With a comparison to South Africa’s history of apartheid.
With a comparison to South Africa’s history of apartheid.
By Dr. Halim Gençoğlu
Türkiye describes Israel’s military operations against Gaza as “genocide” and, in this context, is expanding commercial and logistical land borders as well as maritime routes in order to increase pressure. As part of these steps, Türkiye has also joined the international body known as The Hague Group in adopting the maritime embargo decision, which includes stricter restrictions on ship layovers and the transport of military equipment. As a result, this maritime ban stands out as part of Türkiye’s economic and logistical measures in line with its Israel policy. The future of this ban may be shaped by diplomatic developments and changes in the humanitarian situation in Gaza. These actions can also be explained through certain theories.
Israel’s long-term stability and legitimacy depend not only on military capacity or U.S. support but also on international legal norms, regional balances, and internal social structure. During the 2024–2025 period, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Criminal Court (ICC) process, and the growing wave in Europe of “recognizing Palestine” have brought back into discussion three different scenarios regarding Israel’s future. These are: the continuation of pressure policies, second, reform and reconciliation, and third, international isolation and collapse. In this article, these scenarios are examined through historical comparisons with the Apartheid regime in South Africa.
Settler Colonialism and Normative Legitimacy
According to Patrick Wolfe’s (2006) theory of settler colonialism, such regimes are based on a “logic of elimination of the native population.” For this reason, constantly expanding practices of repression in the name of security make a long-term legitimacy crisis inevitable. In the international relations literature, Audie Klotz’s (1995) analysis of the role of norms in international politics also shows that the global institutionalization and discursive spread of the “racial equality norm” transformed the regime during the struggle against Apartheid. The Apartheid regime had systematized discrimination on the basis of race. This was clearly in violation of the 1965 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
By adopting this norm, the international community increased pressure on South Africa, ultimately accelerating the regime’s collapse. In Patrick Wolfe’s definition, settler colonialism, unlike classical colonialism, is not only about the exploitation of resources but also about the systematic elimination of indigenous peoples and the establishment of permanent settler dominance.
1. Continuation of Pressure Policies
Israel’s current occupation, settlement expansion, and blockade policies may enable it to survive in the short term through military power and U.S. support. However, the ICJ’s advisory opinion of July 19, 2024, stated that the occupation is unlawful and that all states have an obligation not to recognize this situation (ICJ, 2024). This decision elevates Israel’s legitimacy crisis to the level of international law.
The ICC Prosecutor’s request in 2024 for arrest warrants against Israeli officials (ICC, 2024) has brought individual criminal responsibility into focus. Thus, Israel is facing growing pressure in the international system for “accountability before justice.”
2. Reform and Reconciliation
If Israel ends its occupation policies and adopts either a two-state solution or a partnership model based on equal citizenship, it could achieve stability both internally and externally. Complying with the ICJ ruling and halting settler policies would accelerate alignment with the international community.
From a historical analogy, the negotiated transition in Apartheid South Africa between 1990–1994 was driven not only by external pressures but also by internal political costs (Klotz, 1995). This scenario represents the most rational and sustainable option for Israel.
3. International Isolation and Collapse
If U.S. support weakens or Europe adopts harsher sanction policies, Israel will face a severe process of isolation. The recognition of Palestine by Spain, Ireland, Norway, and Slovenia in 2024 signals a normative shift in the European center (Reuters, 2024).
As in the case of Apartheid South Africa, the mandatory arms embargo (UNSC, 1977) and financial restrictions did not by themselves topple the regime, but combined with internal dynamics, they accelerated transformation (Hufbauer et al., 1985).
Historical Comparison: Apartheid South Africa
In the collapse of Apartheid, both internal resistance (ANC, trade unions, youth movements) and external pressures were decisive (Price, 1991). The globalization of the equality norm eventually isolated the Apartheid regime (Klotz, 1995). Today, the norm of “illegality of occupation” may play a similar role.
Arms embargoes and financial restrictions against South Africa increased economic and psychological costs (Nattrass, 1991). Ultimately, the true oppression and massacre lay in one side’s constant attempt to keep the other under domination. Yet it is not difficult to say that this situation is often not widely discussed in the world public sphere in terms of Israel’s actions, is frequently manipulated, and that the public is not properly informed.
Conclusion
Israel’s cruel policies toward Palestine have significantly intensified, especially since the early 2000s. And most of the time, the traumas these policies create for the peoples of the region are either not sufficiently emphasized in world public opinion or fail to find a strong voice internationally.
Israel’s various massacres against Palestinians, such as its operations in Gaza, have caused great destruction, especially civilian losses. The attacks of 2008–2009, 2012, 2014, and 2021 in particular resulted in major military violence and loss of life. In these assaults, Palestinians suffered serious human rights violations such as collective punishment, house demolitions, bombings, and displacement. Yet these attacks are often defended on the grounds of “self-defense.” In other words, Israel’s operations are generally presented in a broader international perspective as a right of defense, but what is left unsaid is that this “defense” is carried out largely by targeting civilians and destroying all infrastructure in the region.
And perhaps most importantly, the military technologies and weapons used in these attacks were many times supplied by Western countries, especially the United States. U.S. arms sales, military aid, and political support to Israel deepen the conflict further. For example, America’s annual provision of hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid actually helps Israel sustain this cycle of violence. Strategies such as “opening buffer zones” or “controlling contested areas” are often shaped with Western—particularly U.S.—support.
This U.S. support is not limited to military aid. In many cases, the U.S. uses vetoes in platforms such as the United Nations to block criticism of Israel. This results in many of Israel’s crimes not being adequately scrutinized in the international arena. When the United Nations proposes solutions regarding the situation of Palestinian refugees, the U.S. frequently obstructs them. This further hinders Palestinians’ ability to claim their rights.
At the same time, the use of violence by some resistance groups in Palestine against civilians adds another dimension to the conflict. However, the fact that international media regularly overlooks this side while disproportionately portraying hostility in relation to Israel’s violence means the suffering and trauma of defenseless people can be ignored. The question of “How many more years can Israel live with these policies?” has no definitive answer. But historical examples and current developments in international law show that systems based on repression and occupation cannot endure for long. The South African analogy demonstrates that international norm pressure and sanctions, when combined with internal dynamics, bring about transformation and that oppression cannot last forever.
References
- Hufbauer, G. C., Schott, J. J., & Elliott, K. A. (1985). Economic sanctions reconsidered: History and current policy. Peterson Institute.
- International Court of Justice (ICJ). (2024, July 19). Advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory. The Hague: ICJ.
- International Criminal Court (ICC). (2024, May 20). Prosecutor’s application for arrest warrants in the situation in Palestine. The Hague: ICC.
- Klotz, A. (1995). Norms in international relations: The struggle against apartheid. Cornell University Press.
- Nattrass, N. (1991). The South African economy: Its growth and change. In E. Unterhalter (Ed.), Apartheid education and popular struggles (pp. 23–42). Heinemann.
- Price, R. (1991). The apartheid state in crisis: Political transformation in South Africa, 1975–1990. Oxford University Press.
- Reuters. (2024, May 28). Spain, Ireland and Norway to recognize Palestinian state. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com
- United Nations Security Council (UNSC). (1977). Resolution 418 (1977): Mandatory arms embargo against South Africa. New York: United Nations.
- Wolfe, P. (2006). Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native. Journal of Genocide Research, 8(4), 387–409.
- Gençoğlu. H (2024) Palestine in the Ottoman Archival Documents 1517-1917, South Africa.