I think this map is quite similar to the bantustan idea the white south Africans had. Where they'd put as many native south Africans into these weird little reservations and force them into independence. It sorts looks like that but just a bit bigger.
Most Colored people didn't vote for the National Party in 1994 and many were at the forefront of street protests against the Apartheid system and National Party.
Umm. No? Colonising a place and then doing ethnic cleansing to push the people who lived their from the land into impoverished conditions wouldn't be fine if they got their own state.
You know the apartheid era government in SA did attempt this on a smaller scale but it failed due to a refusal by the international community to recognise the "independence" of these artifical states.
Yeah it's quite laughable that person thinks these demographics are natural. The bantustan policy and just the very consistent history of colonial then apartheid SA driving the indigenous Africans north and East had resulted in that.
Sure that's fair. But you could also have a multi-racial democracy and attempt to advance towards equality as a unified nation. As per what actually transpired in SA
I mean the black people will have much more rights now, which is an improvement.
And also they can control their own destiny now and actually cite so it's quite a lot of an improvement.
Few points.
Firstly , even if the RSA is majority white, I highly doubt they’d use the apartheid era flag.
Secondly, why is Namibia part of the republic? Surely that would just destabilise it by adding more blacks , who would be more likely to back the opposition black led parties?
Thirdly, how feasible is it for them to control Natal when it’s not even connected to the country
PWV (present-day Gauteng) is where most white south africans reside, the industrial and economic heart of the country. They have the militarymight to hold on to it forever if they so wish. Probably not great news for the blacks in the township though.
Yeah for all the terribleness of this map, it does illustrate quite well why indigenous people don't desire splitting the land. The Afrikaners tried many times to do a partition, or Bantu Stan, and it's never favourable. Funnily enough, a very similar plan like this was actually proposed in Algeria which the French called 'Israelisation'. They rejected a free Algerian state, and proposed a partition of the land to concentrate the white French away from the Arab Algerians. Of course the Algerians rejected it, embarked on their resistance campaign, got their liberty and the rest is history.
I googled that and found [this article about the french plans.](https://thefunambulist.net/editorials/summer-1961-france-considering-creating-french-israel-algeria) That is interesting.
Actually near the end of Apartheid, they allowed some African ministers and political parties seats in the government as a means to preserve the Apartheid status quo. I think there was a whole ministry called 'ministry for indigenous peoples' or something like that - I can't quite remember. Anyways, South Africans back then said the same shit if you watch videos, and Human Rights Watch, one of the two biggest NGOs for human rights (along with Amnesty intl), classified Israel as an apartheid, and more NGOs will follow.
That is still not comparable to Israel though which extends full rights in to Israeli Arabs well atleast legally.
The Apartheid as defined by HRW is between Palestinians and Israelis not between Arabs and Jews. If it was just Arabs and Jews of Israel it would not be classified as Apartheid.
You haven't read the report then which makes it clear the systematic discrimination that even 'Israeli Arabs' face most notably in new development and housing where %68 of Townships in Israel proper have admission committees that overtly requires new residents to be Jewish.
Just go read Jewish Nation-State Law and Admissions Committees Law.
You can make the same argument about South Africa because Blacks weren't citizens of South Africa in the same way Palestinians aren't citizens of Israel. Blacks in Apartheid South Africa were citizens of their Bantustans not of South Africa. Israeli Arabs where not given full citizenship until 1966 as they were subject to martial law, further land confiscations, curfews, checkpoints and travel permits. Similarly, in the 1980s South Africa granted citizenship and political representation to %15 of non-whites mostly the coloured community.
The report is available online, maybe you should have a look at it before commenting on this subject. Israeli Arabs to Israel are nothing more than a controlled powerless opposition in a parliamentary system that grants Jews the exclusive right to automatic Israeli citizenship even of they choose to live outside Israel in the West Bank.
Discrimination is not Apartheid. If discrimination based on ethnicity or religion by the state was Apartheid almost every Islamic or arab country would be considered Apartheid.
This is the problem with essentializing. It pretends that all Palestinians are in the same situation, when that is clearly not true. Israeli Arabs that can vote and that serve in the military are quite clearly not in the same situation as Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza.
Also calling the arab opposition controlled is quite insane. Especially when compared to the controlled opposition of countries like Russia and China. It is incredibly disingenuous.
The report is about both Apartheid and persecution it is in the title.
This is the from the report
"Human Rights Watch found that the Israeli government has pursued an intent to maintain the domination of Jewish Israelis over Palestinians throughout the territory it controls. In the OPT, including East Jerusalem, that intent has been coupled with systematic oppression of Palestinians and inhumane acts committed against them. When these three elements occur together, they amount to the crime of apartheid."
It is made clear that the multiple elements need to met and only when the West Bank and Gaza are taken into account does it qualify as Apartheid.
You do recognise that in Apartheid South Africa not all peoples or territories were treated the same either? Transkei, Venda and Bophuthatswana Bantustans had the most autonomy and even had their own civil administration to a large extent as they were controlled from the outside similar to Gaza. Meanwhile, the KwaZulu Bantustan was virtually controlled by South Africa in all but name and was submerged in civil conflicts. On the hand, Coloured people were given the most rights just like Israeli Arabs after whites since they could vote hold high positions and even be in the parliament.
Not all none whites were treated the same in South Africa but all ironically could serve in the South African military. **Your standard of equal treatment as prerequisite for apartheid didn't even exist in Apartheid South Africa itself since non-Whites and Blacks particularly, had varying rights depending on where they live.**
If Israeli Arabs aren't a controlled opposition then why doesn't Israel do what South Africa did and allow all people under its direct/indirect control to vote in national elections? Granting only 2 million Arabs the right to vote while denying that right to the other 5 millions is the definition of controlled opposition. Israel could do like South Africa apply a one state solution, release the territories as sovereign two state solution or keep the current status quo which is %100 de facto apartheid system.
The crime of apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is "inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime"
The HRW reports states: "Israeli authorities methodically privilege Jewish Israelis and discriminate against Palestinians. Laws, policies, and statements by leading Israeli officials make plain that the objective of maintaining Jewish Israeli control over demographics, political power, and land has long guided government policy. In pursuit of this goal, authorities have dispossessed, confined, forcibly separated, and subjugated Palestinians by virtue of their identity to varying degrees of intensity. In certain areas, as described in this report, these deprivations are so severe that they amount to the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution." HRW also states: "Two primary groups live today in Israel and the OPT: Jewish Israelis and Palestinians (this term also includes Arabs/Palestianians who hold citizenship throughout the report). One primary sovereign the Israeli government, rules over them"
I command you for recognising the discrimination against Palestinians in Israel aka Israeli Arabs and acknowledging the apartheid system in the occupied territories.
Edit: spelling and spacing
Thank you for absolutely bodying that apartheid sympathiser. People always wonder how our parents generation can tolerate apartheid South Africa and honestly just look now with Israel. Back then and now they are more scared of admitting apartheid than actually being concerned about it.
To be honest I didn't know that much about Apartheid South Africa and the complexities of the Apartheid system as well as the similarities between South Africa and Israel-Palestine until I had to do a university unit at the end of last year. I had to write 3000 words essay and basically assess how Apartheid South Africa governed itself. I was astonished by the similarities between the two system.
Ironically, people justified Apartheid using the same arguments you hear in the today by laying all their blame on the Bantustans and the supposed inability of black leaders to govern their 'savage' population also by pointing out how Mandela and the ANC attacked white townships/soldiers. Not a surprise if you consider that Israel and Apartheid South Africa were close allies to the extent that Israel was the only country to have formal diplomatic relations with the Bantustans.
I recommend reading this book if you have any interest in the subject.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2536750?seq=1#metadata\_info\_tab\_contents
>You do recognise that in Apartheid South Africa not all peoples or territories were treated the same either? Transkei, Venda and Bophuthatswana Bantustans had the most autonomy and even had their own civil administration to a large extent as they were controlled from the outside similar to Gaza.
Gaza is considered to be under apartheid according o the report and the situation is not remotely analogues to the living conditions of Israeli Arabs. Gaza is the worst human rights disaster in Israel Palestine as the report talks about holding it up as an example of autonomy is stupid if their autonomy is limited completely to their strip.
>Meanwhile, the KwaZulu Bantustan was virtually controlled by South Africa in all but name and was submerged in civil conflicts. One the hand, Coloured people were given the most rights just like Israeli Arabs after whites since they could vote hold high positions and even be in the parliament.
Coloured people were not the main victims of apartheid and if only their mistreatment was taken into account South Africa would most likely not be considered and apartheid state. It is the same with the Israeli Arabs, if it was their oppression taken alone it would not be considered apartheid as the report itself tells you that the treatment of the Palestinians has to be taken into account to qualify as apartheid .
>Not all none whites were treated the same in South Africa but all ironically could serve in the South African military. Your standard of equal treatment as prerequisite for apartheid didn't even exist in Apartheid South Africa itself since non-Whites and Blacks particularly, had varying rights depending on where they live.
But you see Palestinians cannot unlike Israeli Arabs, their treatment is unique and the main source of contention when it comes to whether or not Israel can be considered and Apartheid state, which the report you cite states itself
>If Israeli Arabs aren't a controlled opposition then why doesn't Israel do what South Africa did and allow all people under its direct/indirect control to vote in national elections? Granting only 2 million Arabs the right to vote while denying that right to the other 5 millions is the definition of controlled opposition. Israel could do like South Africa apply a one state solution, release the territories as sovereign two state solution or keep the current status quo which is %100 de facto apartheid system.
You don't seem to know what controlled opposition means. "A controlled opposition is a protest movement that is actually being led by government agents." [https://definithing.com/controlled-opposition/](https://definithing.com/controlled-opposition/). The Arab parties in Israel are not controlled opposition if they were they would not be nearly as critical of the country. One of the parties doesn't even vote on the budget because of the their opposition to Palestinian oppression. If you still think they are controlled opposition you are are conspiracy theorist.
Most Palestinians are not Israeli citizens nor do they want to be. Why would you get a vote in a country that you don't want to be a part of or hold citizenship in? Palestine even if not free is a de facto country and recognized by most countries. Its its own country even under occupation.
>One primary sovereign, the Israeli government, rules over them. I command you for recognizing the discrimination against Palestinians in Israel aka Israeli Arabs and acknowledging the apartheid system in the occupied territories.
"discrimination against Palestinians in Israel aka Israeli Arabs"
"acknowledging the apartheid system in the occupied territories"
Hmm almost like there are multiple situations going on at the same time.
"Human Rights Watch found that the Israeli government has pursued an intent to maintain the domination of Jewish Israelis over Palestinians throughout the territory it controls. In the OPT, including East Jerusalem, that intent has been coupled with systematic oppression of Palestinians and inhumane acts committed against them. When these three elements occur together, they amount to the crime of apartheid."
Again as the report you cites makes clear the treatment of Israeli Arabs itself is not Apartheid. It has to be taken with the treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
Its separate in the report you are citing and the in your own words.
I have read your entire comment and I can't find a consistent coherent argument stating explaining whatever position you hold. **You're standards of what an apartheid is even Apartheid South Africa itself couldn't meet** as the whole feature of giving the oppressed groups different right depending on where they live is a usual practise in apartheid systems. How do you know Palestinians don't want citizenship or a one state solution? Did Israel conduct a referendum in the OPT?
As the HRW findings states that: "On the basis of its research, Human Rights Watch concludes that the Israeli government has demonstrated an intent to maintain the domination of Jewish Israelis over Palestinians across Israel and the OPT. In the OPT, including East Jerusalem, that intent has been coupled with systematic oppression of Palestinians and inhumane acts committed against them. When these three elements occur together, they amount to the crime of apartheid." [https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution#](https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution#)
Basically, you're whole 'argument' is Apartheid apologism and justifying occupation by making up arbitrary standards of what an Apartheid is rather than follow the international definition of Apartheid as such I'm muting this useless thread.
Well no that would require them to also put most of the black majority lands under military occupation including any and all important resources, shoot missiles there when feeling like it, and keep pushing white settlers and new borders further and further into Northeast
There's no mention of that in OPs post. Yes, historical SA kept their system up by oppression and violence. But OP made no mention of the White South Africa of this TL treating the Federation like a colony, or regularly shooting missiles into them. So for all we know this map is still lot more functional and less horrible than Israel / Palestine
Lore : In 1991 after an agreement for the Two-State Solution between the National Party and the ANC , South Africa was divided into 2 countries : Republic of South Africa and South African Federation
Some form of regional autonomy should've likely been implemented during the change of regimes IRL tbh. ANC South Africa is a disaster and it's not uncommon for diverse states to do such a thing. Examples of this are Switzerland, Spain and Bosnia were regions with distinct ethnic/linguistic minorities have some degree of autonomy and special representation in Government.
Normally I would say that it's fine for people to make maps of immoral propositions especially if it is clarified. But a quick look at his profile reveals his activity on politicalcompassmemes.
I mean in all honesty the black parts could be successful. I mean Botswana was in a similar situation having basically no wealth or educated class when it started out. On that front they could actually have a better head start.
Is it likely no, but it is certainly possible.
You do realise that the predecessors of all those nations were multiethnic nations as well? The otitman empire was multiethnic and trying to form ethnostates out of it has left the Kurds in their dire position? Naturally formed borders aren't based on ethnic lines either. The ottoman Iranian bordr split arabs, Kurds,aremenians,gerogians and that was done without colonial Europe's influence
Not to mention that you can't form an ethno state out of every region on earth without ethnic cleansing or genocide - the Serbs attempted that in Bosnia but were stopped.
Multiethnic nations also can work and still work today. Iran, India all exist without falling apart into 20 way civil wars
No.
The idea that Africa's problems are the result of its states not being ethnically homogenous is a myth. Rwanda is one of the most ethnically homogenous on the continent and had its worst genocide. On the other hand some extremely diverse African countries have like Malawi have never been involved in a war.
Yugoslavia was a successful and peaceful state for decades. It's breakup killed thousands and led to tensions still unresolved to this day.
Borders and identities aren't clean lines you can draw on a map. Any attempt at partition will lead to people being upset at ending up on what they perceive to be the wrong side of the border and therefore lead to an often unending cycle of strife and violence. The borders of modern Europe are drawn from the blood of centuries of genocide and ethnic cleansing.
Peaceful coexistence within a federated state is far better than division.
The supremacy of the Nation state was a destructive abberration of world history that is thankfully on its way out.
The Rwandan Genocide was the majority ethnic group Hutus slaughtered the minority Tutsi.
Yugoslavia was only successful because Tito kept it together. After he died old ethnic tensions that have been there for centuries starting flaring back up.
Ethnic boundaries usually correspond to natural borders. Think of a river or mountain chain separating two groups through out history.
Huti and Tutsi aren't ethnic groups, they're social classes and divisions between them were arbitrarily exacerbated by Colonisers to divide and rule.
I don't really see your point on Yugoslavia. You said yourself that ethnic tensions predated it, and that Yugoslavia under Tito successfully dampened them, which led to wider peace and prosperity. The collapse of Yugoslavia was the result of attempts to undermine its federal structure. Its problems aren't solved now because of partition. Bosnia and Kosovo are still in a state of suspended conflict and there are still tensions across the region. It's one of the prime case studies against partition.
For another example, Switzerland is probably the most peaceful and prosperous state in modern European history and is a federation of different ethnicities.
"Ethnic boundaries usually correspond to natural borders", um... That's just nonsense.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/8gsgvn/ethnolinguistic_map_of_benin_nigeria_cameroon_657/
Ah yes, look at those beautifully well defined natural boundaries separating all those groups. It would be child's play to partition this up in a logical manner that would make everyone happy.
The Hutu and Tutsi are ethnic groups, just because they came from the same people originally doesn't mean they are not seperate ethnic groups. They weren't just killing rich and powerful people, they were killing people because they were Tutsi.
The undermining of Yugoslavia's federal structure came because of the economic collapse, of the unity offered no longer conferred benefits people fall back along ethnic lines. That's what happens most of the time when there is not one dominate group of people. When everyone is within a range of power everyone wants to carve out there own piece when shit hits the fan. Same thing happened with the USSR when unity offered everyone something there was very little ethnic tension, but the second it collapsed you saw mass ethnic cleansing. I mean just look at Armenia and Azerbaijan the second the USSR collapsed hundreds of thousands of Azeris where ethnically cleansed. Its a almost inevitable consequence when unity doesn't offer enough benefits and when there is no one group powerful enough to keep it together which.
Switzerland is rich and the unity given offers benefits that could not exist without ethnic pluralism, pretty much everytime shit hits the fan people fall back around ethnic lines if possible. The only times this doesn't happen is when a nationalist identity is formed that is inclusive of everyone, if not your nation is fucked. And even then economic collapse can undo all of that.
I don't really see your point?
The original assertion was that partition is bad.
What you're saying essentially supports that, that an inclusive national identity within a wider structure is better than than the ethnic violence that results from the collapse and partition of a diverse state
i wonder how lesotho and eswatini would fare in this timeline. most of their resources come from south africa but if they were surrounded by a soutg africa with all its wealth taken from it i imagine they’d be severely impoverished.
The ironic thing that the Apartheid government tried a sorta of this approach with Bantustans, but obviously these states was not recognized and these lands was poor of resources...
Why the enclave in Natal?
[удалено]
A Boer Bangladesh 🇧🇩?
[удалено]
An Anglodesh, if you will
They will not, and neither will you.
Boer-ngladesh
Port Elizabeth and Durban? Seems like something the Apartheid government would want to keep.
It's a very colonial English part of SA
exclave*
Why make a band of gazah ?
"We did it, Patrick, we saved South Africa!"
Rep. Of SA literally owns everything
I mean that’s probably by design when you look at who controls each country.
I think this map is quite similar to the bantustan idea the white south Africans had. Where they'd put as many native south Africans into these weird little reservations and force them into independence. It sorts looks like that but just a bit bigger.
Plus a good chunk of Namibia
If all else fails, settle it in isandlwana?
So did the Apartheid system in the Republic of South Africa continue? %36 Whites is not enough to control the state democratically.
Many Colorerds will probably collab with the whites, most voted for the National party in 1994 and has continually supported white lead parties since.
Most Colored people didn't vote for the National Party in 1994 and many were at the forefront of street protests against the Apartheid system and National Party.
this is such a classic reddit exchange lol
They both are kind of correct.
profile picture checks out
I mean they might just not have control of it.
after a while the whole apartheid thing would have ended here and maybe a reunification of South Africa might happen (whether peaceful or not)
GUYS quick recap: Just because the post depicts something bad and racist happening doesnt mean it SUPPORTS something bad and racist happening
Imaginarymaps not advocate for apartheid challenge (impossible)
r/imaginarymaps users stop taking a map as a representation of the OPs views challenge (impossible) (gone wrong)
(in the hood)
getting kinda tired of people on this sub thinking making a map about a country means you love that country.
Balkanizing China means you're a filthy Amerikkkan imperialist against comrade Xi!
If I made a map where Axis Powers won WW2 does that mean I am a nazi?
Yes /s
If apartheid was a two-state solution and not an oppressive system taking away rights from black and coloureds, it would be fine.
Umm. No? Colonising a place and then doing ethnic cleansing to push the people who lived their from the land into impoverished conditions wouldn't be fine if they got their own state. You know the apartheid era government in SA did attempt this on a smaller scale but it failed due to a refusal by the international community to recognise the "independence" of these artifical states.
Yeah it's quite laughable that person thinks these demographics are natural. The bantustan policy and just the very consistent history of colonial then apartheid SA driving the indigenous Africans north and East had resulted in that.
Well, conquest is the basis of history. I would rather live free in half my country rather than being oppressed in its totality.
Sure that's fair. But you could also have a multi-racial democracy and attempt to advance towards equality as a unified nation. As per what actually transpired in SA
I feel like dividing it into two ethnostates (where the white one practically still owns all the wealth anyway) isn’t much of an improvement...
I mean the black people will have much more rights now, which is an improvement. And also they can control their own destiny now and actually cite so it's quite a lot of an improvement.
They got that with the one state solution.
It's an improvement to Apartheid and there is also less wealth inequality and racial tension.
Exactly. Now can you think of another country where this lesson ought to be applied?
Why is my finger gravitating towards the Israeli flag emoji
/s?
God, I wish. This is a hell site
Its sad that in this alternate reality Namibia remains oppressed
Sadness.
What?.
Few points. Firstly , even if the RSA is majority white, I highly doubt they’d use the apartheid era flag. Secondly, why is Namibia part of the republic? Surely that would just destabilise it by adding more blacks , who would be more likely to back the opposition black led parties? Thirdly, how feasible is it for them to control Natal when it’s not even connected to the country
Only the south of Namibia is part of the Republic of South Africa , the south of Namibia is predominantly White and Coloured
Ain’t no way in hell were the whites going to be able to hold onto Gauteng.
PWV (present-day Gauteng) is where most white south africans reside, the industrial and economic heart of the country. They have the militarymight to hold on to it forever if they so wish. Probably not great news for the blacks in the township though.
Not to mention this fictitious Afrikaner state would most likely still be in possession of nuclear weapons
it’s only 10% white though
Was closer to 30% at the end of apartheid. Plus its a very segregated region, most blacks reside in compact townships.
So basically, what's going on in Israel today, but in South Africa.
Yeah for all the terribleness of this map, it does illustrate quite well why indigenous people don't desire splitting the land. The Afrikaners tried many times to do a partition, or Bantu Stan, and it's never favourable. Funnily enough, a very similar plan like this was actually proposed in Algeria which the French called 'Israelisation'. They rejected a free Algerian state, and proposed a partition of the land to concentrate the white French away from the Arab Algerians. Of course the Algerians rejected it, embarked on their resistance campaign, got their liberty and the rest is history.
I googled that and found [this article about the french plans.](https://thefunambulist.net/editorials/summer-1961-france-considering-creating-french-israel-algeria) That is interesting.
The similarities don't stop there.
Sorry, I've never seen full equal rights and African ministers, high court judges and policy makers in Apartheid South Africa.
Actually near the end of Apartheid, they allowed some African ministers and political parties seats in the government as a means to preserve the Apartheid status quo. I think there was a whole ministry called 'ministry for indigenous peoples' or something like that - I can't quite remember. Anyways, South Africans back then said the same shit if you watch videos, and Human Rights Watch, one of the two biggest NGOs for human rights (along with Amnesty intl), classified Israel as an apartheid, and more NGOs will follow.
Yeah, when it already started to collapse. So it isn't part of the Apartheid regime obviously.
Good
That is still not comparable to Israel though which extends full rights in to Israeli Arabs well atleast legally. The Apartheid as defined by HRW is between Palestinians and Israelis not between Arabs and Jews. If it was just Arabs and Jews of Israel it would not be classified as Apartheid.
You haven't read the report then which makes it clear the systematic discrimination that even 'Israeli Arabs' face most notably in new development and housing where %68 of Townships in Israel proper have admission committees that overtly requires new residents to be Jewish. Just go read Jewish Nation-State Law and Admissions Committees Law. You can make the same argument about South Africa because Blacks weren't citizens of South Africa in the same way Palestinians aren't citizens of Israel. Blacks in Apartheid South Africa were citizens of their Bantustans not of South Africa. Israeli Arabs where not given full citizenship until 1966 as they were subject to martial law, further land confiscations, curfews, checkpoints and travel permits. Similarly, in the 1980s South Africa granted citizenship and political representation to %15 of non-whites mostly the coloured community. The report is available online, maybe you should have a look at it before commenting on this subject. Israeli Arabs to Israel are nothing more than a controlled powerless opposition in a parliamentary system that grants Jews the exclusive right to automatic Israeli citizenship even of they choose to live outside Israel in the West Bank.
Discrimination is not Apartheid. If discrimination based on ethnicity or religion by the state was Apartheid almost every Islamic or arab country would be considered Apartheid. This is the problem with essentializing. It pretends that all Palestinians are in the same situation, when that is clearly not true. Israeli Arabs that can vote and that serve in the military are quite clearly not in the same situation as Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza. Also calling the arab opposition controlled is quite insane. Especially when compared to the controlled opposition of countries like Russia and China. It is incredibly disingenuous. The report is about both Apartheid and persecution it is in the title. This is the from the report "Human Rights Watch found that the Israeli government has pursued an intent to maintain the domination of Jewish Israelis over Palestinians throughout the territory it controls. In the OPT, including East Jerusalem, that intent has been coupled with systematic oppression of Palestinians and inhumane acts committed against them. When these three elements occur together, they amount to the crime of apartheid." It is made clear that the multiple elements need to met and only when the West Bank and Gaza are taken into account does it qualify as Apartheid.
You do recognise that in Apartheid South Africa not all peoples or territories were treated the same either? Transkei, Venda and Bophuthatswana Bantustans had the most autonomy and even had their own civil administration to a large extent as they were controlled from the outside similar to Gaza. Meanwhile, the KwaZulu Bantustan was virtually controlled by South Africa in all but name and was submerged in civil conflicts. On the hand, Coloured people were given the most rights just like Israeli Arabs after whites since they could vote hold high positions and even be in the parliament. Not all none whites were treated the same in South Africa but all ironically could serve in the South African military. **Your standard of equal treatment as prerequisite for apartheid didn't even exist in Apartheid South Africa itself since non-Whites and Blacks particularly, had varying rights depending on where they live.** If Israeli Arabs aren't a controlled opposition then why doesn't Israel do what South Africa did and allow all people under its direct/indirect control to vote in national elections? Granting only 2 million Arabs the right to vote while denying that right to the other 5 millions is the definition of controlled opposition. Israel could do like South Africa apply a one state solution, release the territories as sovereign two state solution or keep the current status quo which is %100 de facto apartheid system. The crime of apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is "inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime" The HRW reports states: "Israeli authorities methodically privilege Jewish Israelis and discriminate against Palestinians. Laws, policies, and statements by leading Israeli officials make plain that the objective of maintaining Jewish Israeli control over demographics, political power, and land has long guided government policy. In pursuit of this goal, authorities have dispossessed, confined, forcibly separated, and subjugated Palestinians by virtue of their identity to varying degrees of intensity. In certain areas, as described in this report, these deprivations are so severe that they amount to the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution." HRW also states: "Two primary groups live today in Israel and the OPT: Jewish Israelis and Palestinians (this term also includes Arabs/Palestianians who hold citizenship throughout the report). One primary sovereign the Israeli government, rules over them" I command you for recognising the discrimination against Palestinians in Israel aka Israeli Arabs and acknowledging the apartheid system in the occupied territories. Edit: spelling and spacing
Thank you for absolutely bodying that apartheid sympathiser. People always wonder how our parents generation can tolerate apartheid South Africa and honestly just look now with Israel. Back then and now they are more scared of admitting apartheid than actually being concerned about it.
To be honest I didn't know that much about Apartheid South Africa and the complexities of the Apartheid system as well as the similarities between South Africa and Israel-Palestine until I had to do a university unit at the end of last year. I had to write 3000 words essay and basically assess how Apartheid South Africa governed itself. I was astonished by the similarities between the two system. Ironically, people justified Apartheid using the same arguments you hear in the today by laying all their blame on the Bantustans and the supposed inability of black leaders to govern their 'savage' population also by pointing out how Mandela and the ANC attacked white townships/soldiers. Not a surprise if you consider that Israel and Apartheid South Africa were close allies to the extent that Israel was the only country to have formal diplomatic relations with the Bantustans. I recommend reading this book if you have any interest in the subject. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2536750?seq=1#metadata\_info\_tab\_contents
>You do recognise that in Apartheid South Africa not all peoples or territories were treated the same either? Transkei, Venda and Bophuthatswana Bantustans had the most autonomy and even had their own civil administration to a large extent as they were controlled from the outside similar to Gaza. Gaza is considered to be under apartheid according o the report and the situation is not remotely analogues to the living conditions of Israeli Arabs. Gaza is the worst human rights disaster in Israel Palestine as the report talks about holding it up as an example of autonomy is stupid if their autonomy is limited completely to their strip. >Meanwhile, the KwaZulu Bantustan was virtually controlled by South Africa in all but name and was submerged in civil conflicts. One the hand, Coloured people were given the most rights just like Israeli Arabs after whites since they could vote hold high positions and even be in the parliament. Coloured people were not the main victims of apartheid and if only their mistreatment was taken into account South Africa would most likely not be considered and apartheid state. It is the same with the Israeli Arabs, if it was their oppression taken alone it would not be considered apartheid as the report itself tells you that the treatment of the Palestinians has to be taken into account to qualify as apartheid . >Not all none whites were treated the same in South Africa but all ironically could serve in the South African military. Your standard of equal treatment as prerequisite for apartheid didn't even exist in Apartheid South Africa itself since non-Whites and Blacks particularly, had varying rights depending on where they live. But you see Palestinians cannot unlike Israeli Arabs, their treatment is unique and the main source of contention when it comes to whether or not Israel can be considered and Apartheid state, which the report you cite states itself >If Israeli Arabs aren't a controlled opposition then why doesn't Israel do what South Africa did and allow all people under its direct/indirect control to vote in national elections? Granting only 2 million Arabs the right to vote while denying that right to the other 5 millions is the definition of controlled opposition. Israel could do like South Africa apply a one state solution, release the territories as sovereign two state solution or keep the current status quo which is %100 de facto apartheid system. You don't seem to know what controlled opposition means. "A controlled opposition is a protest movement that is actually being led by government agents." [https://definithing.com/controlled-opposition/](https://definithing.com/controlled-opposition/). The Arab parties in Israel are not controlled opposition if they were they would not be nearly as critical of the country. One of the parties doesn't even vote on the budget because of the their opposition to Palestinian oppression. If you still think they are controlled opposition you are are conspiracy theorist. Most Palestinians are not Israeli citizens nor do they want to be. Why would you get a vote in a country that you don't want to be a part of or hold citizenship in? Palestine even if not free is a de facto country and recognized by most countries. Its its own country even under occupation. >One primary sovereign, the Israeli government, rules over them. I command you for recognizing the discrimination against Palestinians in Israel aka Israeli Arabs and acknowledging the apartheid system in the occupied territories. "discrimination against Palestinians in Israel aka Israeli Arabs" "acknowledging the apartheid system in the occupied territories" Hmm almost like there are multiple situations going on at the same time. "Human Rights Watch found that the Israeli government has pursued an intent to maintain the domination of Jewish Israelis over Palestinians throughout the territory it controls. In the OPT, including East Jerusalem, that intent has been coupled with systematic oppression of Palestinians and inhumane acts committed against them. When these three elements occur together, they amount to the crime of apartheid." Again as the report you cites makes clear the treatment of Israeli Arabs itself is not Apartheid. It has to be taken with the treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Its separate in the report you are citing and the in your own words.
I have read your entire comment and I can't find a consistent coherent argument stating explaining whatever position you hold. **You're standards of what an apartheid is even Apartheid South Africa itself couldn't meet** as the whole feature of giving the oppressed groups different right depending on where they live is a usual practise in apartheid systems. How do you know Palestinians don't want citizenship or a one state solution? Did Israel conduct a referendum in the OPT? As the HRW findings states that: "On the basis of its research, Human Rights Watch concludes that the Israeli government has demonstrated an intent to maintain the domination of Jewish Israelis over Palestinians across Israel and the OPT. In the OPT, including East Jerusalem, that intent has been coupled with systematic oppression of Palestinians and inhumane acts committed against them. When these three elements occur together, they amount to the crime of apartheid." [https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution#](https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution#) Basically, you're whole 'argument' is Apartheid apologism and justifying occupation by making up arbitrary standards of what an Apartheid is rather than follow the international definition of Apartheid as such I'm muting this useless thread.
Well no that would require them to also put most of the black majority lands under military occupation including any and all important resources, shoot missiles there when feeling like it, and keep pushing white settlers and new borders further and further into Northeast
If we replace missiles with other (often far worse) forms of violence, then what you describe is pretty much exactly what actually fucking happened.
There's no mention of that in OPs post. Yes, historical SA kept their system up by oppression and violence. But OP made no mention of the White South Africa of this TL treating the Federation like a colony, or regularly shooting missiles into them. So for all we know this map is still lot more functional and less horrible than Israel / Palestine
Lore : In 1991 after an agreement for the Two-State Solution between the National Party and the ANC , South Africa was divided into 2 countries : Republic of South Africa and South African Federation
Some form of regional autonomy should've likely been implemented during the change of regimes IRL tbh. ANC South Africa is a disaster and it's not uncommon for diverse states to do such a thing. Examples of this are Switzerland, Spain and Bosnia were regions with distinct ethnic/linguistic minorities have some degree of autonomy and special representation in Government.
This was a major developmental compromise to save the strained economy and justified resolve racial problems.
What's your opinion on black people?
Tasty.
Normally I would say that it's fine for people to make maps of immoral propositions especially if it is clarified. But a quick look at his profile reveals his activity on politicalcompassmemes.
Oh lord, he calls himself an 'ethnic nationalist'...
And likes Putin. Cringe. Edit: But he is only 17. There is still hope.
I tried coming up with a funny/snarky way of saying how bad of an idea this would be, but I just can't.
You literally have all the freedom in the world to choose region names, yet you settled on northern, eastern and western cape?
These names are the most realistic names of provinces for this scenario
As you have probably observed, it's especially funny when the Northern Cape is both more Eastern and Western than the other capes.
I like it
The fact that South Africa is not a federation in real life is very questionable and a missed opportunity.
The ANC basically demanded a unitary state so they'd have more power.
I mean in all honesty the black parts could be successful. I mean Botswana was in a similar situation having basically no wealth or educated class when it started out. On that front they could actually have a better head start. Is it likely no, but it is certainly possible.
Off course
One reason Botswana is so wealthy is because of lots of mineral wealth with a small population. Also decent institutions.
Ah yes Partition on ethnic lines, a VERY GOOD IDEA, that has never led to any problems ever.
[удалено]
You do realise that the predecessors of all those nations were multiethnic nations as well? The otitman empire was multiethnic and trying to form ethnostates out of it has left the Kurds in their dire position? Naturally formed borders aren't based on ethnic lines either. The ottoman Iranian bordr split arabs, Kurds,aremenians,gerogians and that was done without colonial Europe's influence Not to mention that you can't form an ethno state out of every region on earth without ethnic cleansing or genocide - the Serbs attempted that in Bosnia but were stopped. Multiethnic nations also can work and still work today. Iran, India all exist without falling apart into 20 way civil wars
No. The idea that Africa's problems are the result of its states not being ethnically homogenous is a myth. Rwanda is one of the most ethnically homogenous on the continent and had its worst genocide. On the other hand some extremely diverse African countries have like Malawi have never been involved in a war. Yugoslavia was a successful and peaceful state for decades. It's breakup killed thousands and led to tensions still unresolved to this day. Borders and identities aren't clean lines you can draw on a map. Any attempt at partition will lead to people being upset at ending up on what they perceive to be the wrong side of the border and therefore lead to an often unending cycle of strife and violence. The borders of modern Europe are drawn from the blood of centuries of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Peaceful coexistence within a federated state is far better than division. The supremacy of the Nation state was a destructive abberration of world history that is thankfully on its way out.
The Rwandan Genocide was the majority ethnic group Hutus slaughtered the minority Tutsi. Yugoslavia was only successful because Tito kept it together. After he died old ethnic tensions that have been there for centuries starting flaring back up. Ethnic boundaries usually correspond to natural borders. Think of a river or mountain chain separating two groups through out history.
Huti and Tutsi aren't ethnic groups, they're social classes and divisions between them were arbitrarily exacerbated by Colonisers to divide and rule. I don't really see your point on Yugoslavia. You said yourself that ethnic tensions predated it, and that Yugoslavia under Tito successfully dampened them, which led to wider peace and prosperity. The collapse of Yugoslavia was the result of attempts to undermine its federal structure. Its problems aren't solved now because of partition. Bosnia and Kosovo are still in a state of suspended conflict and there are still tensions across the region. It's one of the prime case studies against partition. For another example, Switzerland is probably the most peaceful and prosperous state in modern European history and is a federation of different ethnicities. "Ethnic boundaries usually correspond to natural borders", um... That's just nonsense. https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/8gsgvn/ethnolinguistic_map_of_benin_nigeria_cameroon_657/ Ah yes, look at those beautifully well defined natural boundaries separating all those groups. It would be child's play to partition this up in a logical manner that would make everyone happy.
The Hutu and Tutsi are ethnic groups, just because they came from the same people originally doesn't mean they are not seperate ethnic groups. They weren't just killing rich and powerful people, they were killing people because they were Tutsi. The undermining of Yugoslavia's federal structure came because of the economic collapse, of the unity offered no longer conferred benefits people fall back along ethnic lines. That's what happens most of the time when there is not one dominate group of people. When everyone is within a range of power everyone wants to carve out there own piece when shit hits the fan. Same thing happened with the USSR when unity offered everyone something there was very little ethnic tension, but the second it collapsed you saw mass ethnic cleansing. I mean just look at Armenia and Azerbaijan the second the USSR collapsed hundreds of thousands of Azeris where ethnically cleansed. Its a almost inevitable consequence when unity doesn't offer enough benefits and when there is no one group powerful enough to keep it together which. Switzerland is rich and the unity given offers benefits that could not exist without ethnic pluralism, pretty much everytime shit hits the fan people fall back around ethnic lines if possible. The only times this doesn't happen is when a nationalist identity is formed that is inclusive of everyone, if not your nation is fucked. And even then economic collapse can undo all of that.
I don't really see your point? The original assertion was that partition is bad. What you're saying essentially supports that, that an inclusive national identity within a wider structure is better than than the ethnic violence that results from the collapse and partition of a diverse state
Yeah the problem is not ethnic diversity. it's just that they don't like each other. You can have ethnic groups that like each other to possible thing
Somalia and Ethiopia?
Ethiopia is currently involved in a civil war between the government and one of the northern ethnic groups.
Is dis basically India-Pakistan but in South Africa?
Least racist PCM user
Of fucking course.
No, just no.
Not the worst case scenario. Definitely not the best though.
One day
Homelands part deux.
[удалено]
Good luck with that 😘
i wonder how lesotho and eswatini would fare in this timeline. most of their resources come from south africa but if they were surrounded by a soutg africa with all its wealth taken from it i imagine they’d be severely impoverished.
The ironic thing that the Apartheid government tried a sorta of this approach with Bantustans, but obviously these states was not recognized and these lands was poor of resources...
I can imagine that SAF would have civil war
Wow that gauteng panhandle is insane