Apartheid is a form of institutionalized segregation based on a particular extremist ideology. In both Gaza and South Africa, historians have found a common causal link between the policy of apartheid and the negative effect it has on people. Whether it is the way Israel has systematically displaced indigenous peoples from their lands or the way Afrikaans move Bantustans to economically inept places where corruption is likely to occur, the intent is clear that the government considers indigenous people at the lower level as well as both segregation systems have similar factors. By analyzing factors such as a brief overview of segregations and foreign involvement, this essay will demonstrate that both Gaza and South African apartheid are quite similar in nature but not in approach. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayThe comparison between politics and the economic underdevelopment that resulted from it will also be included in this essay. These factors were fundamental in the development of underground resistance. This essay will also look at the opposition and how they reacted to the governments in power and ask whether their approach to the situation was correct. An example would be the use of violence by Gaza militants, which differs markedly from the ANC resistance. This will provide an alternative argument that will show that Gaza is not similar to South Africa; demonstrating that the root cause of the implementation of apartheid is the amount of violence used by Hamas. The foreign intervention factor will be further analyzed including the impact countries have had on the witnessed landscape. This, along with an in-depth analysis of other factors, will form the concluding argument of this essay. Although there are similarities in the way apartheid was practiced, the outcomes desired by the opposition were different. Case in point, South Africa's intention was to achieve liberation while the Arabs wanted sovereignty. Apartheid therefore can be classified into different categories; one is racial in South Africa while the other is a separate development in Gaza. First, to understand why both Gaza and South Africa are similar, an overview of both situations is needed. Although South Africa did not always participate in harsh apartheid, Dr Malan immediately applied a strict manifesto to accompany the rise of Afrikaans in the National Assembly in 1948. A recent report on the South African general election highlighted that Malan “…has criticized the government for: a general neglect of the racial problem, with particular emphasis on the problem of the ever-increasing influx of natives and Indians into European areas." This Manifesto highlighted the approach chosen by Malan; a harsh apartheid that will be based on race. Subsequently, Malan's vision was put into practice as many Bantustan and black citizens were segregated. The Population Restriction Act of 1950 established that apartheid legislation would remain stable and, at the same time, separated whites from blacks. This act was one of the first passed by the Afrikaans government, which meant that Malan wanted separation as quickly as possible. In addition to this, South Africa was plagued by corruption; pointing out that the African National Congress was not considered a party until the end of apartheid. While the ANC had Walter Sisulu and Nelson Mandela, the Social Democrats failed to enter the General Assembly. This meant that while Afrikaans were in power, there was no written policy for the benefit of black and colored people.Adding that the ANC was considered a terrorist organization did not help the efforts as people would be jailed if they showed total support for the socialists. . However, while Malan has consistently been mentioned by historians as the founder of apartheid in South Africa, many disagree that British colonialism was what caused a communal divide. While the Afrikaans established harsh laws, the whites early denied the rights of people of color and treated the people as second-class citizens. This could have been exactly the same ambition Malan hoped for. Although there were many retorts from the ANC, such as the Defiance Plan in 1952, this failed to garner enough support as the law stated that it was illegal to challenge the policy. The response to the Population Restriction Act only made apartheid worse as Afrikaans felt as if it was not strict enough to necessitate the need to incorporate more laws. Liberation was the main goal for South Africans, a goal that was achieved only fifty years after the Afrikaans came to power. During this harsh apartheid, both black and brown people were constantly brutalized and jailed for strikes and protests. However, one glaring injustice that interestingly attracted many foreign countries was the Soweto uprising, which will later be analyzed in depth. Once this happened, support for Afrikaans waned and apartheid weakened until it was abolished by FW De Klerk. This injustice spurred involvement especially from the English, which meant greater opposition for the Afrikaans. While apartheid was constant throughout the period 1950-1990, as Afrikaans gained greater control over South Africa, support for the regime increasingly declined. On the other hand, Gaza appears to be the opposite. As the Israelis gain more control over the territory, capitalist politics is stimulated by the West giving them more support. The founding of Israel stems from the British decolonization of Palestine. The UN formulated an immediate partition resolution which was not well received by the Arabs. This resulted in the first Arab-Israeli war which was won by Israel. To compare with South Africa, however, Gaza experienced an all-out war that decimated the land. Unlike South Africa where there could not have been a war as the intentions were not to protect the lands. The term Arab-Israeli War is commonly used because it shows that foreign countries were willing to get involved. Later, however, the term Israeli War Palo would be used as foreign influence waned as apartheid continued. What was stated above shows that support for the opposition is different. Apartheid was also accentuated by Sultan Abdullah's campaign in the region, which created even more tension between the opposition and Israel. In contrast, the situation in South Africa shows that there was no need for foreigners to colonize the Bantu, making their struggle more socially directed. Undisciplined land confiscation is also a recurring phenomenon in Gaza which makes retaliation by Palestine justifiable. However, what makes the situation in Gaza so difficult is the approach taken by the Arabs to respond. Radical groups such as Hamas have plagued the government since they took office in 2007. It has previously been explained how South Africa received support from major Western superpowers as apartheid came to an end. This ultimately cannot happen for Gaza as their views in the present day are not in linewith United Nations policy. Although the opposition's views are not similar, the nature of apartheid in both regions is unruly. Mainly because once both governments came into power, the laws put in place were not reciprocal. Military disadvantages are also what have hindered any opposition uprising; as seen later, when the opposition resorted to terrorist attacks to match Israeli power. Fred John Khouri made an interesting argument by stating that “the Arabs were willing to give up the truce while they did not see Israel as a viable state.” This interpretation could highlight that there is a clear difference between the PLO at the beginning of apartheid and the government today. Khouri may also have alluded to the opposition's lack of power. After the total defeat on Nakba Day, the common reaction was still to fight back; Khouri proves that the UN act was accepted. This interpretation however does not show the full extent of the situation as historian Benny Morris claimed that it was the Palestinians who started the war when they rejected the UN compromise plan and embarked on hostile acts in which 1,800 Jews were killed between November 1947 and mid May 1948". The transition from “Jewish” to “Israeli” lands offers the possibility that religion has a role to play. Although the United Nations Act of Partition was more political, the partition provoked religious clashes. An example of this would be the Dalet Plan, where the ambition was to take over Palestinian lands. Foreign policy also played an important role in this; with many global superpowers such as the United States accepting Jews directly into Jerusalem. The Dalet Plan was on the verge of being recognized as the norm until the United States decided not to adopt it. This leads to foreign involvement where the confrontation between South African foreign policy and Israel is closely linked. Immediately recognizing that both South Africa and Palestine were British colonies; many social normalities have been established by the government in power. An influx of foreign power meant that foreigners were not respected by natives. Linking back to Malan's influence, the Bantu were not in favor of this; similar to the fact that Arabs were not in favor of the Partition Act. Also stating that while apartheid was in practice, most foreign investment in Israel came from the United States, where the money raised was used to build defense systems such as iron dome that still maintained maximum segregation against the radical opposition. Similarly, large investments in South Africa were undermined by the United States, which focused on helping society's poorest citizens without realizing why they were poor. This, however, was misinterpreted by many newspapers, such as the New York Times, which stated that “US influence in Gaza is for its own gain and that the US wants a quick solution to strengthen relations” . Otherwise, this paper's interpretation is false as US investments in both regions were primarily aimed at increasing vigilance against those deemed terrorists. Figure 1 shows bilateral US assistance to the Palestinians: After the split of the West Bank, there was an increase in assistance as the split would devastate many Palestinians both economically and mentally. After the split, the terrorist organization Hamas also came to power, which could explain the increase in aid to combat this situation. But thisfigure could also indicate that the United States is funding radical Hamas. Similarly with South Africa, assistance was not provided in the wake of apartheid as the United States was faced with a dilemma of its own; the Cold War absorbing much of the funds to deal with Russia. This may be why the dispute has gone on for so long in both South Africa and Gaza; the lack of foreign spending until the controversial propaganda was released. Case in point, lateral assistance in South Africa was not provided until the Soweto uprising, which broadcast to the world how both black and brown people were mistreated. The killing of schoolboy Hector Pieterson highlighted the inhumanity that prompted many anti-apartheid organizations to show faith. Likewise, the killing of Mohammed Al Durrah demonstrated that the Second Intifada brought hardship to innocent citizens. Although these incidents are very similar in terms of execution, the killing of Al Durrah had a different outcome. This is above all why the intentions of the two oppositions are not comparable. While Hector's killing meant that the ANC benefited from the complaint and highlighted the flaws of the Afrikaans, the opposition in Gaza decided to use this situation as a catalyst for further violence. Using Al Durrah as a martyr meant that justice needed to be found for him; thus it allowed the success of the most radical groups. This may demonstrate that the radicals were looking for a propaganda opportunity to cause unrest, which they succeeded. The Second Intifada lasted another five years during which tensions increased. To contrast, a similar circumstance with Pieterson made headlines in South Africa; where protesters used this propaganda to highlight how bad apartheid is. In turn, the United Nations has established economic sanctions that directly target oppressors. This shows the bigger picture of what the opposition has always wanted; the Palestinians' response was much more violent than that of the South Africans, demonstrating that liberation is not a possibility. President Arafat emphasized foreign policy for Gaza in the Oslo Accords in the 1990s. However, what is highlighted in Jeremy Pressman's document is how Arafat is the main cause of the Second Intifada. As Arafat strove to resolve disputes, his agreements unwittingly harmed his own people, provoking a backlash. Interestingly, Pressman notes that the agreements “were thought to signify the end of Israeli occupation and the beginning of Palestinian self-determination.” Furthermore, a definitive end to the violence was needed. But what Arafat's reign in power demonstrated is that the government caused political problems that caused people to resort to a physical approach. This may explain why radical groups like Hamas have risen to power over the years; a PLO foreign policy will never be reasoned by the West. This shows the underlying problem of Palestine; To achieve self-determination, they will have to eliminate violence as a resource arising from non-diplomatic governance. Charles D Smith also highlights Arafat's mistakes in his book “Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict” where “Arafat…recognized the existence of Israel without obtaining mutual recognition of the Palestinian right to self-determination”. This explains why the opposition is so adamant about getting rid of the government; when there is a turning point, politicians do not know how to satisfy the Arabs. But the impact that many of the agreements reached by the PLO as a whole have a clouding effect on what the real issue is;.