Israel-Hamas War 2023

[crazy canuck]

White South Africans were the ones who ended apartheid.  That is why I said white South Africans.  Pretending that other South Africans end apartheid is ridiculous.

I specifically said F.W. de Klerk, because that is factual, but it did involve more than just him and more than just whites. There was a negotiation process between the ANC and the NP, the NP would likely not have agreed to a democratic constitution without a consultative process. A lot of NP hardliners had fears the ANC would do things they deeply opposed (the ANC was linked to communist powers historically, so there was a fear they might attempt to make post-apartheid South Africa into a communist state--which did not happen and there were negotiations around many of those key points.)

I haven't looked it up, but that sounds accurate.  But the point remains that apartheid would not have ended if the White South Africans had not decided to do so.  Would they have come to that conclusion eventually on their own?  Maybe. But the fact is the were pushed to do it by the actions of the international community and the US and UK in particular. 

And if you want to get deeper into the historical record, the US president and the UK Prime Minister were reluctant to act (especially Thatcher) but Mulroney convinced them to do that right thing.

[Barrister]

It is a false narrative that the U.S. with the stroke of a pen can make Israel stop fighting a war.

Probably not.  But the US did end apartheid in South Africa more or less with the stroke of a pen.

F.W. de Klerk ended apartheid, not the United States. I think your analysis of those events is severely off base.

The White South Africans were forced into it. Any analysis that pretends that they did it because they wanted to his not only off base it's a severe distortion of history.

You are way over-generalizing.  The white South Africans were comprised of a large set of disparate people with disparate views on Apartheid.  Any analysis that fails to acknowledge this is not only off base it's a severe distortion of history.

US policy on Apartheid led to trade sanctions in 1986 (the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act).  South Africa adopted a  democratic constitution in 1993.  Someone claiming a causal link needs to demonstrate why it took so long and none of the intervening events were the actual causes, if the CAAA was supposed to be the cause.

I think it's also a mistake to say that it was only the white south africans who ended apartheid.

Would apartheid have ended if Nelson Mandela continued to be a violent revolutionary after his release?  Instead de Klerk and others seemed generally impressed that Mandela was committed to a peaceful transfer to majority rule and to a multi-racial future for south africa.

To come back to Israel that's one of the differences here.  When it comes to Gaza is there a Mandela-like figure with whom Israel can negotiate with?

[crazy canuck]

Oof, so much revisionism.  Mandela refused the conditions of his release and that is why he had to wait until 1990 when he was released unconditionally.

[OttoVonBismarck]

In 1991 Mandela signed a peace accord in which both "his side" and the NP (and various associated groups with each) agreed to an end to violence going forward. There was still violence for the next few years, but Mandela worked to stamp it out even within his own side. If Mandela had committed to eternal violence in 1991 it is unlikely de Klerk and the ANC would have made agreements, the situation likely would have lead to civil war and probably a fracturing of the country along geographical racial lines.

The comparison to Israel-Palestine breaks down badly in this respect, as no Palestinian leader has ever meaningfully controlled the violence on their side. Most have not meaningfully denounced it. The ANC side was far more open to genuine peace negotiations and longer term commitment to a shared society.

The Palestinians want land that is currently filled with Jews, and they largely want the Jews removed from that land so they can have it. It is a far harder problem because what the two sides want is very directly oppositional. In South Africa the blacks main goal was a democratic society. Some wanted major forced redistribution of white lands and even retribution against whites for apartheid, but their leadership was willing to back off most of the extreme positions.

The white side wanted a strict federal system where the mostly white western half of the country (much of that half being very low density ranches / farms) would have near-autonomy, but the ANC was not willing to concede that much, they insisted on a unitary system with no Federalism. The sides compromised on a system that met roughly in the middle. That sort of compromise has largely never been meaningfully pursued w/Israel-Palestine other than arguably during brief periods in which Oslo was believed to be a path forward, but it appears the Palestinians never really accepted Oslo, and the Israelis only did as a people very briefly before a lot of them turned hard against it.

[crazy canuck]

In 1991 Mandela signed a peace accord in which both "his side" and the NP (and various associated groups with each) agreed to an end to violence going forward. There was still violence for the next few years, but Mandela worked to stamp it out even within his own side. If Mandela had committed to eternal violence in 1991 it is unlikely de Klerk and the ANC would have made agreements, the situation likely would have lead to civil war and probably a fracturing of the country along geographical racial lines.

The comparison to Israel-Palestine breaks down badly in this respect, as no Palestinian leader has ever meaningfully controlled the violence on their side. Most have not meaningfully denounced it. The ANC side was far more open to genuine peace negotiations and longer term commitment to a shared society.

The Palestinians want land that is currently filled with Jews, and they largely want the Jews removed from that land so they can have it. It is a far harder problem because what the two sides want is very directly oppositional. In South Africa the blacks main goal was a democratic society. Some wanted major forced redistribution of white lands and even retribution against whites for apartheid, but their leadership was willing to back off most of the extreme positions.

The white side wanted a strict federal system where the mostly white western half of the country (much of that half being very low density ranches / farms) would have near-autonomy, but the ANC was not willing to concede that much, they insisted on a unitary system with no Federalism. The sides compromised on a system that met roughly in the middle. That sort of compromise has largely never been meaningfully pursued w/Israel-Palestine other than arguably during brief periods in which Oslo was believed to be a path forward, but it appears the Palestinians never really accepted Oslo, and the Israelis only did as a people very briefly before a lot of them turned hard against it.

I also agree with all of that.

But the critical point is that Mandela agreed after he had been released, and as I stated before, he had been released without conditions because by 1990 the international pressure on South Africa had become intense.

That where there is a parallel with what is happening in Israel, unless there is international pressure on Israel, the extreme right wing in that country will continue to be unrestrained in their actions.  And a two state solution will be impossible.

[grumbler]

White South Africans were the ones who ended apartheid.  That is why I said white South Africans.  Pretending that other South Africans end apartheid is ridiculous.


Almost as ridiculous as pretending that the actions of the United States and the UK didn't play a role in the decision of White South Africans to end apartheid.

White South Africans were among those who ended Apartheid.  Apartheid ended (as Otto notes above) as a result of an agreement between the South African government and the ANC.  Pretending that no non-white South Africans were involved in the end of apartheid is ridiculous.

Almost as ridiculous as arguing that the involvement of outside powers (including the US and UK, but not limited to them) is anything but a truism and a strawman argument.

[crazy canuck]

White South Africans were the ones who ended apartheid.  That is why I said white South Africans.  Pretending that other South Africans end apartheid is ridiculous.


Almost as ridiculous as pretending that the actions of the United States and the UK didn't play a role in the decision of White South Africans to end apartheid.

White South Africans were among those who ended Apartheid.  Apartheid ended (as Otto notes above) as a result of an agreement between the South African government and the ANC.  Pretending that no non-white South Africans were involved in the end of apartheid is ridiculous.

Almost as ridiculous as arguing that the involvement of outside powers (including the US and UK, but not limited to them) is anything but a truism and a strawman argument.

Well, there is at least some progress, you are at least now realizing that White South Africans were one of the parties.  Now go all the way and come the realization that White South Africans were the ones giving up their power.

[Barrister]

White South Africans were among those who ended Apartheid.  Apartheid ended (as Otto notes above) as a result of an agreement between the South African government and the ANC.  Pretending that no non-white South Africans were involved in the end of apartheid is ridiculous.

Almost as ridiculous as arguing that the involvement of outside powers (including the US and UK, but not limited to them) is anything but a truism and a strawman argument.

I feel like you're missing part of your last sentence.

[grumbler]

Well, there is at least some progress, you are at least now realizing that White South Africans were one of the parties.  Now go all the way and come the realization that White South Africans were the ones giving up their power.

Well, there is at least some progress, you are at least now realizing that White South Africans were one of the parties.  Now go all the way and come the realization that white South Africans  were not the only party in the negotiations that led to the post-Apartheid constitution (and, in fact, begin to realize that anti-apartheid white South Africans did, indeed, exist). 

[grumbler]

White South Africans were among those who ended Apartheid.  Apartheid ended (as Otto notes above) as a result of an agreement between the South African government and the ANC.  Pretending that no non-white South Africans were involved in the end of apartheid is ridiculous.

Almost as ridiculous as arguing that the involvement of outside powers (including the US and UK, but not limited to them) is anything but a truism and a strawman argument.

I feel like you're missing part of your last sentence.

If I cut it out the parenthetical, it reads "Almost as ridiculous as arguing that the involvement of outside powers is anything but a truism and a strawman argument."  CC makes statements like "pretending that the actions of the United States and the UK didn't play a role in the decision of White South Africans to end apartheid" as if anyone is actually pretending that.  Contrarians cannot resist strawman/truism arguments when their intellectual arguments cannot carry their side.

[Barrister]

Such an odd argument.  Of course like any big geo-political events there were many parties involved.

It's like the Russians claiming they won WWII.  I mean sure they played a big part - but I suspect the outcome owuld have been different if the west wasn't supplying lend-lease aid and tieing down troops in Africa, the Battle of Britain, Italy and then France.


de Klerk and the National Party deserve credit for deciding to sign an agreement and end white rule.  Mandela and the ANC deserve credit for negotiating a deal that was respectful of some white south african concerns.  International pressure deserves credit.  Anti-apartheid white south africans deserve credit. Other black south african parties deserve credit for respecting the deal as well (even if critical of portions).  I'm sure there are others I'm missing. 

[OttoVonBismarck]

This whole digression started with me basically saying (paraphrasing): "The United States doesn't have the power to just stop a war with purely soft power actions like cutting off aid or imposing economic sanctions."

Yi (also paraphrasing): "The U.S. did basically end apartheid that way."

Me (para): "No, F.W. de Klerk ended apartheid, the U.S. didn't cause it."

My assumption is that it was understood that yes, external economic pressures were certainly a "factor" in de Klerk's decision making. But pretending that soft power pressure, essentially "overnight" ended apartheid is simply not true. It also creates the wrong impression that you can achieve such ends via soft power. In fact, people often reference the "successful campaign" of using soft power against apartheid South Africa as the epitome of successful uses of soft power.

Many of those same people are often frustrated and confused that soft power continues to fail, time and time again, in many similar circumstances. This is because soft power really doesn't achieve things like that on its own. It can contribute to a desired outcome, but it basically never creates that outcome.

I think apartheid was unique in comparison to many other "intractable problems" we attempt to influence via soft power because of a number of important factors, and understanding them probably helps to understand why no, it wasn't just U.S. sanction that caused it to fall apart, and why it isn't a magic winning strategy to solve Israel-Palestine or any other similar conflict.

1. Apartheid was imposed by a very small demographic minority on a very large majority. For most of the 20th century, the white population was relatively stable at around 20% of the national population, by 1990 it was already obvious demographics were going to exacerbate the situation. The white population had shrunk to a bit under 18%, not a huge drop--but remember, it had been stable at around 20% for almost 100 years prior. The black population had very high birth rates compared to the white. This was not a topic the white South Africans were ignorant of, or unconcerned about--they were certainly well aware of this. It should go without saying a shrinking minority has obvious logistical / practical concerns in continuing to perpetuate such a system.

2. Apartheid was not uncontroversial among the ruling minority population. There was white opposition to apartheid going back at least 30-40 years before it ended, and that opposition had actually been steadily growing. In the 70s and 80s around 15-20% of white voters were voting for an anti-apartheid party--when you are already a small and shrinking minority, internal dissension among your own side puts you in a precarious position. It should be noted in 1989, the last South African elections held under apartheid, de Klerk had made it clear he planned to lead the NP in the direction of compromise and negotiation with anti-apartheid groups like the ANC. This lead to hardline anti-reform Afrikaners forming a breakaway absolutist pro-apartheid party they simply labeled the "Conservative Party", in the elections, the NP won ~48%, the conservatives 31%, and the traditional leftist/progressive white opposition won around 15%. This means in the final apartheid era elections in which only whites could vote, the support for maintaining apartheid no matter what fell to around 31%, when that was the governing platform of the majority party (the NP) for its prior existence. This shows significant general fatigue / distaste etc for apartheid even among the white population. While there are some minority groups that rule large majorities (like Assad as an Alawite in Syria) it is very hard for a minority that allows democratic participation of its own group, to maintain such rule when its own group is not united in that sort of rule. (Guys like Assad are minority group dictators, so don't have to worry about that aspect of losing popular support among Alawites.)

3. The Harare declaration which was adopted in 1989 by the ANC and some other resistance groups was very important. Previously, all of these groups had maintained they would more or less utilize "any means necessary" to resist apartheid, including fighting using all forms of force possible. This created a scenario where it was often seen by white South Africans as them against violent, armed people who were non-whites and "coming for them." The Harare declaration didn't completely foreswear violence (that didn't come until the peace agreement a few years later), but it made clear the ANC was willing to negotiate and form a multiethnic democracy--remember that for much of its existence the ANC was somewhat backed by international communist forces and was more or less not making any promises--creating fears that if they ever came to power it would be like what happened when the whites lost their civil war in Zimbabwe--mass seizure of white lands and an angry black revolutionary government ready to get payback for years of being repressed. The ANC and other groups in the Harare declaration committed to this not being their governing mindset.

3 is really important in large part, when talking about things like Israel-Palestine, because it shows more reasonableness and willingness to compromise than any meaningful portion of Palestinians have ever shown. The entire conflict would be far different if that was a typical Palestinian position instead of a niche one virtually never held by any Palestinian armed groups.

[viper37]

Iranian Official Calls to Expel Israel From Women's Rights Conference

Latest Developments
A senior Iranian official on March 11 called for the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) to expel Israel from its ranks. In a speech before the commission's 68th annual gathering, Iranian Vice President for Women and Family Affairs Ensieh Khazali falsely accused Israel of "rape and murder of millions of women and children" and claimed that women in Iran have seen "rapid progress" since the Islamic Revolution.

Khazali's address comes just days after the UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights released a report saying that Iran's "violent repression of peaceful protests and pervasive institutional discrimination against women and girls" has led to human rights violations, some of which amount to "crimes against humanity." In December 2022, Iran's treatment of women and girls following the regime's killing of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini led the UN Economic and Social Council to vote 29-8, with 16 abstentions, to remove Iran from the CSW for the remainder of its term on the commission, which would have lasted until 2026. Despite Iran's expulsion, the commission allowed Khazali to address it.

Expert Analysis
"If the UN wants to be viewed as a serious body with the power to improve the lives of women and girls around the world, it needs to rethink who appears on its stage. At a time when women in the Islamic Republic face harsh punishment for dancing in public, attending sports events at stadiums, or dressing as they wish, providing a platform to Ms. Khazali, who used it to deflect attention from her government's pervasive women's rights abuses, makes a mockery of the CSW." — Toby Dershowitz, Managing Director at FDD Action

"The last place the Islamic Republic should be is a meeting in New York City at the Commission on the Status of Women. Granting a visa for a regime official like Khazali, who promotes regime propaganda on the hijab, the Mahsa Amini protests, and the gender segregation that exists in Iranian law, is an own goal for the United States, particularly as Washington claims to stand with Iranian women, dissidents, and protestors."

Go Iran! You tell them!

I'm not sure we have the same definition of progress as them though.

[Valmy]

The rapid progress towards benefiting from the wisdom of the Islamic Republic.

[Duque de Bragança]

The rapid progress towards benefiting from the wisdom of the Islamic Republic.

Free sex-change operations for homosexuals. Take that decadent imperialist countries!