Key topics:
- Ramaphosa condemns Israel‘s actions in Gaza.
- U.S. complicity in war crimes highlighted.
- South Africa risks strained ties with U.S.
Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.
Support South Africa’s bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.
If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here.
BizNews Reporter ___STEADY_PAYWALL___
In a strongly worded article published in Foreign Policy, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, alongside Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, Colombian President Gustavo Petro, and Varsha Gandikota-Nellutla of the Progressive International, condemned Israel’s actions in Gaza, accusing it of violating international law with impunity. The article asserts that Israel, backed by powerful allies providing diplomatic cover, military support, and political protection, has systematically undermined the principles of human rights, sovereign equality, and the prohibition of genocide enshrined in the United Nations Charter.
The leaders argue that the complicity of countries shielding Israel from accountability—primarily the United States—has severely damaged the credibility of international institutions such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). They highlight the ICC’s arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as the ICJ’s findings on Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories. Despite these rulings, they claim Israel continues its violations, emboldened by Western support.
The article is particularly significant for South Africa, given that Ramaphosa’s direct involvement in such a confrontational stance against Israel—and by extension, the U.S.—risks straining Pretoria’s already tense relationship with Washington. South Africa has been a vocal critic of Israel’s actions, leading the charge at the ICJ in accusing Israel of genocide. This move has already sparked criticism from the U.S. and its allies, who have warned against what they perceive as a one-sided legal assault on Israel while ignoring atrocities elsewhere.
Now, by co-authoring an article that frames the U.S. as complicit in war crimes, Ramaphosa is further deepening the divide. The Biden administration has repeatedly signalled its frustration with South Africa’s foreign policy direction, particularly Pretoria’s alignment with global actors critical of Western policies, including Russia and China. This latest move could further jeopardize trade and diplomatic ties, with Washington potentially viewing South Africa as increasingly hostile to U.S. interests.
The piece also outlines the formation of the Hague Group—a coalition of nations, including Bolivia, Colombia, Honduras, and Namibia—committed to enforcing accountability measures against Israel. These include honouring ICC arrest warrants, blocking arms transfers to Israel, and preventing the passage of military shipments through their ports. The leaders argue that just as the global community once united to dismantle apartheid South Africa, similar measures must now be employed against Israel to uphold international law.
While the article positions these actions as a defence of multilateralism, the practical consequences for South Africa could be severe. The U.S. has shown a willingness to punish nations it perceives as undermining its geopolitical interests. Washington has already expressed concerns over South Africa’s foreign policy trajectory, including its stance on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its economic ties with China. This latest broadside against the U.S. and its Middle East ally could invite economic and diplomatic repercussions, including strained trade agreements under AGOA (the African Growth and Opportunity Act).
While the article presents a moral argument for Palestinian self-determination, Ramaphosa’s decision to publicly align himself with such an aggressive position raises pressing questions about South Africa’s diplomatic priorities. Is Pretoria willing to risk further alienation from its largest trading partners to maintain its ideological stance on Israel-Palestine? If so, what will the economic and geopolitical fallout be?
With tensions already high, this intervention could mark another step in South Africa’s drift away from Western influence—potentially to its own detriment.
Read also:
