South Africa’s transition from apartheid to multiracial democracy suggests that a single secular, non-racist state may offer a more hopeful future for Israel–Palestine than a fragmented two-state settlement.

Many critics of Israel’s policies have described it as an “apartheid state”. The model of a two-state solution could bring the region closer to the historical model of apartheid. An eventual development of a single, unified, secular and non-racist democracy would not.

“Apartheid” may appear strong as a term of censure but not of analysis. Like other overused terms such as fascism, extremism or fundamentalism, these are most useful when held in reserve for accurate application. “Apartheid”, meaning separateness, described legally enforced structural racism in South Africa after 1948. Just as in Australia settler colonialism expressed institutional racism against an Indigenous minority in culture, economy and society, so for three centuries settler colonialism in South Africa practised institutional racism against an Indigenous majority. The National Party victory in 1948 moved practice into a structured apartheid program of legal constraints based upon racial classification of each individual. This implemented formal job reservation, controls over movement and residence, and “petty apartheid” relating to numerous aspects of everyday life. It went alongside suppression of political opposition and restriction of voting rights.

In a subsequent development, a single large nation of four provinces was re-categorised from 1970 into a white-run state and ten African homelands or “Bantustans” that were expected to develop their own level of self-government,........

© Pearls and Irritations