I have a question but I want to make it clear that I am asking in good faith as I fumble my way through understanding the complexities of geopolitics, and I am not casting aspersions or pushing a conspiracy theory. I am especially not taking a position in defense of Israel, or against their accountability to the ICC.
Okay, that said: Is South Africa pushing this at the behest of Russia, like as a BRICS thing? The only other thing I can think of is that this helps improve the image of an embattled ANC at home.
I get why they have a unique perspective given their defeat of apartheid, and that’s likely the steelman for why they are advancing this, but that just seems like too pat of an answer.
As horrible as South African apartheid was, what is happening to the Palestinans is degrees worse.
Ordinary South Africans still remember the deep damage Apartheid perpetrators inflicted on us, it’s poisonous remnants are still affecting us as a country to this day as we try to heal as a people.
Now imagine South Africans seeing what Israel is perpetrating against the Palestinians, now and in the past. It’s a punch to the gut, a searing pain, to see what was done to us and our parents being done to Palestinians. We’re seeing a gross refined version of Apartheid that was inflicted on us being inflicted on the Palestinians. And largely the so called west/ global north is cheering for the Israeli Apartheid regime commiting genocide. It makes me sick to my core.
For these reasons there is immense pressure on our government by civil society to denounce Israel and support Palestine. It does help that the ANC has always been pro Palestinian in the first place. Also it’s elections this year so the ANC definitely wants some good pr too.
I would say that these points factor in way more than any link to Russia or China
I’ve heard Irish people say they support Palestine for similar reasons. They didn’t go through an apartheid, but they went through oppressive colonization being done on them.
I suspect whats going on here is that the South Africans know what kind of people Zionists are, since the old apartheid government used to partner with them.
It’s probably a similar reason to why the european country that first asked for sanctions againat Israel was the Republic of Ireland, who like Palestine and until the early XX Century was occupied and oppressed by a larger neighbhour, in their case the United Kingdom: when you suffered it yourself or grew up hearing the stories from those who suffered it, it’s a lot easier to understand the true depth and hurt of what’s being done to a people in a similar situation as you, your paraents or even grandparents were once in.
It also explains why Germany still unwaveringly supports Israel: they naturally empathise with the strong military power that’s trying to control a “lesser race” in a territory they occupy - it’s painfully obvious that “never again” wasn’t at all about the violent genocide of a weaker ethnic group by a stronger one driven by cold violent extreme racism (the kind who describes another etnic group as untermenschen/human animals) and greed, but was only ever about Germans vs Jews, hence Germany ending up again involved in a Holocaust on the side of the genociders.
An additional perspective is that the Apartheid government became an ally of convenience with Israel to the point that they created a joint nuclear weapons program together. Then you have the political pressure African union states have for maintaining robust trading agreements with Arab states. There’s a ton of history there
I don’t think it’s a BRICS thing at all. It’s what their own population want. South Africa has long been critical of apartheid in Israel.
Moreover back when South Africa was under Apartheid, for a long time Israel was one of its main trading partners even after the west had imposed sanctions, and it also contributed directly to the white military. They eventually joined the boycott but the damage was done.
I think South Africans just have a more defined (and more recent) sense of pride when it comes to standing up against Apartheid. They recognize the rhetoric and the legal justifications from Israel’s right wing. I had the privilege of studying law under someone who helped to right the ship in South Africa, an American constitutional law scholar who worked with President Mandela to help write their new Constitution in the late 1990’s. They are immensely proud of it as a document that secures human rights for people.
As an aside, just as Hamas must be thought of as separate from the Palestinians, the far right Israeli leadership needs to be thought of distinct from the Israeli people.
There are plenty of people in Israel who think their government has been going too far, and there are plenty more people who think their response after the attacks were justified but have since gone too far.
The danger is not really Israel or Zionism, it is nationalism, a perversion of patriotism that works to justify people’s worst emotional reactions.
Have you just never experienced what manners are good online discourse look like? I admit its rare thing, but your statement reads like you’re looking at a filet mignon and asking why its missing a leaf of iceberg lettuce, a dollop of ketchup, and a sesame seed bun.
Let’s just say that, hypothetically, the OP didn’t hold a pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli viewpoint. In that case, would they have to lie and add those disclaimers in order to be “well mannered”?
My point is that anyone should be able to ask a simple question about why South Africa are the ones filing this case at the ICJ. It shouldn’t matter what their overarching beliefs are, nor should they be required to submit their liberal bona fides before they are allowed ask the question.
Let’s just say that, hypothetically, the OP didn’t hold a pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli viewpoint. In that case, would they have to lie and add those disclaimers in order to be “well mannered”?
You’re putting too much emphasis on the “manners” part and not enough on the “good discourse” part.
Part of communicating is not only the idea you’re trying to discuss, but the context of where the requestor is in understanding the topic, and the tone the requestor is intending for the further discussion. I think you’re seeing the “disclaimers” as you call them as apologies, or some kind of shibboleth or dog whistle to those who may answer that the requestor is part of the “in group”. If so, I think that’s your mistake.
Instead the requestor is opening up to be vulnerable as a cost in search of truth. They’re admitting their gaps in knowledge and calling out places where they have some understanding. They’re giving a short map of their “swiss cheese” understanding of the topic. In effect they’re saying “I only know a few bits. There is a lot I don’t know, but I’d like to learn”.
My point is that anyone should be able to ask a simple question about why South Africa are the ones filing this case at the ICJ. It shouldn’t matter what their overarching beliefs are
Sure. That would be fantastic, but if you’ve been on the internet for more than 5 minutes you’ll experience its littered with bad faith or loaded questions. People asking provocative questions simply spoiling for a fight or to “stir the pot”, trolls. Blame the rise of “talking points” the pre-canned ideology which requires no critical thinking, just call and response if you like. The reality is that this is most of political discussions on the internet. Instead this is a rare example of honest discussion, and you mistake it for something else.
nor should they be required to submit their liberal bona fides before they are allowed ask the question.
As I said above, you’re misreading the poster and think what you’re seeing is a credentialing exercise. I don’t believe it is.
That’s not good manners, that’s an echo chamber.
Luckily, I believe the error is in your assessment of the situation instead of the content or intent.
I have a question but I want to make it clear that I am asking in good faith as I fumble my way through understanding the complexities of geopolitics, and I am not casting aspersions or pushing a conspiracy theory. I am especially not taking a position in defense of Israel, or against their accountability to the ICC.
Okay, that said: Is South Africa pushing this at the behest of Russia, like as a BRICS thing? The only other thing I can think of is that this helps improve the image of an embattled ANC at home.
I get why they have a unique perspective given their defeat of apartheid, and that’s likely the steelman for why they are advancing this, but that just seems like too pat of an answer.
I would love additional perspectives on this.
As horrible as South African apartheid was, what is happening to the Palestinans is degrees worse.
Ordinary South Africans still remember the deep damage Apartheid perpetrators inflicted on us, it’s poisonous remnants are still affecting us as a country to this day as we try to heal as a people.
Now imagine South Africans seeing what Israel is perpetrating against the Palestinians, now and in the past. It’s a punch to the gut, a searing pain, to see what was done to us and our parents being done to Palestinians. We’re seeing a gross refined version of Apartheid that was inflicted on us being inflicted on the Palestinians. And largely the so called west/ global north is cheering for the Israeli Apartheid regime commiting genocide. It makes me sick to my core.
For these reasons there is immense pressure on our government by civil society to denounce Israel and support Palestine. It does help that the ANC has always been pro Palestinian in the first place. Also it’s elections this year so the ANC definitely wants some good pr too.
I would say that these points factor in way more than any link to Russia or China
I’ve heard Irish people say they support Palestine for similar reasons. They didn’t go through an apartheid, but they went through oppressive colonization being done on them.
I suspect whats going on here is that the South Africans know what kind of people Zionists are, since the old apartheid government used to partner with them.
It’s probably a similar reason to why the european country that first asked for sanctions againat Israel was the Republic of Ireland, who like Palestine and until the early XX Century was occupied and oppressed by a larger neighbhour, in their case the United Kingdom: when you suffered it yourself or grew up hearing the stories from those who suffered it, it’s a lot easier to understand the true depth and hurt of what’s being done to a people in a similar situation as you, your paraents or even grandparents were once in.
It also explains why Germany still unwaveringly supports Israel: they naturally empathise with the strong military power that’s trying to control a “lesser race” in a territory they occupy - it’s painfully obvious that “never again” wasn’t at all about the violent genocide of a weaker ethnic group by a stronger one driven by cold violent extreme racism (the kind who describes another etnic group as untermenschen/human animals) and greed, but was only ever about Germans vs Jews, hence Germany ending up again involved in a Holocaust on the side of the genociders.
An additional perspective is that the Apartheid government became an ally of convenience with Israel to the point that they created a joint nuclear weapons program together. Then you have the political pressure African union states have for maintaining robust trading agreements with Arab states. There’s a ton of history there
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident
Thank you for this!
Wow I had forgotten all about that.
I don’t think it’s a BRICS thing at all. It’s what their own population want. South Africa has long been critical of apartheid in Israel.
Moreover back when South Africa was under Apartheid, for a long time Israel was one of its main trading partners even after the west had imposed sanctions, and it also contributed directly to the white military. They eventually joined the boycott but the damage was done.
I think South Africans just have a more defined (and more recent) sense of pride when it comes to standing up against Apartheid. They recognize the rhetoric and the legal justifications from Israel’s right wing. I had the privilege of studying law under someone who helped to right the ship in South Africa, an American constitutional law scholar who worked with President Mandela to help write their new Constitution in the late 1990’s. They are immensely proud of it as a document that secures human rights for people.
As an aside, just as Hamas must be thought of as separate from the Palestinians, the far right Israeli leadership needs to be thought of distinct from the Israeli people.
There are plenty of people in Israel who think their government has been going too far, and there are plenty more people who think their response after the attacks were justified but have since gone too far.
The danger is not really Israel or Zionism, it is nationalism, a perversion of patriotism that works to justify people’s worst emotional reactions.
Only on Lemmy would you need to add all of those disclaimers before asking a legitimate question.
Have you just never experienced what manners are good online discourse look like? I admit its rare thing, but your statement reads like you’re looking at a filet mignon and asking why its missing a leaf of iceberg lettuce, a dollop of ketchup, and a sesame seed bun.
Let’s just say that, hypothetically, the OP didn’t hold a pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli viewpoint. In that case, would they have to lie and add those disclaimers in order to be “well mannered”?
My point is that anyone should be able to ask a simple question about why South Africa are the ones filing this case at the ICJ. It shouldn’t matter what their overarching beliefs are, nor should they be required to submit their liberal bona fides before they are allowed ask the question.
That’s not good manners, that’s an echo chamber.
You’re putting too much emphasis on the “manners” part and not enough on the “good discourse” part.
Part of communicating is not only the idea you’re trying to discuss, but the context of where the requestor is in understanding the topic, and the tone the requestor is intending for the further discussion. I think you’re seeing the “disclaimers” as you call them as apologies, or some kind of shibboleth or dog whistle to those who may answer that the requestor is part of the “in group”. If so, I think that’s your mistake.
Instead the requestor is opening up to be vulnerable as a cost in search of truth. They’re admitting their gaps in knowledge and calling out places where they have some understanding. They’re giving a short map of their “swiss cheese” understanding of the topic. In effect they’re saying “I only know a few bits. There is a lot I don’t know, but I’d like to learn”.
Sure. That would be fantastic, but if you’ve been on the internet for more than 5 minutes you’ll experience its littered with bad faith or loaded questions. People asking provocative questions simply spoiling for a fight or to “stir the pot”, trolls. Blame the rise of “talking points” the pre-canned ideology which requires no critical thinking, just call and response if you like. The reality is that this is most of political discussions on the internet. Instead this is a rare example of honest discussion, and you mistake it for something else.
As I said above, you’re misreading the poster and think what you’re seeing is a credentialing exercise. I don’t believe it is.
Luckily, I believe the error is in your assessment of the situation instead of the content or intent.
The point is that what you described is not unique to lemmy.
Perhaps, but I was conditioned more by reddit than Lemmy, as were likely most of us.
Or a person sees shitbots parroting Kremlin and CCP talking points all across the web and wants to avoid getting lumped in with them.