestinian territories function as tools of control and oppression, restricting Palestinians’ freedom of movement and access to resources in ways that are disturbingly reminiscent of apartheid South Africa.

Likewise, the land question reveals another parallel between the two apartheid states. In Israel, the ‘irreversible colonial project’, facilitated by an extensive network of settlements in the West Bank, mirrors the systemic dispossession faced by black South Africans under apartheid.164 The Israeli government’s control over most of the land ensures that the vast majority of it is unavailable to non-Jews, a situation reminiscent of South Africa’s 1913 Natives Land Act and the 1936 Native Trust and Land Act. These apartheid-era laws limited African land ownership to a mere 7 percent of the country, later increased to 13 percent, and strictly prohibited black people from buying or occupying land unless they were employed by a white master. Both systems institutionalised racial land dispossession, ensuring that land and resources were concentrated in the hands of a privileged racial minority, while the indigenous majority was relegated to overcrowded and underdeveloped territories.

Palestinians living in the non-annexed portions of the West Bank lack Israeli citizenship and are denied voting rights in Israel; still they remain subject to movement restrictions imposed by Israel. This mirrors the experience of Africans under apartheid, who were not considered citizens of their own country, were forced to carry ‘passports’ from the bantustans or passbooks to justify their presence in certain areas, and were systematically excluded from voting and political participation. Both systems exemplify a deliberate strategy to disenfranchise the majority population while consolidating power and privilege for a minority. 

For those who experienced the brutalities of apartheid first-hand, scholarly arguments and academic research are often meaningless when confronted with the glaring realities of oppression. What Israel is practising in Palestine indeed appears far more severe than the apartheid system in SA. Israel’s actions in Palestine are marked by an ominous level of brutality. But tragically, the international community has largely ignored the desperate cries of the Palestinians. Instead of using their influence to foster a lasting and peaceful solution in the Middle East, Western powers, led by the US and its allies, continue to aid Israel, perpetuating the cycle of violence and oppression.

The US and its allies have long behaved like global bullies, wielding their monopoly on violence with arrogance and exhibiting blatant double standards. For instance, in 2023 US President Joe Biden enthusiastically welcomed the ICC’s warrant of arrest for Russia’s President Putin. Yet, when the ICC’s actions inch closer to scrutinising Western leaders, it suddenly faces condemnation. It is increasingly evident that this court was constructed to target Africans and ‘thugs’ like Putin, while ‘civilised’ Western leaders are permitted to kill and destroy with impunity, as witnessed in Iraq, Libya, and countless other places. As if this contempt were not enough, in January 2025 the US House of Representatives passed a bill to sanction the ICC for issuing a warrant of arrest against Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. This goes beyond mere double standards; it is an outright insult to the global community.

But this behaviour should not come as a surprise. Were these not the same Western powers that sided with apartheid SA under the guise of anti-communism? These nations not only labelled freedom fighters such as Mandela ‘terrorists’ but also designated the ANC and other liberation organisations as terrorist organisations. Their selective morality highlights the hypocrisy of the Western foreign policies and, by extension, the repugnancy of imperialism. In as far as the Palestinian nightmare is concerned, to paraphrase Karl Marx, history does seem to be repeating itself: first as tragedy, during the South African apartheid era, and now as farce, as these powers turn a blind eye to the genocide in Gaza while aiding Israel’s oppressive policies.

Excerpted with permission from Apartheid Did Not Die: South Africa’s Unfinished Revolution by Mandla J Radebe. Published by Inkani Press, 2025. 

The Internationalist Archive