this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
277 points (96.3% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
3390 readers
117 users here now
Rules:
- If you don't already have some understanding of what this is, try reading this post. Off-topic posts will be removed.
- Please use a high-quality source to explain why your post fits if you think it might not be common knowledge and isn't explained within the post itself.
- Links to articles should be high-quality sources – for example, not the Daily Mail, the New York Post, Newsweek, etc. For a rough idea, check out this list. If it's marked in red, it probably isn't allowed; if it's yellow, exercise caution.
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a comment removed, you're encouraged to appeal it.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the comments.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out [email protected] (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you deny that they're living under apartheid, the term used by south Africa itself to describe the palestinian situation, then there's need to discuss any further.
With all respect, I had to chuckle at this as it reminded myself of me, a quarter century-ish ago, when after having watched Colin Powell give his speech to the UN about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I confidently supported it. Then, a kind socials studies teacher pointed out the retrospectively obvious, just because a government says it, doesn't make it true. But he did so without making me feel belittled or dumb so I'll try to pass on the favour.
I'd think of it though like when trump as President says there was massive electoral fraud, when Hungary/Belarus argues for denazifying Ukraine etc. Just because a government is saying something does not make it true.
In the case of South Africa, context is huge, so let me share that with you.
Since actual Apartheid, South Africa's been ruled for 30 uninterrupted years by the ANC, which wins largely on the basis of being A) Mandela's party and B) the symbol of anti-colonialism etc. In the last 15 or so years though, progress has pretty much stopped (the stats on indoor plumbing, electricity, youth unemployment etc are heart breaking) and they've started bleeding support especially to harder, more populist, vehemently anti white parties (the two main rivals argue for seizing any white farms) on the one side and the technocratic but "whitey" party, the DA on the other side. Coming into this year, the polls and election results were the worst that the ANC has ever suffered, leading to a humiliating, first ever, coalition government with the ANC and the DA.
Amidst this backdrop, Gaza happened. I cannot imagine an easier symbol of the ANC's anti-colonial roots than lobbying a very anti colonial case at the ICJ. All the benefits of identity politics and symbolism with almost zero cost. Especially when you consider the ANC almost certainly expected they were going to have to form an unpopular coalition government and to avoid burning the country down, would do so with whitey's colonial party. (And yes, Ramaphosa absolutely touted and campaigned on his government's cases at the ICJ.)
Edit: Sorry, Ramaphosa is the president of South Africa and leader of the ANC. Also, even without the domestic backdrop, you might consider their BRICS membership and what that entails.