Donald Trump’s decision to unilaterally recognised Jerusalem/Al-Quds as the “Israeli” capital has opened up a wider dialogue among historic supporters of Palestine, who are now taking action to address their present day concerns regarding the condition of the Palestinian people.
One of the most meaningful moves in this regard has come from the government of South Africa’s new President Cyril Ramaphosa. Ramaphosa’s ruling African National Congress party has pledged to sever diplomatic ties with Tel Aviv in order to highlight the concerns about the continued suffering of Palestinians.
Beyond being a deeply ethical move from Pretoria, it also helps dispel the Zionist propaganda that “Israel” is not an Apartheid state. For years, “Israeli” lobby groups have been trying to bully individuals, organisations and even nations into refraining form using the word Apartheid to describe the condition of occupied Palestine.
For South Africa to now come out and acknowledge “Israel’s” Apartheid through an official diplomatic move is a direct confirmation that those who led the struggle against the original Apartheid, continue to view “Israel” in the same way that they viewed the pre-1994 racist regime in their own country.
South Africa’s modern founder Nelson Mandela continually emphasised the fact that the ANC’s struggle in South Africa was linked to that of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Mandela once stated,
“We know all too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians”.
While many prefer to view Mandela as the leader of a successful cause to liberate his country from an oppressive regime, Mandela continued to think of himself to his dying day as a champion for wider liberation struggles in Africa and beyond. This is why, much to the chagrin of western pundits, he maintained his longstanding friendship with Libyan Revolutionary Leader Muammar Gaddafi throughout his life, while condemning the NATO invasion of Libya in 2011, two years before Mandela himself died of natural causes.
All debates about whether or not “Israel” can and should be called an Apartheid state are no longer relevant. The heirs to the struggle against the original Apartheid have made their feelings abundantly clear.