A central pillar of Apartheid in South Africa was the development of Bantustans as zones of limited autonomy (but entirely subordinate to SA). People who think the existence of the Palestinian Authority negates the charge of Apartheid against Israel are completely clueless.

As it happens, the existence of the PA is the only thing that Israel's supporters can point to as 'evidence' that it's acceptable for Israel to vaccinate illegal settlers in the West Bank while excluding Palestinians in the same territory. Yet this is, definitionally, apartheid.

Imagine if the COVID-19 pandemic had happened in the 1970s - would everyone be satisfied if South Africa refused to vaccine its population who lived in the Bantustans, leaving them to fend for themselves as 'independent'? Or would we rightfully see this as immoral and racist?

If COVID-19 had happened in the 1970s, would we be satisfied with the Transkei Bantustan relying on WHO charity and scrambling for access from other countries, while South Africa 'led the world' in vaccinating its mostly white (and perhaps coloured and Indian) population?

If COVID-19 had happened in the 1970s, and South Africa excluded the population of the Bantustans (in the colourful areas) while providing speedy access to white settlers surrounding those population centres, would we find this as acceptable as when it's in the West Bank?