@adexkola
Took me some time, sorry, but here's my answer.
My problem with the second part of your reply boils down to this. The problematic behaviors or idealogies of the oppressed should have no bearing on how the dominant oppressive power should behave. Differences of idealogies and behaviors between different representative groups of oppressed peoples do not negate comparisons between different oppressors.
If Hamas was replaced by the ANC, or IRA, or FLN in Algeria, would that make the comparison more legitimate? I don't think it does, because that would imply that Hamas and others bring oppression on themselves due to their own behavior, and if they would cease all hostilities and start being nice, then maybe, Israel or Apartheid S.A. or the French occupation or Britain would deem them worthy of the liberties currently denied.
I think your standpoint ultimately erases the factor of Palestinians/Arabs as actors, who have crucial influence on the proceedings with their own decisions as well. I also think this is somewhat inevitable, as the apartheid argument against Israel (the way it is normally used) can only work through that omission. Of course the actions of the Palestinians and other Arab actors have influenced their own situation, the behaviour of the other side, and possibilities for the future.
For example, during the 1990s Hamas has conducted an extensive terror campaign in order to prevent the Oslo process from succeeding, because for them the only acceptable Palestinian course of action was Jihad until Israel's demise. How is this not influential on the basic political and security situation of the Palestinians (as well as the Israeli one, of course)? In other words: influencing the course of the conflict as a whole?
The same was true for the South African liberation movement, imo – they were actors in their own right, and their success was in part dependent on making the right choices. If the ANC had declared the white South Africans foreigners, and vowed to expel them after victory – like many of the Arab opponents of Israel have done throughout the conflict –, the development of the 1990s wouldn't have happened. And couldn't have happened.
To me it's obvious that choices like these matter.
Yes. Hamas are very problematic. Moreso than Mandela's ANC (which by the way, became more radical and violent after the authorities ignored all that moderation and imprisoned Mandela, exiled Tambo, and killed scores more). However there is a positive feedback loop where continued oppression drives more extreme resistance. The pressure valve lied with Apartheid S.A. and lies with Israel.
Doesn't negate the current comparison between Israel and Apartheid South Africa one bit.
The simple truth is: the pressure valve doesn't lie with Israel alone, and it never was like that throughout the conflict's history. There are factors that primarily hinge on the inner constitution of both Palestinian society and surrounding ME societies, attitudes to which a retreat to the 1967 borders wouldn't make a fundamental difference. Because its protagonists wouldn't accept a Jewish state in the Middle East in any borders and thus want Israel gone.
This is something that, as far as I know, has no equivalent in South African history. So trying to superimpose the history and inner structure of the South African conflict on the Israeli-Arab one will unavoidably lead to a failure in noticing this factor, despite the central role it plays for the shape of the conflict. To me it's a good example of how a prefixed narrative practically determines which aspects of an issue can be perceived, and which ones get neglected.
As for the notion of "problematic behaviours": I don't think the Jew-hatred and brutality that has always gone along with anti-Israel radicalism can be cast as undesirable excesses of a fundamentally good cause, the way it can be done with some of the ANC's violence. That's why I insist on acknowledging fundamental goals and ideologies so much when it comes to a general evaluation of the conflict. They can make a world of difference.
If I get you right, you say they are ugly, but ultimately expendable byproducts of what's essentially a social liberation struggle. I say they are much more central to the conflict as such. This probably explains a lot about our different stances on the issue.
