What are the similarities and diferences between Israel and South Africa in
terms of occupying a land where people already existed?

Dear History Buff 

The similarities between the Israeli and the former South African government 
policies seem to be that in both cases immigrant groups arrived in their 
respective countries, and had to compete with other groups over the use of the 
land.

The contrast between the two countries appears to be that the Israeli 
government appropriated the land from the Arab population, and actively 
resettled Jewish immigrants on these lands in order to create a majority Jewish 
population in selected areas, while the South African government pushed the 
African population out to “Black Homelands” to keep them apart from the native 
white population. This resulted in the creation of several small African 
countries within South Africa itself.

First case, South Africa:

It seems there are some archaeological sites and rock art containing evidence 
of very early human settlements in Southern Africa going back 100,000 years.
Around the 13th century a Bantu-speaking group began to work the land mainly in 
the river valleys of southeastern Africa where summer rainfall predominates. 
The Bantu were better organized than the other groups in the area and with 
better food supply their population grew forcing them to look for more land 
elsewhere.

The Europeans including the Portuguese, English, French and the Dutch used the 
Cape as a strategic outpost for their ships on the route to their trading 
centers in the East in the 1600’s.

However, in 1652 the Dutch set up a mainland base for their Dutch East India 
Company, Dutch abbreviation (VOC), to provide passing ships with food, water 
and hospitalization for sick sailors. This was the entry of the first white 
settlers in southern Africa.

Once the Dutch arrived they were able to quickly overcome the local peoples and 
import slaves from their eastern empire as well as other parts of Africa to 
help develop their Cape colony

For the next 150 years the Dutch colonists were trying to expand eastwards 
while the Bantu tribes were attempting to expand westwards and this resulted in 
many confrontations between the two groups.

The British arrived in the Cape the 1800’s and fought the Dutch colonists, “The 
Boers”, from 1899 to 1902 in the Boer war to gain control over southern Africa. 
In 1910 Union of South Africa was set up incorporating the various groups and 
at this time many racist laws were introduced. 

In 1948 the Afrikaner National Party came to power and introduced apartheid, 
and in response the African National Congress (ANC) was founded. In the 1960’s 
many ANC leaders were arrested. In the 1970’s South Africa pursued the policy 
of separate “Black Homelands” for non-whites. In the 1980’s the UN demanded 
political and economic sanctions against South Africa.

As a result in 1989 The South African president initiated reforms that led to 
the 1991 referendum which finally brought Nelson Mandela and the ANC to power 
in 1994.




For South African history please look at the following links:

Facts on file World News CD-Rom:
http://www.facts.com/cd/c01001.htm#begin

Africanet:
http://www.innotts.co.uk/~shaka/sahis.htm


Second case, Israel:

In case of modern Israel Jewish immigrants began to arrive at the end of the 
19th century after the founding of the Zionist movement by Theodore Herzl.

The Balfour declaration in 1917 by the British government supported the 
establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine then part of the Ottoman 
Empire. 

After the conclusion of World War I the League of Nations assigned the 
Palestine mandate to Britain and in turn the importance of a Jewish homeland 
grew.

Jewish immigration to Palestine grew quickly in the1930’s as a result of 
political problems in Europe. International support grew to establish a Jewish 
homeland after the end of World War II, and the Nazi attempts in trying to 
exterminate Europe’s Jewish population.

In November 1947 the UN Partition Plan called for the establishment of two 
states a Jewish state, and an Arab state in Palestine.

Violence grew between the two groups in Palestine and on May 14, 1948 the state 
of Israel was proclaimed. The very next day armies from the neighboring Arab 
states attacked Israel.

In 1949 under UN supervision four armistice agreements were signed between the 
parties, and his operation resulted in a 50% increase in Israeli territory.

In 1956 during the British and French invasion of the Suez Canal, Israeli 
forces invaded the Gaza strip and the Sinai Peninsula, and in 1957 the UN 
negotiated an Israeli withdrawal from the area.

However, in June, 1967 the tensions between Israel and her Arab neighbors 
resulted in the six day war in which Israeli Forces captured the Sinai 
Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and the formerly Jordanian-
controlled West Bank of the Jordan River, including East Jerusalem.	

The Arabs struck back at Israel in October, 1973 with Egyptian forces attacking 
the Sinai Peninsula and the Syrians attacked the Golan Heights. However, 
Israeli forces were able to regain the initiative and a cease-fire was declared 
in 1974.

All Israeli governments, Labor and Likud, pursued settlements after 1967 in 
order to consolidate Israeli control over the occupied territories and prevent 
the emergence of a Palestinian state.

Former defense minister Moshe Dyan clearly stated the settlements were 
important because they can ensure security better than the Israeli army, and 
without the settlements Israel cannot keep its army in those 
territories. “Without them the IDF would be a foreign army ruling a foreign 
population.”



The various Israeli Labor governments (1967-1977) built the infrastructure and 
were slow in expanding these settlements. However, in 1977 with the Likud party 
in power the pace picked up as the new government had a vision to 
demographically create a Jewish majority in several areas.

For general history of modern Israel, see WorldRover.com:
http://www.worldrover.com/history/israel_history.html

Information regarding the Israeli and Palestinian views of their histories see 
Oasis of Peace:

http://nswas.com/news/week_by_week/week_by_week_sept19-25.htm#A%20course%20for%
20Israeli%20and%20Palestinian%20History%20and%20Civics%20Teachers

For a history of Jewish settlements in the west bank, see Foundation for Middle 
East Peace :
http://www.fmep.org/reports/2002/sr0203.html

Report on Israeli settlements; see Foundation for Middle East Peace:
http://www.fmep.org/reports/

Alexandre (Sandy) Kedar article regarding Israeli land policy 
http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~law/alexandre.htm

Just to let you know, the Jews occupied the land of Israel first thousands of 
years ago so that it is a LITTLE different from the occupation of South 
Africa.  The colonization of South Africa was against the indiginous people 
while the creation of Israel was neither an attempt at imperialism nor a attack 
upon the native people of the land.  The "Palestinian people" are a mixture of 
Arabs who settled in "Palestine" after Israel was taken away from the Jews and 
therefore forced the Jews into a diaspora...so in fact it may seem 
that "Palestinian" and South African occupation may have a lot more in common 
then Israel and South Africa.

This is NOT an answer to this person's question.  Counter-question: Who was 
there before the Jews?  And before them?  Do we know?  

I think his question refers to RECENT EVENTS and as such the question seems 
valid and appropriate.  There's no denying that in RECENT TIMES (after 1947) 
land was appropriated from Palestinian people who'd been living there for (a) 
generation(s) without remuneration.  Hence, I look forward to the answers (I'm 
not a history scholar).

lol...poor neema.  When people are unsure of their beliefs they usually try to 
force them onto others and pass them off as fact when they are only fiction.

I've participated in many archaeological digs in the region, I have yet to find 
evidence supporting israeli's being there first.  If you feel its important to 
determine who was their first, my money would be on the Palistinians.

Btw, this is just my opinion.  I'm not as familiar with the South African 
occupation as I would like to be, so I can't comment on the question yet.  But 
I too look forward to the answer.  Good question awadallah.

As an outsider to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, I've always seen them as two separate nations with a legitimate claim to a largely overlapping piece of land. The "we were here first" defence, when pondered for a bit, is clearly ridiculous. No matter where you go in the world, someone else got there first. How far do you have to go back for a legitimate claim to ownership? Do you draw the line at a century? A millennium? 

The obvious reality is that Israel and the Palestinians are both there now, and that's something both sides will have to deal with. The most likely model for peaceful and tolerant co-existence would probably be separate Israeli and Palestinian states. Not the kind of unacceptable situation repeatedly proposed by Israel, where Palestine would be dependent on Israel for water and where the Palestinian territory is still under some degree of Israeli control. In effect, the only workable solution, as also supported by the United Nations, would be a temporary state of apartheid (which literally means "separateness"), leading to legally separate and independent states.

Now for the South African situation, something I have been studying for several years. Painting the picture as a clear case of European colonists barging in and displacing native Africans isn't quite true. Nguni groups were largely located to the east of what is now South Africa (KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape), as well as areas to the north (later colonized by the British). Other tribes - such as the Tswana - were scattered around the north of the country.

The area first colonized by the Dutch was sparsely populated by "Hottentots" and "Bushmen" (the Khoi and San people), direct descendents of the people who founded the "very early human settlements" of a 100,000 years ago that seeker-ga refers to. In contrast to simply displacing them, the Dutch entered into trade with the local population. The Dutch intention wasn't to colonize the Cape, but rather to found a way station to supply Dutch ships with fresh food and water. Clearly it was in the best interests of the Dutch to barter supplies from the native population, in addition to producing their own.

It is important to make a distinction between the relationship between the Dutch and the KhoiSan people, and the relationship between the British and the black tribes. The black tribes are not directly related to the KhoiSan, inasmuch as Anglo-Saxons aren't related to Slavic nations. The British were intent on colonizing Southern Africa (refer to Cecil John Rhodes's idealistic "Cape to Cairo" route). The British pushed for full control over its colonies in the Cape and Natal, and after gold was discovered in the Transvaal ("Zuid-Afrikaans Republiek"), the Boer War led to the British also colonizing the Transvaal and the Orange Free State.

The situation inherited by the government of the Union of South Africa was one of an African country colonized by European settlers for several generations. Clearly the European population could not be simply wished away, as the Israeli government appears to want to wish away the Palestinians. This led to a political experiment (not to be confused with the social experiments and human rights abuses of the apartheid era) referred to as "separate development". Whether it was ever feasible is a difficult question, and it was certainly never properly and humanely executed, but the result would have been separate and semi-independent states for all the major ethnic groups in South Africa, leading to peaceful co-existence much like Swaziland and Lesotho co-exist with South Africa today. 

I would summarize the similarities between the situation in apartheid South Africa and today's Israel as follows: in both areas rival groups compete for land and resources, and in both places complete and equal integration (and the resolution of historic differences) seem unlikely. The only apparent way of buying time and relieving violent pressure is to fairly parcel out land to the competing ethnic groups, with international (United Nations) supervision to ensure full compliance with all agreements and resolutions. Of course, it's also always an option to ignore the situation, to have the competing groups fight it out, and support the winner, as the world seems to do and have done in both countries.

Some thoughts..

In both cases settlers came to an area of the world where the level of
economic and technical development was extremely low. In both cases
many of the immigrants were refugees. In both cases a significant
proportion of the immigration was fueled by religious intolerance at
the immigrant's point of origin. In both cases immigration was backed
by the same major world power (England). In both cases the newcomers
built a stunning economy and level of prosperity through a combination
of their own industry, through the economic leverage of the nation
backing them (which switched from being the UK to the USA in the case
of Israel) and through economic exploitation of the local population.
In both cases they make the nations immediately surrounding them look
backward in comparison. In both cases segregation has resulted in
poverty and dispossession of the indigents including restriction to
freedom of movement, opportunity for education, and economic
participation. In both cases this segregation has reinforced
divisions. In both cases the historical principle of "possession being
nine tenths of the law" is now being challenged by a moral appeal to
rights of first possession.  In both cases the prevailing government
is still divided internally between integrationists and
segregationists.
 
And some differences... 

In the case of SA the settlement had a clear economic (trade)
component, whereas in Israel that component was absent or at least not
directly related to the specific piece of real estate being occupied.
Unlike Israel, S.A. has developed a remarkable degree of economic
self-reliance due largely to the effects of a couple of decades of
economic sanctions related to apartheid. Unlike Israel, S.A. has a
solid primary industrial base that (in theory) could result in the
continued prosperity of the region under indigent government. (In
Israel the strengths are military and technological/intellectual, and
would dissolve if the prevailing Israeli population were to be driven
out). In the case of SA there was no plausible argument on the part of
the immigrants for prior ownership, whereas in the case of Israel the
case is debatable. (In fact, unless someone wants to turn up calling
themselves a Canaanite, I think the issue is a moot point). Unlike
S.A., in the case of Israel the issues dividing the racial groups
cannot be divorced from history and religion. Unlike S.A., in the case
of Israel these historical and religious issues draw most of the
Western and Middle Eastern world into the conflict.  Unlike Israel,
S.A. has been blessed in recent times with an indigent leader who is a
man of peace and integrity - one who has opened for the occupying
minority the feasible possibility of ending segregation without
committing suicide. In contrast, the indigent groups in Palestine have
not yet produced a leader of the same stature, and so there is not
(yet?) a way forward for anyone - neither for the Palestinians nor for
the Israelis. Unlike S.A. there are a couple of billion people who
believe that the world actually will end when all of the nations
become polarized around Israel and go to war there. In this same
sense, unlike S.A. much of the world has already resigned itself that
such an event will happen in Israel and tries to broker peace with a
gloomy sense of delaying the inevitable rather than a sense of real
hope for lasting reconciliation.

This opinion offered in respect for all sides, and hopes for a better
future.

Seeker-ga sticks to the facts of the matter, rather than basing his
answers on political opinions. For that, I commend him. But let me add
a few more facts to the territorial questions of the
Israeli/Palestinian issue:
<p>
The Jewish National Fund used private donations to purchase land in
Mandated Palestine. "By the time Israel became a state in 1948, JNF
owned 12.5 percent of all the land of Israel (on which 80 percent of
Israel's population now lives)." (See <a
href="http://www.jnf.com/history.html"
target="_blank">http://www.jnf.com/history.html</a>)
<p>
When David Ben-Gurion declared Israeli independence, his new
government asked the Arab residents to stay and become Israeli
citizens. However, many of them fled to avoid the fighting (5 armies
of the Arab league invaded the new Jewish state), and many fled at the
urging of Arab leaders, who told them to get out of the way of the
armies, or who frightened them away with scary Nazi propaganda, of the
sort I will not repeat here. These flights greatly reduced the Arab
population of Israel and created the Palestinian refugee problem.
<p>
Note that the main Arab leader in Palestine was the Mufti of
Jerusalem, haj-Amin al-Husseini. Husseini was a notorious Nazi who
worked closely with Adolf Hitler, genocide architect Adolf Eichmann
and SS chief Heinrich Himmler, who organized tours for him to
Auschwitz. Husseini was personally responsible for the deportation of
10,000 Jewish children to the Theresienstadt death camp, and was also
responsible for blocking the escape of many Hungarian Jews, as well.
Incidentally, Husseini was a cousin of Yassir Arafat, whose real name
is Abd al-Rahman abd al-Bauf Arafat al-Qud al-Husseini. Arafat has
never repudiated anything Husseini said or did. (See <a
href="http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/husseini.html"
target="_blank">http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/husseini.html</a>)