(John McCann/M&G)
For decades, the majority of Israelis, particularly within the Zionist movement, have rejected the prospect of a single democratic state encompassing all of historical Palestine — Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. Instead, they have largely favoured a two-state solution, one that maintains a Jewish demographic majority and political dominance within Israel’s current borders.
However, history suggests that such resistance to change is not unique. South Africa’s experience in the final years of apartheid offers a striking parallel — a regime that once seemed immovable was eventually forced to dismantle itself under the weight of internal unrest, global isolation and shifting political dynamics. Could Israel face a similar trajectory?
Majority Rule: A fear once deemed ‘unacceptable’
When South Africans went to the polls in 1994 for the first non-racial democratic elections, the moment was heralded as the triumph of justice over apartheid. Nelson Mandela’s ascent to the presidency and the ANC’s rise to power marked the culmination of years of negotiations that had slowly eroded white-minority rule. But this transition was anything but inevitable.
Until the final moments of apartheid, white South Africans overwhelmingly opposed a one-person, one-vote system. The last apartheid-era president, FW de Klerk, explicitly called the idea “totally unacceptable”. Pierre Hugo, a political analyst at the time, documented widespread fears among white South Africans: the potential loss of political power, economic status and even physical security. Surveys from the 1980s reflected these anxieties — four out of five whites believed majority rule would pose a direct threat to their safety.
Despite mounting evidence that apartheid was unsustainable, genuine support for majority rule remained limited. A 1986 survey found that while 47% of white South Africans were open to a mixed-race government, 835 still preferred white dominance, if given the choice. By 1990, only 2.2% of white Afrikaners were willing to accept majority rule.
These sentiments were not confined to the political fringes. A South African cabinet minister at the time warned: “Everywhere in Africa, coups, insurrections and political violence have been endemic as ethnic groups have struggled for supremacy … Why would majority rule be any different in South Africa?”
Such rhetoric bears an eerie resemblance to the arguments used today by Israeli politicians who oppose a one-state solution. Across the political spectrum, Israeli leaders — from the far right to so-called centrists — continue to argue that a single democratic state would spell the end of the “Jewish character” of Israel.
From resistance to a hardline shift
As white South Africans felt their dominance slipping, the electorate moved sharply to the right. Membership of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging, an armed far-right movement, tripled within a year. Support for the ruling National Party surged, as did backing for the even more hardline Conservative Party.
A similar shift can be observed in Israel today. As global criticism of its policies escalates, the Israeli electorate has increasingly gravitated toward ultra-nationalist and far-right parties, with figures like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich gaining mainstream influence. The common denominator? An insistence on maintaining ethno-religious dominance at all cost.
Despite their differences, South Africa’s white ruling parties agreed on one thing: preserving white political control. Likewise, Israeli politicians — whether from the left, right or centre — largely agree on the importance of maintaining a Jewish majority. Even as they argue over the specifics of governance, the underlying objective remains the same — ensuring that Palestinians remain without full political rights.
Global pressure and internal struggles
Ultimately, the forces that brought an end to apartheid in South Africa were not limited to internal negotiations. A combination of township uprisings, labour strikes and mass protests — both in the country and around the world — made the status quo untenable. The ANC, despite repeated warnings that white South Africans would retaliate violently, refused to compromise on its demand for one person, one vote.
The turning point came with sustained international pressure. Sanctions, diplomatic isolation and the increasing role of liberation movements — backed by allies such as Cuba — left the apartheid government with no choice but to negotiate its own dismantling.
Israel is now facing a similar reckoning. Mass protests around the world against its occupation policies, growing calls for boycotts and increasing diplomatic isolation echo the pressure once placed on South Africa. While Tel Aviv still enjoys unwavering support from Western allies, cracks are beginning to form. The question remains: how long can Israel withstand this pressure before it, too, is forced to confront a new political reality?
History’s verdict
In the final years of apartheid, American journalist William Raspberry wrote: “Expecting white Afrikaners to relinquish their awesome power to the black aborigines is no more realistic than expecting white Americans to hand control of this country to the American Indians.”
And yet, the once unthinkable happened. Apartheid South Africa collapsed under its own contradictions.
Today, Israeli leaders insist that Palestinian political rights must be indefinitely suppressed to maintain Jewish sovereignty. But as history has shown, regimes built on exclusion, dispossession and systemic inequality do not last forever. Whether through internal resistance, global pressure or shifting geopolitical dynamics, change — however unlikely it might seem today — remains inevitable.
Sõzarn Barday is an attorney based in South Africa and has a particular interest in human rights within the Middle East.
