More broadly, as a pragmatic issue utterly divorced from the goal of “justice”, few nations achieve prosperity when confiscation is the norm, as prosperity usually involves planning and investments with multi year returns. If a nation wishes to repair inequalities through transfers, the less disruptive way to do it is through taxation. Seizing specific properties outright is an arbitrary and capricious distribution of the burdens, and a lingering political culture of expropriation will likely deter investment for a generation or longer.

It is also remarkable the extent to which these land confiscation programs focus on the nation’s farms, as if the leaders’ vision of a prosperous future was simply subsistence agriculture: two acres and a cow for every family. The proceeds of a program of taxation can be invested in health and education and infrastructure, the foundations of future prosperity. It’s hard to do that with seized land; few will be fool enough to buy it off of you.

On the other hand, a campaign of land seizures, fêting ethnic resentment, is much more effective at feeding the ruling party’s political power, so, there’s your tragedy.

I think painting this as such a clear "black&white" issue you make it much too easy for yourself. This goes particular for South Africa, where much of the wealth disparity is because of the economic divisions that were created during colonization and apartheid live on.

On a more general this is similar to the arguments with libertarians who hold property rights up the highest, ... but only from now, ignoring the blatant disregard for property rights in history which cemented todays economic structures.

I don't have good answers how to deal with wrongs of the past, but it's clearly not simple.