> Bryan wrote:
>
>>
>> Maybe I am missing something? I thought that apartheid ended over ten
>> years ago in South Africa? I thought that Nelson Mandela became
>> president in 1994?
>>
>> Did I hallucinate all that?
>
> joanna wrote:
> Why no. You didn't. Apartheid is dead in SA; just like racism has ended
> in the U.S.
>
> Oh, and while we're at it, did you know that Israel is the only
> democracy in the Middle East?
>
> Joanna
OK...we can argue about de facto vs. de jure understandings of apartheid, but my understanding was the definition of apartheid as an official policy of discrimination.
As one dictionary def: "An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites."
Now, I would completely agree(with the very amatuer knowledge I have of South Africa)that the social and political inertia of apartheid SA is probably still quite strong, leading to political, social, economic (distribution of resources) and legal discrimination. But are you saying that one should define this as merely the continuation of apartheid SA under a new ruse? Old wine in new bottles?
By this reasoning we can perhaps define the US as still a slave owning society, no different than pre-Civil War America. Transmutation of plantation slavery to migrant labour and wage slavery...nothin's changed, huh?
Fine, that may be politically empowering in some ways, pointing out historical continuities between past regimes and present...but doesn't it also obscure that de jure changes do have effects, open up potentialities, change dynamics, etc.
Anyway, this whole argument seems a bit silly and semantic.
All I was saying is that the (re)opening of (especially) defence ties between Israel and SA (a South Africa that many rightly or wrongly percieve as post-apartheid), at a time when there is momentum in certain quarters around the world to push for economic and academic boycott of Israel against their policies of occupation and settlement, has the potential for detrimental impact beyond the opening of Israeli ties with other countries. Why? Because, more often than not, the justification for boycott against Israel is the perception that the historical boycott against apartheid South Africa was effective and contributed to the end of the apartheid regime. (Actually, your critique of my assumption that apartheid ended in SA opens up an interesting point. You seem to be saying that SA is still apartheid. So, therefore, the assumption that the boycott against SA was successful must also be wrong. Obviously it didn't succeed if apartheid still exists in South Africa? So then, what is the use of a boycott against Israel?) Maybe the potential for impact is due to misassumptions regarding the present South African government, but a real potential impact nonetheless.
Much like the damage done by Sari Nusseibeh, president of Al-Quds University, who spoke out against the AUT boycott in London at a human-rights conference. (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1116987511556)
While his statement was mererly the remark of one individual, his structural positioning as a well known Palestinian intellectual, gave weight to his remark that went far beyond what statements by multitudes of others individuals had. Particularily as a tool in the hands of the anti-boycott forces saying: "See, even prominant Palestinians are against the boycott." The ability for this to have happened had a lot to do with external (mis)understanding of how the majority of Palestinians view him, and his remarks would have come as no surprise if one had knowledge of the contraversy surrounding other statements he has made in the past, especially regarding the Right of Return (http://www.shaml.org/ground/Nusseibeh/).