Members of South African Jews for a Free Palestine protest in Rosebank, Johannesburg, on Wednesday, against Israel 'committing genocide, apartheid, and settler colonialism'. Photo by Delwyn Verasamy
International Relations Minister Naledi Pandor’s gaffe in speaking to Hamas this week raised alarm within the government because it put at risk South Africa’s enduring hope of helping to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, quaint as this may seem, while the war threatens to embroil the wider Middle East.
Hamas put Pandor’s conversation with Ismail Haniyeh, the head of its political bureau, to use as propaganda by claiming that she had expressed support for its 7 October incursion into southern Israel.
The presidency rushed to deny the minister had done so, stressing that South Africa did not have bilateral ties with Hamas and insisting that the thrust of the conversation had been about securing humanitarian relief for Gaza as it suffers relentless shelling and braces for a ground invasion.
Its reaction suggests that the minister did not have the president’s express blessing to engage the group, which controls Gaza, though it did not respond to direct questions on the subject. Nor, it is reliably understood, were her own advisers informed that she spoke to Haniyeh.
“She allowed herself to be played,” said one of the government officials who rushed to contain the damage as the Hamas claim made headlines, and the mere fact that the conversation happened drew a furious response from the South African Jewish Board of Deputies.
It accused the minister of having “dragged our country into very dangerous waters”. ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula defended her, firing back: “Hands off our Minister Naledi Pandor, she has the right to talk to anybody.”
In government circles, however, the reaction was fear of alienating Israel and of raising further tension with Washington in the wake of the diplomatic row over accusations that South Africa shipped arms to Russia aboard the Lady R.
There were suggestions that Pandor should call her Israeli counterpart Eli Cohen, and possibly US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, but by mid-week it was settled that the most appropriate remedy would be for her express readiness to speak to all parties, the reasoning being that the offending call had been initiated by Hamas.
The sense that the minister had let the side down by entertaining it stems from the care the government had up until that point taken to calibrate its response to the conflict, as well as genuine dismay at the carnage inflicted by Hamas in the worst attacks on Israel in half a century.
The ANC had, one member recalled this week, resolved in the late 1980s that there should be no more civilian victims in the struggle against apartheid and committed to ethical resistance.
Ramaphosa has deplored atrocities on both sides of the Israeli-Hamas conflict while urging a cessation of hostilities and urging humanitarian aid for Gaza. He has also declared South Africa ready to help find a lasting peace settlement which would see a viable Palestinian state, existing side by side with Israel, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
“South Africa stands ready to work with the international community and to share our experience in mediation and conflict resolution as we have done on the continent and around the world.”
The message was echoed by Justice Minister Ronald Lamola, who told the 61st session of the Asian African Legal Consultative Organisation that international law demanded the recognition of Palestinian sovereignty.
An insider said the government’s approach harked back to a policy adopted in the 1990s when the Palestinian Liberation Organisation asked South Africa to maintain ties with Israel, so as not to lose a seat at the negotiating table.
“They wanted to know that there could be someone in the room whom they can trust,” he said, adding that the government has held onto the belief that its unique history had put it in a position to help settle a conflict that may seem intractable.
“This is why it took us so long to describe Israel as an apartheid state. Though that debate has now been settled – we could no longer lag behind when international consensus on the subject has shifted. We were after all the people who endured apartheid.”
The historical identification with a parallel Palestinian liberation struggle may mean that South Africa overestimates the extent to which its lessons can apply in the current conflict, and overlooks that it can be resolved if an Israeli majority accepts the equal rights of an oppressed people.
Some of the staunchest proponents of local mediation all but overlook the Israeli left’s support for Palestinian statehood, and its necessary role in ending the impasse.
But their wish to intercede has made for measure and caution, which has resulted in dissonance between state and party – the ANC rushed in the stunned aftermath of the attacks to call Israel the architect of Hamas’ actions. As Israel intensifies its indiscriminate bombardment of Gaza, it is becoming harder for the government to hold this delicate line of diplomacy on an unequal war.
Ramaphosa did so on Wednesday. In a statement issued after a phone call with Ukrainian President Vlodymyr Zelensky, he voiced concern at “the toll on human lives” and called for the return of all hostages.
The department of international relations took a different, forceful tone and accused Israel of genocide after the shelling of Ahli Arab hospital in Gaza killed more than 500 people. So did Mbalula, who implored the government to call for Israel to be hauled before the International Criminal Court.
Israel has denied targeting the hospital and claimed it was hit in an errant missile fired by Palestinian militants, which President Joe Biden said he accepted based on early evidence.
“Just as the attack by Hamas on civilians in Israel was abhorrent, there are no words to fully express South Africa’s condemnation of Israel’s bombing of the Ahli Arab Baptist hospital,” the department of international relations said.
“The bombing of the hospital was a war crime,” it added.
“South Africa calls on the international community to end its indifference to the gross violations against the Palestinian people in Gaza, and for the UN Security Council to take enforcement action to halt the unfolding genocide.”
Hours later, the United States vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling on Israel to allow humanitarian corridors into Gaza, to pause hostilities and to lift its order to evacuate the north of the enclave.
Academic and political analyst Steven Friedman said even if South Africa’s wish to play a meaningful role did not seem realistic at this point, Pandor was right in demanding pressure be piled on Israel.
“Calling for pressure on Israel as Pandor has done is realistic because it is the only way, over time, to get them to the negotiating table,” he told the Mail & Guardian.
In a column published on Against The Tide website, Friedman disagreed with suggestions that when that finally happens South Africa will not be fit to mediate because it had taken sides, saying this line of thinking was based on the fantasy that Israel can be influenced by those who indulge it.
“If the West really wanted an end to the conflict, it would be forcing the Israeli state to the negotiating table, just as it was eventually persuaded to force the apartheid government to the table,” he wrote.
“This would mean, at the very least, cutting aid and withdrawing diplomatic support for the state.”
Though South Africa’s role was small because Israel was not reliant on its support, it was on the right track towards a just settlement in supporting Palestinians.
“If it wants to help end the violence, it will ignore the calls to stay neutral and do far more to support the non-violent pressure which will make violence less likely.”