WORD HAS IT

Orwell at the UN General Assembly (UNGA 81) – Decoding the anti-Israel Diplomatic Bias.

By Yoram Blumstein

In the aftermath of October 7^th, an alarming new reality has gripped global Jewry: a wave of antisemitism and anti-Israel animus. This has been fueled by the overlapping efforts of states, non-state actors, and multilateral organisations (the UN, the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, and other agencies). The 81^st Session of UNGA bore testimony to the lies, manipulation of political language and distortion of truth for pure emotional intimidation, as leader after leader took to the UN rostrum to accuse Israel of “genocide”, “war crimes”, “mass starvation”, and creating conditions resembling a “concentration camp.” George Orwell, one of the greatest writers of the twentieth century, would have characterised the speeches of world leaders or their representatives (especially those of Brazil, Ireland, Spain, Turkey, Iran, Jordan, Qatar, France, Malaysia, the Palestinian Authority,and South Africa) as corrupt language designed to obscure their real intentions using metaphors and imagery about Israel’s purported “genocidal” conduct in Gaza. Orwell’s written masterpieces (like Nineteen Eighty-Four) were prescient. In his 1946 essay, ‘Politics and the English Language’, Orwell aptly stated:
“Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

**War of Words**. George Orwell recognized that political power is sustained not just through physical force, but through the deliberate corruption of words, a stratagem in the armory of Israel’s multifarious enemies.

This article applies an Orwellian diagnostic approach to dissect the diplomatic rhetoric which was nonchalantly employed by anti-Israel delegates at UNGA 81, where calumnies about the only Jewish state were employed as political weapons to manipulate public perception, while distorting the facts and the objective reality in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), as well as Gaza. Such mendacities, especially if spewed from the rostrum of the world’s premier international organisation, against the Jewish state carry enormous weight in the court of public opinion and have real-world impact on the Israeli government and Jews. In using Orwellian tools, this article seeks to decode the speech of the main state sponsor of Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood terrorism and genocidaire-in-chief, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. While other world leaders used similar anti-Israel canards, the singular honour must go to Erdoğan (who stands as one of Israel’s most vocal critics) since his speech was laden with political lies, devoid of legality, and nothing more than pretentious diction. By deconstructing Erdoğan’s speech as pre-packaged lies, the article will extract specific speech acts used by the Turkish president in his invective against the State of Israel and juxtapose them with real-world facts grounded in legality and empirical observation.

**Master of Malevolence**. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has a long history of severe verbal attacks against Israel, frequently labeling the country a “terrorist state” and comparing its leadership to the Nazi regime. (Photo: Adem ALTAN / AFP via Getty Images)

DECYPHERING TURKEY’S LIES ABOUT ISRAEL

Instead of using the general debate to promote international peace and security initiatives (especially in the Middle East), Erdoğan devoted a large portion of his speech to spreading lies about Israel and promoting a clear domestic and international agenda. In Orwellian terminology, Erdoğan’s speech was littered with metaphors, imagery, political theatrics, selective moral outrage, and terminology, while obscuring the truth to fill political bandwidth. Yet, the Turkish leader is guilty of the very baseless charges he levels against Israel and thus deflects self-scrutiny.

“Gaza is the most inhuman concentration camp of our time…” and “the world’s largest graveyard for children…”

This was a high-octane and emotionally charged statement by Erdoğan. As such, it was designed for maximum impact. It is palpable that references to “concentration camp” and “graveyard” are insensitive and invoke historical analogies with the Holocaust, when the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (commonly known as the Nazi Party) killed more than six million Jews through gassing, summary execution and starvation. This is historical inversion and an affront to the Jewish people, the remaining Holocaust survivors and their families. Turkey is clearly creating a simplified good-versus-evil dichotomy, while purposefully ignoring geopolitical complexities and concealing Erdoğan’s hideous policies against the Kurds in northern Syria and Iraq.

How would Orwell relate to the above? Erdoğan is known for his double standards. He portrays himself as the leader of the Muslim world. Yet, he has:

– committed genocide against the Kurds in northern Syria and Iraq, as he will not countenance the creation of a Kurdish corridor or crescent (straddling northern Syria, Turkey, northern Iraq, and western Iran)

– armed and sponsored the former leader of the now-disbanded terrorist outfit Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and now president of Syria, Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa (formerly known by his nom de guerre, Abu Mohammad al-Julani), as a proxy against the Syrian Kurds

– supports Islamist movements in Libya and Sudan, and

– hosts Hamas leaders.

Hence, Erdoğan lacks the moral authority to lecture Israel on morality, and he should be treated as a diabolical, homicidal creature. The Turkish president’s specific utterance was not based on facts, but on weaponising language for political gain. The truth speaks for itself. Gaza is not a “concentration camp” or “graveyard” for children. It is an active combat zone; Hamas terrorists are doing the fighting, and Israel has taken extraordinary steps to minimise civilian casualties. In fact, the Israeli Defense Forces’ (IDF) Coordinator for the Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) has assisted Israeli, regional and international aid agencies with the erection of temporary tents. At the same time, what government, bent on confining people to a “concentration camp”, would coordinate with international agencies to launch a polio vaccination campaign, if the intention is to kill them? By using and inverting the Holocaust analogy of “concentration camps”, Israel did not put policies and resources in place to confine Gazans to a specific location to eventually kill Palestinians. Conversely, this is exactly what Adolf Hitler and his henchmen did against Jews in major concentration camps in Germany, Poland, Austria, France, Estonia, Latvia, and the Czech Republic. They intended to exterminate all Jews as part of Hitler’s “Final Solution”, which was carried out by Adolf Eichmann, Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich. It is inaccurate to portray Israel as having created a “graveyard for children”, as the IDF has taken reasonable measures, in line with international humanitarian law, to protect children in Gaza. The faux sultan, Erdoğan, willfully neglected to inform the General Assembly that Hamas used hospitals, schools and public facilities in Gaza as shields and weapons storage facilities in its terrorist campaign against the IDF and Gazans. Tragically, children died in the war, yet Turkey, which, along with Qatar, has enabled Hamas to build its own open-air prison, from which it launched its murderous campaign against Jews and Israelis on October 7^th. Erdogan also omitted the fact that COGAT continues to coordinate with Israeli humanitarian agencies to distribute vital baby formula to Gazans, as Hamas has intercepted aid supplies. The double standard is clear: There is no condemnation that Hamas started the war against Israel and should bear responsibility for all fatalities in Gaza. Israel was under attack and responded in self-defense. Check your facts, Erdoğan!

“Insatiable genocidal mindset…” and “state terrorism”

Erdoğan’s arsenal of egregious statements against Israel includes references to the Israeli government as inherently “genocidal” and engaging in “state terrorism.” He further asserted that:

“There is no war in Gaza; there are no two sides. This is an invasion, a massacre, a genocide, a policy of mass destruction.”

Israel never committed genocide and only acted in self-defense. The IDF launched “Operation Swords of Iron” to rescue the hostages and target those responsible for the October 7^th massacre. This was a legitimate response, in line with the law of armed conflict. Regrettably, Erdoğan seems to be inspired by South Africa’s genocide case against Israel. The threshold to prove genocide is exceedingly high, as it is often referred to as the “crime of crimes.” The 1948 Genocide Convention defines genocide as “the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such.” The accuser or the plaintiff must prove specific intent (dolus specialis) and the mental element (mens rea). Therefore, it is not enough to demonstrate massive civilian casualties, widespread destruction, or severe human suffering. In fact, Hamas is responsible for the implosion of Gaza, as it launched an unjustified attack on Israel. Erdoğan and his ally, the avaricious African National Congress (ANC), rely excessively on individual statements by a few senior Israeli politicians to prove “genocidal intent.” Israel’s legal team cogently argued that individual Israeli politicians’ statements were taken out of context and expressed in anger at the surprise October 7^th attacks (the deadliest in Israel’s history since the Holocaust). The ICJ requires proof that political statements translated into official government policy that directed IDF commanders and soldiers to carry out “genocidal actions” in Gaza. This is a no-brainer since Israel did not display intent to kill and displace Palestinians. It is a figment of Erdoğan and South Africa’s imagination. The IDF’s actions were aimed at targeting Hamas’ terrorist infrastructure and leadership, and it put measures in place to ensure the safety of civilians in Gaza.

In Orwellian terms, Erdoğan has failed to separate rhetoric from facts. As a matter of fact, Erdoğan should be hauled before the ICC and ICJ for war crimes and genocide committed against the Kurds, as his campaign was intentional and specific. He unleashed the full might of the Turkish army, intelligence and its proxies in northern Syria and Iraq to exterminate the Kurds, who rightfully deserve a state of their own. The Turkish government does not distinguish between Kurdish fighters (who have been instrumental in the defeat of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria – ISIS) and civilians. Additionally, Erdoğan has exported his brand of Islamist fundamentalism to radical Islamists in Libya, Sudan and part of the Horn of Africa with political and material support, which continues to undermine regional stability and the peacemaking efforts of the African Union, Gulf countries and the international community.

BUILDING A RESILIENT, OFFENSIVE AND DEFENSIVE ECOSYSTEM IN DEFENSE OF ISRAEL

As lies and propaganda against Israel and the Jewish people will continue unabated, it is important to reclaim the narrative battlespace. By its own admission, the Israeli government has done a terrible job in promoting Israel’s international image since October 7th. In his address to UNGA 81, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu correctly pointed out that Israel is fighting a battle on the eighth front: the battle for the truth. Erdoğan and those of his ilk are the chief purveyors of false claims of genocide. The Turkish leader’s anti-Israel missive is nothing more than bullshit. In an entertaining little book, ‘On Bullshit’ (2005), Harry G. Frankfurt remarked that, “A person who undertakes bullshit his way through has much more freedom. His focus is panoramic rather than particular. He does not limit himself to inserting a certain falsehood at a specific point, and thus he is not constrained by the truths surrounding that point or intersecting it. He is prepared, so far as required, to fake the context as well.”

**Rousing Rhetoric**. Erdoğan speaks of the “ murderous ideology called Zionism” and said that “the genocide network has turned Gaza into the world’s largest cemetery for children.”

As Israel is central to Jewish identity, it behoves Jews to act as citizen-diplomats for the State of Israel and disabuse the liars of maligning the only Jewish state. The South African Jewish community, although Lilliputian in size (52 300, according to a recent study by the Kaplan Center for Jewish Studies at the University of Cape Town) compared to other diaspora communities, is the most Zionist in orientation, as evidenced by the indefatigable spirit of the leadership and volunteers of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) and Zionist Federation (SAZF), which continue to engage with the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) and the South African Presidency whenever unwarranted policies and statements are made against Israel. This is active citizen diplomacy, as South African Jews accept constructive criticism of Israel, but not when it pivots towards antisemitism, extremism and lies. The South African Jewish community, of which I am a proud member, has built an effective ecosystem in defense of Israel. Other diaspora communities should take a page from the South African Jewish community’s commendable pro-Israel efforts.

About the writer:

Editor’s Note: Yoram Blumstein is a nom de plume the author uses to protect their identity because of previous security threats.

While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves. LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).

SAUDI ARABIA’S SECRET JEWISH MISTRESS

The secret tryst that no one wants to admit is happening.

By Jonathan Feldstein

From my balcony in the Judean mountains, I can see the lights of Jordan on a clear night and the skyline of Amman at sunrise. On other nights I simply look south and east and know that the same Iranian missiles and drones from the Houthis in Yemen threatening my children and grandchildren are also threatening the mosques, holy cities, the oil fields and very capitol that keep the House of Saud in power. That is the uncomfortable intimacy of this region. We are not friends. We are not yet even fully acknowledged as legitimate neighbors. Yet Riyadh is knocking on Jerusalem’s door like a man who has four wives and seeks out his mistress for marital counseling.

Let’s call it what it is. Saudi Arabia is treating Israel as that secret mistress.

The official household is crowded and they don’t always get along. Wife number one is Pakistan: nuclear-armed, Sunni, and now bound to Riyadh by a mutual-defense pact signed in Mecca itself. Wife number two is Turkey: NATO’s second-largest army, Islamist, and freshly joined to the same Mecca Joint Defense Agreement (Mecca Pact) that treats an attack on one as an attack on all. Wife number three is Egypt: the first Arab state to make (a cold) peace with Israel, a partner in Sinai security, and a regular interlocutor sharing a threatened body of water with the Saudis, and which is an essential lifeline to Cairo’s shipping and own stability. Wife number four is the United States, still the biggest and best arms supplier and now offering a glittering dowry of forty-eight F-35s worth more than twenty-four billion dollars.

**Security Shield or Doubtful Deterrence?** On August 7, 2026, Saudi Arabia signed the Mecca Pact with Turkey and Pakistan, establishing a mutual-defense framework in which an attack on one is treated as an attack on all. (Photo Credit: SPA)

All four are public. All four come with contracts, smiling photo-ops, and statements about Islamic solidarity or strategic partnership. The first three of the four are more concerned about their own marital chamber – and the tribes that they come from – rather than the well-being of the house itself, and would have no problem burning it all down to protect their own interests. None of them, so far, has stopped the Houthis from shooting at Saudi oil facilities, threatening the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, or sending drones toward Mecca. The fourth, the United States, has been asked to help protect the whole house, but has declined to do so.

It may look good – showing a united house – on paper, but it seems someone forgot to put batteries in the Mecca mutual defense pact. So, the kingdom has quietly asked help from the one country that has spent years intercepting Iranian missiles, hunting Houthi launchers, eliminating terrorist leaders and command centers, and sharing intelligence through CENTCOM: Israel.

That is the secret tryst that no one wants to admit is happening. The man with four wives has come running to the woman he will not introduce at family gatherings, or even acknowledge her existence outside her penthouse that he doesn’t even pay for, and only “visits” under the dark of night.

I do not acknowledge this with bitterness. I acknowledge it with the weary clarity of someone who has watched this pattern for decades. Arab leaders have always preferred to keep Israel in the shadows while they collected American weapons, Pakistani nuclear umbrellas, Turkish drones, and Egyptian political cover. And play these off other suiters including China, and the abusive ex, Iran, who nobody wants anything to do with, but none can avoid. When the missiles start flying, the shadows become less useful. Israel’s air defenses, its intelligence, and operational experience against the exact Iranian axis now squeezing the Red Sea – these are not theoretical. They are proven. The Saudis know it. That is why the secret relationship exists.

The irony is almost biblical. Esau and Jacob reconciling and then going their own ways but never fully embracing one another as brothers. The “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques” is asking the Jewish state – the younger blessed sibling – to help protect the approaches to those same mosques from a Shiite militia that chants “Death to America, Death to Israel” and now, increasingly, “Death to the House of Saud”. The same kingdom that still reflexively conditions any public recognition of Israel to a Palestinian Arab state is privately seeking Israeli help so that its tankers can leave port, its pipelines can supply the tankers, and its pilgrims can reach Mecca without looking up at the sky in fear. And so, the Houthi missiles don’t become an insurrection that threatens the House of Saud falling like a house of cards.

This is not new in kind. Egypt made peace in 1979 because it had been beaten and needed the Sinai back, if not for the land, at least to save face and for its own stability. Jordan followed because it understood the alternative was chaos. Peace with Egypt and Jordan is cold, functional, just between governments, all while state run institutions continue to foment anti-Israel rhetoric that makes Israel hated on the streets of Cairo and Amman.

The Abraham Accords materialized because the Arabs saw Iran as the greater threat and Israel as the only regional power that had already paid the price of confronting it. Saudi Arabia is simply later to the same realization, and still too proud or too constrained by its own street and its own clerics – and the Palestinian cause tying them down – to say it out loud. Israel remains the hidden mistress to which the discontented husband turns for real comfort.

The Mecca Pact with Turkey and Pakistan seems impressive on paper. Mutual defense. Joint exercises. A secretariat. It has not produced a single Saudi battery that can do what Israeli systems have done night after night. The American F-35s, if they ever arrive, will take years to field and come with the usual restrictions and the usual questions about qualitative military edge. Egypt can talk and coordinate; it cannot replace the targeting picture Israel already has of Houthi positions and Iranian supply lines.

So, the mistress remains useful. She is not invited to family gatherings. She is not mentioned in the communiqués. She is simply the one who knows how to keep the house from burning down.

I am not naïve about what this means for Israel. We have interests too in the Houthis and their Iranian puppeteer being roundly defeated. We should give the intelligence. We should coordinate through CENTCOM. We should not pretend that quiet cooperation is the same as peace, or that Riyadh’s current desperation will automatically produce an embassy in Jerusalem. Normalization will come, if it comes, only when Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman decides the cost of public hypocrisy – and specifically tying his vision for a Saudi future is more inhibited by championing the Palestinian cause that brings it down – is higher than the cost of public honesty. Yet even with four wives in the same family, the Saudis do not share everything that goes on with each of the wives with all the others. MBS may come around when he’s ready to admit that all the smoke and mirrors of the Mecca mutual defense pact is not worth the paper on which it is written. Until then, Israel remains the woman who is visited only when the wives cannot satisfy their husband’s needs.

**Holding Hands to Dowry**. Following Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman holding hands on the Nov. 18, 2025 in the Oval Office at the White House, the U.S. State Department has officially approved a $24.3 billion sale of 48 F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter jets to Saudi Arabia (Photo: Reuters)

That is not a dignified position. It is, however, a familiar one. Jews have been useful to empires and caliphates for centuries – until we were not. The difference now is that we have a state, an army, and the ability to say no. We can help because it is in our interest that Iran and its proxies not control the Red Sea.

From these hills I watch the same sky the Saudis watch. I pray for the safety of my family and my neighbors, and I pray that the men who rule in Riyadh will one day have the courage to treat Israel as a public partner rather than a secret mistress. Until that day, the comfort provided by the mistress will continue behind closed doors.

**State of Affairs**. Despite close security cooperation between Israel and Saudi Arabia, it was too much for Saudi Arabia to agree to Israel’s request to send planes – even civilian planes – to fetch its traumatized citizens following the hijack and terror attack on Flydubai.

About the writer:

Jonathan Feldstein - President of the US based non-profit Genesis123 Foundation whose mission is to build bridges between Jews and Christians – is a freelance writer whose articles appear in The Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, Townhall, NorthJersey.com, Algemeiner Journal, The Jewish Press, major Christian websites and more.

PRETORIA’S HOUSE OF CARDS AT THE HAGUE

While creating a fine photo-op, 21 national flags do not a verdict make.

By Shaun Schutte

On 22 September 2026, the International Court of Justice confirmed that Colombia had withdrawn its intervention from South Africa’s genocide case against Israel. President Abelardo De La Espriella’s government has also restored diplomatic relations with Israel and reversed other decisions taken by the previous administration, while Nicaragua had already withdrawn its separate application to intervene in April 2025.

Colombia’s decision matters because it exposes something the ANC government has been allowed to blur since it filed the case on 29 December 2023. Pretoria repeatedly creates the impression that every country appearing in the proceedings has joined South Africa, supports its accusation and accepts that Israel committed genocide.

That is not what the court record shows.

South Africa is the applicant making the accusation. Israel is the respondent denying it. The other countries are interveners, and intervention does not automatically mean joining South Africa’s side or accepting that its allegation has been proven.

Under Article 63 of the ICJ Statute, any state party to the Genocide Convention may intervene when the interpretation of that Convention is in dispute. A country may explain how it believes genocide, genocidal intent and the duties of states should be interpreted without presenting new factual evidence, endorsing South Africa’s allegations or declaring Israel guilty.

Palestine and Belize also invoked Article 62, claiming a specific legal interest that may be affected by the eventual judgment. That gives them a different basis for requesting participation, but it still does not transform every government appearing in the courtroom into an independent witness for Pretoria.

“We continue to work closely with Türkiye……Türkiye has made its support for the case very clear,” said Ronald Lamola, South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation to reporters on the ICJ genocide case against Israel at the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Foreign Ministers Meeting in Kruger National Park, South Africa, May 24, 2026. (Photo: AA)

THE COURTROOM ANALOGY

Imagine a prosecutor bringing twenty-one people into a courtroom and then walking outside to tell the public that all twenty-one are witnesses supporting the prosecution.

When their statements are examined, the picture changes. Some openly support the accusation. Others are merely explaining how they believe the law should be interpreted. One specifically avoids deciding the disputed facts, while four warn that the prosecution may be attempting to lower the standard required to prove the crime.

The prosecutor nevertheless points towards everyone inside the courtroom and presents them as one united group standing behind the accusation.

That is the impression Pretoria has created, and it is misleading.

THE COUNTRIES LEANING TOWARDS PRETORIA

Libya intervened on 10 May 2024 and left very little room for doubt about its position. It alleges that Israel’s acts and omissions are genocidal and were committed with the required specific intention to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as part of the broader Palestinian national, racial and ethnic group.

Libya is not simply discussing the meaning of the Convention. It has aligned itself directly with South Africa’s accusation.

Mexico followed on 24 May 2024, concentrating on the obstruction of humanitarian assistance, destruction of civilian and cultural infrastructure and the cumulative consequences of Israel’s military campaign.

Its submission advances a broader method of inferring genocidal intent and materially assists Pretoria, but it does not provide an independent judicial finding that Israel entered Gaza intending to destroy the Palestinian people.

Palestine intervened on 31 May 2024 under both Articles 62 and 63, claiming a direct legal interest in the eventual outcome. Its position openly supports the allegation that Palestinians in Gaza are being subjected to genocide.

Palestine is directly affected by the war and has an obvious reason to place its case before the Court, but it cannot simultaneously be presented as an independent and neutral confirmation of South Africa’s accusation.

Spain entered on 28 June 2024 and argued that killing, serious bodily or mental harm, forced displacement and deprivation must be assessed collectively when determining whether genocidal acts and intent exist.

That interpretation could make Pretoria’s allegation easier to establish, but Spain is still presenting a legal argument about how evidence should be assessed. It is not arriving with proof that the final legal threshold has already been crossed.

Türkiye intervened on 7 August 2024 and strongly supports South Africa’s position, arguing that Israel’s conduct must be considered as a complete pattern rather than as isolated events.

That stance is consistent with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s openly hostile political posture towards Israel, and it is reasonable to ask how much of Türkiye’s involvement arises from independently assessed evidence and how much reflects an established geopolitical position.

Consistently hostile towards Israel and frequently seen at political rallies adorning a Palestinian keffiyeh over his shoulders, one questions whether Türkiye president Erdoğan’s position in supporting South Africa’s case against Israel is motivated by law or politics? (Photo: Reuters)

Chile filed its declaration on 12 September 2024, arguing that genocidal intent may be inferred from a consistent pattern of conduct and the surrounding circumstances.

This assists Pretoria’s legal argument, but it still does not establish the central fact that must eventually be proven:

that Israel’s purpose was to destroy Palestinians as a people rather than to destroy Hamas as a military organisation.

The Maldives intervened on 1 October 2024 and focused on civilian deaths, displacement, deprivation of essential supplies and living conditions allegedly calculated to cause physical destruction.

These are grave matters that must be examined, but the consequences of war and the specific intention to destroy a protected group remain separate legal questions.

Bolivia followed on 8 October 2024 and has openly supported South Africa’s case. Its government has also been politically aligned with the anti-Israel bloc for years.

Political alignment does not automatically invalidate its submission, but neither can that alignment be displayed as independent proof that genocide occurred.

Ireland entered the proceedings on 6 January 2025, concentrating on humanitarian assistance, collective punishment, civilian protection and the interpretation of the prohibited acts listed in the Convention.

Its arguments may assist South Africa, but Ireland did not arrive carrying a judgment that genocide had already been proven. It supplied legal interpretation, not a verdict.

Cuba intervened four days later, on 10 January 2025, and openly supports both the Palestinian position and Pretoria’s use of the Genocide Convention against Israel.

Cuba’s longstanding alignment against Israel and the United States is part of the political context and cannot simply be ignored. That alignment may explain its position, but it is not evidence of genocidal intent.

Belize filed on 30 January 2025 under both Articles 62 and 63, claiming a legal interest in the proceedings while supporting a broader interpretation of the Convention.

Its participation adds another flag to the coalition Pretoria displays, but an application to intervene remains neither evidence nor a finding of guilt.

Brazil intervened on 17 September 2025 and argues that the cumulative effects of Israel’s military operations must be examined when determining whether the Convention has been violated.

That is a legitimate legal argument for the Court to consider, but the Court must still distinguish between political condemnation, possible violations of humanitarian law and the very specific crime of genocide.

Comoros followed on 29 October 2025, supporting South Africa’s position and a broader interpretation of destructive conditions, deprivation and genocidal intent.

Comoros is also a member of the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. That does not disqualify its submission, but it forms part of the political background when its flag is presented as supposedly independent confirmation of Pretoria’s claim.

Belgium entered on 23 December 2025 and supports judicial scrutiny of Israel’s conduct while advancing interpretations that could broaden the circumstances from which prohibited acts and genocidal intent may be inferred.

Once again, the submission may assist Pretoria, but it does not establish the one element South Africa must ultimately prove:

Israel’s specific intention to destroy Palestinians as a protected group.

Iceland intervened on 11 March 2026 and leans towards a broader interpretation involving displacement, deprivation, civilian harm and the circumstances from which intent may be inferred.

It is an argument about how the Court should examine the evidence. It is not independent factual confirmation that the evidence already proves genocide.

Namibia entered on 12 March 2026 and clearly supports South Africa, arguing that genocidal intent must be assessed through the complete context and combined pattern of conduct.

Namibia’s own history of genocide gives its voice moral significance, but historical experience cannot replace the evidentiary requirement to prove Israel’s intention in this particular war.

THE COUNTRY THAT HAS NOT PRETENDED TO DECIDE THE FACTS

The Netherlands intervened on 11 March 2026 and made an important distinction. Its government explicitly stated that its declaration does not determine the disputed facts or conditions on the ground. It confines itself to explaining how parts of the Genocide Convention should be interpreted.

The Netherlands argues that the available evidence should be considered comprehensively and that forced displacement or deprivation of humanitarian assistance may, in certain circumstances, contribute to proving prohibited acts or genocidal intent.

Parts of that interpretation may assist South Africa, but the Netherlands has not declared Israel guilty and cannot honestly be displayed as a country that confirmed Pretoria’s accusation.

THE COUNTRIES RESISTING PRETORIA’S APPROACH

Paraguay intervened on 3 March 2026 to defend the original, narrow meaning of genocide. It insists that the crime requires proof of a specific intention to destroy a protected group and warns against weakening that requirement.

Paraguay is formally involved in the same proceedings, but no honest account could count it as part of South Africa’s coalition.

The United States entered on 12 March 2026 and explicitly rejected the genocide accusation as false. Its submission argues that widespread civilian casualties, even on a horrific scale, do not automatically establish genocidal intent, particularly during urban warfare against an armed organisation operating from within civilian areas.

Its intervention warns that lowering the threshold would transform genocide from a precisely defined crime into a political label applied to any destructive war.

Hungary intervened on the same day and also insists upon a high evidentiary threshold. Its position warns against taking possible violations of international humanitarian law and simply re-labelling them as genocide without proving the additional and very specific intention required by the Convention.

Hungary is inside the same courtroom, but it is there to challenge Pretoria’s legal approach — not to support it.

Fiji’s intervention also demands strong proof of both the prohibited acts and the intention to destroy the protected group. It raises concerns about relying uncritically upon politically contested reports from international organisations and advocacy groups.

Fiji is involved in the case, but it is not there to endorse South Africa.

WHAT THE NUMBERS ACTUALLY SHOW

There are now 21 states formally involved as interveners. Sixteen broadly support, lean towards or legally assist parts of Pretoria’s approach. The Netherlands restricts itself to legal interpretation without deciding the facts. Paraguay, the United States, Hungary and Fiji defend a stricter interpretation that challenges South Africa’s case.

That is not an international verdict. It is not 21 independent bodies of evidence, 21 witnesses confirming genocidal intent or 21 governments arriving at the same legal conclusion.

South Africa is entitled to bring its case, and every state party is entitled to offer its interpretation of the Genocide Convention. What Pretoria is not entitled to do is convert legal participation into political endorsement and then present the number of flags surrounding the proceedings as proof that the accusation has already been established.

The International Court of Justice has not found Israel guilty of genocide. Its provisional orders were issued to preserve possible rights and prevent irreparable harm while the case continues. They were not a final judgment that genocide had occurred, yet that distinction has repeatedly disappeared from the political narrative.

THE WAR DID NOT BEGIN INSIDE A COURTROOM

On 7 October 2023, Hamas-led forces crossed into Israel and deliberately attacked civilian communities. Approximately 1,200 people were killed and more than 250 were abducted and taken into Gaza.

Those civilians were not accidentally caught between two armies. Civilians were among the intended targets.

Hamas then returned to one of the most densely populated territories on earth with the hostages. It continued operating through an extensive military system built within and beneath civilian areas, with fighters, weapons, command facilities and tunnel entrances positioned in or near locations protected by their civilian function.

This did not remove Israel’s duty to distinguish between combatants and civilians. Civilian casualties are never irrelevant, and every credible allegation of unlawful conduct must be investigated.

It did, however, create a battlefield in which reaching Hamas would inevitably place civilians at risk, while every civilian casualty could be turned into political and strategic pressure against Israel. Hamas had constructed a war in which it could benefit from either outcome:

survive beneath the civilian population, or gain international support from the destruction caused when Israel came underground to find it.

The suffering in Gaza is real and devastating. Acknowledging that suffering does not require us to erase the organisation that started the war, murdered civilians, retained hostages and embedded its military machinery within the civilian environment upon which the war would be fought.

War crimes, disproportionate force and genocide are not interchangeable terms. Genocide requires proof of a specific intention to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group because it is that group.

Civilian deaths alone do not prove that intention. Destruction alone does not prove it. Political speeches, operational failures and even serious violations of the laws of war cannot simply be stacked together until they automatically become genocide.

The required intention must still be proven.

THE FLAGS CAN NO LONGER HIDE THE DIFFERENCES

Colombia has changed course and withdrawn. Nicaragua stepped back before it. Their decisions do not determine the case, but they prove that intervention is neither permanent nor beyond reconsideration.

The remaining governments must now clarify what their flags represent. If they possess independently verified evidence that Israel intended to destroy the Palestinian people, they must produce that evidence and stand openly behind the accusation.

If they intervened only to explain how the Genocide Convention should be interpreted, they must publicly reject any attempt by Pretoria to use their participation as proof that they endorsed South Africa’s factual claims.

If their involvement was driven primarily by ideological alignment, diplomatic pressure or bloc politics rather than independently assessed evidence, they should follow Colombia and withdraw.

The ANC government may possess the executive authority to conduct South Africa’s foreign policy, but it does not own the conscience of every South African whose name it carried into that courtroom. Neither does it own the flags of other governments merely because they entered the proceedings to speak about the law.

Pretoria cannot have it both ways.

It cannot count every intervention as support when addressing its political audience and then retreat behind legal technicalities when asked what those countries actually proved.

The choice facing every government involved is now clear:

● Stand behind the genocide accusation and produce the evidence.

● Clarify publicly that your intervention concerns legal interpretation and does not endorse Pretoria’s factual claims.

● If your flag is there only because political alignment placed it there, withdraw it.

Twenty-one flags may create an impressive photograph. They do not create evidence, they do not establish intent, and they do not amount to a verdict.

About the writer:

Shaun Schutte is a South African security professional, independent writer and founder of Black Knight Bodyguards. He served for eight years in the South African Defence Force before spending seventeen years in international close protection and security operations across conflict environments including Iraq, Afghanistan, Angola and Somalia. His writing draws on this operational background to examine asymmetric warfare, terrorism, protective security and the political narratives surrounding modern conflict. He writes from the perspective of a practitioner rather than an academic, combining publicly available evidence with lessons gained through direct experience in unstable and hostile environments.

SOURCES

International Court of Justice—declarations of intervention:
https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192/intervention

ICJ confirmation of Colombia’s withdrawal and current list of intervening states:
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/icj-press-release-22sep26

International Court of Justice—complete case record:
https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192

A FAILURE OF A FILM

The truth is collateral damage in NAZA

By Rolene Marks

In the last two weeks, two Israeli-made shows have dominated the headlines. One is the massive hit, Fauda, which in its latest season that is centered on the horrors of 7 October, is laying bare the atrocities and trauma in as much excruciating pain that art imitating life allows. The show’s creators take viewers as close to that day that the boundaries of television permit. Fauda has managed to succeed where Israel’s public diplomacy has failed – and the results are evident as it soars to the top of the Netflix rankings, especially in the Arab world. At the time of writing this, Fauda was ranked 4 overall in global rankings. It already debuted at number 1 in Lebanon and is in the top 10 of Arab countries.

The other is the movie, NAZA. The title is an Israeli military acronym derived from “nezek agavi”, Hebrew for collateral damage – but most people will reach for another analogy. You know the one.

The premise of the movie that is ironically backed by the notoriously anti-Israel publication, The Guardian, relies on anonymous testimony from 24 IDF soldiers who claim to have served in the elite intelligence unit, 8200, and claims that using AI (artificial intelligence) a planned strike that would result in 500 civilian deaths was approved.

**Spain Again**. Hardly surprising for a country historically antisemitic for its people to demonstrate support of the “NAZA” documentary film by Israeli directors Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor as seen at the 74th San Sebastian International Film Festival in the northern Spanish Basque city of San Sebastian on September 25, 2026. (Photo: Ander Gillenea/AFP via Getty Images)

Israel’s war with Hamas is the most scrutinized conflict in the world, and if there ever was an incident where 500 civilians were killed, it would definitely have dominated the front pages of every media outlet. The only strike where the number 500 was mentioned was on the 17 October 2023 when Hamas alleged that an Israeli airstrike had struck the Al-Ahli hospital, killing that many civilians. Faster than Hamas were miraculously able to count alleged civilian deaths, was the speed in which this made headlines around the world. When the facts were investigated, it was discovered that a Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket that had fallen short, hit the parking lot causing a small crater and sadly killed a handful of civilians. The lie had gotten out, put its trousers on and was gallivanting around the world – and the result was mass protests and attacks on several synagogues.

A similar analogy can be drawn with NAZA. The documentary has been screened and the headlines about its content have dominated media publications around the world, despite it not being thoroughly vetted for factual accuracy and everything that one hopes a subject matter of this importance should be subjected to.

The IDF have reacted very strongly to what has been shared. They have refuted the veracity of claims that the army use AI to determine targets and that a strike was carried out that killed 500. They also demanded a widespread, robust campaign that must include the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and National Public Diplomacy Directorate.

In a statement released by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, they called NAZA, “pure propaganda, created by radicals who serve the narrative of murderous terrorists. It is yet another element of the anti-Israel campaign that began after October 7, driven by the Red-Green coalition of the radical left and Islamist movements.” The Ministry took aim at the lack of verification, saying in their statement, “the “film” claims that the IDF approved a planned strike despite anticipating 500 civilian deaths. This is false. It never happened. Never. The IDF would never approve such an operational plan. But there is a reason – and a method – behind the dissemination of such an outrageous allegation. The method employed throughout this campaign, including in this “film,” is familiar: introduce a shocking falsehood, amplify it around the world, and allow it to shape headlines and public opinion. By the time the facts emerge and corrections follow, the damage to Israel’s image has already been done. Again and again, false accusations against Israel receive immediate global attention, while their subsequent collapse receives only a fraction of the exposure and impact. This film follows precisely the same pattern.

The same applies to another false accusation – that the IDF allows AI systems to make operational decisions independently of human judgment. This is simply false and fundamentally misrepresents how the IDF operates. Operational decisions are made within a defined human chain of command and are subject to human judgment and oversight. The IDF has developed extensive procedures intended to prevent and mitigate harm to non-combatants.”

Methods of warning to mitigate civilian casualties are conspicuously ignored. Methods include roof knocking, dropping pamphlets announcing impending strikes, SMS’s, phone-calls in Arabic and other methods that have been lauded by other army officials.

**Rebutting NAZA**. Freed hostage Omer Shem Tov p(right) pushed back against the directors (left) of “NAZA” in Gaza, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed explaining that Hamas – not the Israeli military – used captives as actual “collateral damage” (The Hebrew meaning of NAZA).

Former hostage, Omer Shem Tov, in an op-ed written for the Wall Street Journal said:

“One of my captors told me his mother had received a phone call warning her to leave her home because an Israeli strike might put her in danger. The call came from the Israel Defense Forces. Hamas knew where I was and left me to die. Israel didn’t know my location, but it knew where my captor’s mother was and called to make sure she wasn’t killed accidentally. There I was—kidnapped, starved and tortured by her son—while my army was trying to keep his mother alive.”

His op-ed continued:

“Israel desperately wanted me home. But not at any price. There were Palestinian civilians between Israel and me. So Israel dropped leaflets, sent messages, made phone calls and ordered evacuations. It tried to minimize NAZA, or collateral damage.

I also saw what death meant to the other side. One day, my captors celebrated after Hamas fighters killed Israeli soldiers. The next day, Israel bombed the area where I was being held. The explosions came about 10 seconds apart. I was terrified. The terrorist beside me was delighted. To him, every explosion was proof of success: Look what we made Israel do. Look how much we hurt them. I understood something then. For Hamas, destruction itself could be victory. As long as there was death on either side, Hamas could win.”

Shem Tov is not the only former hostage who has lambasted the filmmakers. Eliyah Cohen took to his Instagram page and wrote, “”I understand that there is the law and we live in a free and democratic country and everyone deserves to say what they want, but we as a nation, not as a state, as a nation, cannot allow this to pass by unanswered,” he said. “We need to take to the streets, hang posters of them, and spread pictures of them through every medium so that when they walk on the street, they’re allowed to walk here, we won’t do anything that’s against the law, but when they walk on the street they will feel ashamed.”

Cohen also mentioned the soldiers who fought to free him from captivity: “In this country they (Avraham and Szor) cannot go and humiliate my brethren and my friends and the people who fought every day to bring me home and who fight every day so our families could live here, and they’ll go and spread lies… and what will we do? We’ll let it go?”

**Dubious Duo**. Rachel Szor and Yuval Abraham are not only the Israeli directors of the controversial documentary NAZA but directors of intensifying the global hate towards their own country. Photo: Dimitrios Kambouris/Getty Images)

Liri Albag, who was one of the female observer soldiers taken captive from Nahal Oz base, published a scathing response, “Hey… Do you know that although you only served for two weeks in the IDF and were discharged because of your political views, if you had fallen into Hamas captivity, they would have considered you a soldier anyway? And they would have tortured you for being a soldier. Don’t ask me how I know.

“Do you understand that if you had been in the Gaza border area on October 7, none of the terrorists would have stopped and said, ‘Hey, leave him alone—he’s okay; don’t hurt him’? Or perhaps you would simply have joined the ‘struggle to liberate Palestine’ and harmed your own people? “At first, I wanted to write ‘blood of my blood,’ but then I remembered that we most certainly do not share the same blood—and fortunately so! Ugh, disgusting. You sold out your own people for people who yearn for your death, and that is unforgivable. How do people like this have citizenship here?! They should be launched out of our country on a missile.”

A soldier who claimed to have participated in the movie, spoke to Walla, one of Israelis biggest news publications — and made serious allegations about how his testimony and casualty figures were obtained. He said his testimony was manipulated, and sources were financially incentivized to provide higher civilian-casualty figures. “I participated in this film, unfortunately, and they manipulated me so much,” he says. He continues, ““Numbers of 400 and 500 collateral damage don’t exist.” He claims participants were financially incentivized. Most significantly, he alleges that interviewees were financially incentivized to give increasingly higher figures, “They offer you ten shekels for every additional person you say: say 400, get 4,000; say 500, get 5,000.” He claims this caused participants to exaggerate: “People start exaggerating. They see the money and cash in front of their eyes.”

Why? Why did these two Israelis who claim to call Israel home, produce such a damaging movie, aided by a publication that is notorious for its anti-Israel bias? Plaudits from peers? In this instance, a 25 minute ovation at the Venice Film Festival, ironically the same festival who gave the same accolades to Leni Riefenstahl, Hitler’s favoured celluloid propagandist. They claim it is concern for Palestinian casualty recognition.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has a different opinion. The Ministry says, “The truth is the opposite of what the “film” seeks to portray. And yes, in Israel’s democracy, where freedom of expression is cherished, there are also radical Israelis who lie, distort facts seeking political goals and personal gains. The “film’s co-director, Yuval Abraham, is no neutral investigative journalist – he is a longtime radical anti-Israeli activist committed to demonizing and delegitimizing Israel.

As part of this method, the film creators deliberately omit Hamas from their narrative, erasing the terrorist organization whose actions are at the heart of this war. Hamas deliberately targets Israeli civilians, as it did on October 7, while embedding itself within Gaza’s civilian population and using civilians as human shields. Israel is fighting this bloodthirsty jihadist terrorist organization while the IDF operates in accordance with international law and takes extensive measures to minimize civilian harm.”

The filmmakers lack that ability of a truly perspicacious reporter and examine what their motives are. When questioned by a reporter on Israel’s Channel 12, Abraham simply could not verify any of the accusations and when pushed about omitting the atrocities of 7 October and Hamas’s role in the war, he testily responded with “go make your own movie.”

Israeli officials are debating what punitive measures they can take against the pair. The film has successfully united Israelis in anger. I would wager the hopes of the filmmakers to have their movie screened here would be met with a national temperature colder than the Arctic tundra.

Perhaps they need to binge watch season 5 of Fauda.

About the writer:

Rolene Marks is a journalist and commentator on Middle East affairs, co-founder of Lay of the Land and the National Spokesperson for the South African Zionist Federation.

HOW DO WE COMPARE?

Comparing Jewish Engagement across the Anglo Diaspora

By Reviva Hasson

For many South African Jews, the question often comes up: how do we compare?

Whether thinking about emigration, family abroad, or simply the state of Jewish life globally, we instinctively measure ourselves against communities in other countries. Anecdotal experiences from friends and family provide one perspective, but another avenue offering a more objective, broader birds-eye view approach is a comparison based on survey data.

The Jewish Community Survey of South Africa (JCSSA) is the largest survey of South African Jews. It was conducted in 2019 by the Kaplan Centre for Jewish Studies, based at the University of Cape Town, in collaboration with the London based Institute for Jewish Policy Research. Similar Jewish population surveys have been run across the Anglo world in similar periods which creates the unique opportunity to be able to compare Jewish populations, – in the United States Pew2020, the United Kingdom NJCS 2022, Australia Gen17 2017, and Canada SJC 2018.

A comparison with these four countries is not arbitrary. South Africa shares important features with other Anglo communities based on a common language and cultural heritage rooted in British institutions. Moreover as 70% of South Africa’s Jewish emigrants have moved to these four countries, the comparison is also personal.

Countries can be compared on many different variables. In terms of the size of the Jewish population, America has the largest population outside of Israel with some 6.5 million Jews, Canada has 400 000 Jews, the UK 312 000 and Australia 117 000. South Africa ranks 11^th in world Jewry with 52 300 Jews. This article however focuses on Jewish life – how Jews express their Jewish identity through relationships, beliefs, practices, and values.

In the analysis that follows the comparison is grouped into four themes:

sociocultural engagement
religious engagement,
connection to Israel, and
the value placed on different elements of Jewish identity.

Of course, splitting Jewish life into different categories is artificial and any behaviour can be experienced in multifaceted ways, however for the purpose of this article it is useful to think about Jewish identity taking expression through different avenues.

SOCIOCULTURAL ENGAGEMENT

This theme explores the social and communal dimensions of Jewish life, including friendship networks, family traditions, charitable giving, and participation in activities that connect Jews to one another. While a Passover seder is rooted in religious ritual, it’s also a powerful expression of culture, bringing multiple generations together around a shared tradition. Similarly, the synagogue is a house of prayer, but it is also one of the primary spaces where community takes form.

In the figures that follow South Africa is shown by the black bar with the percentage of the community that answered in the affirmative to each measure. When interpreting the results it’s important to appreciate that the percentage who did not answer “yes” mainly include those that said “no” but also includes other responses like “some/sometimes” and “don’t know” or “Prefer not to say”. Where there are missing bars for a certain country it’s because that question was not asked in the relevant survey.

Figure 1 shows that 57% of South African Jews are members of a synagogue, similar to the UK and Canada but below Australia where almost 80% of the community are members. 71% of South African report having mostly Jewish friends and 81% attend or host a Passover seder every year – both of which are comparable to Australia. 88% of South Africans made a financial donation to a Jewish charity in the past year, similar to the UK.

Intermarriage rates measure the proportion of marriages in a given timeframe that are between Jews and non-Jews, here South Africa exhibits the lowest rates with intermarriage at 17%. by contrast in America the rate is close to 60%

Taken together, the data suggest that South African Jewry exhibits strong levels of sociocultural Jewish engagement by Anglo-diaspora standards.

RELIGIOUS ENGAGEMENT

Religious engagement indicators examined in Figure 2 below include both measures of practical observance and expressions of belief.

South Africa performs among the strongest communities and leads in areas such as belief in God (78%), lighting Shabbat candles (52%) and fasting on Yom Kippur (76%). Significantly lower proportions of the community keep kosher (33%) and view halacha (Jewish law) as central to being Jewish (26%).

It’s interesting to observe that while only 21% of South African Jews indicated in the JCSSA that they are Shomer Shabbat (data not shown here) – a marker for religious Orthodox observance, the above data reveal significantly higher levels of participation across other religious life indicators. This suggests that religious engagement in South Africa extends beyond a small observant minority.

CONNECTION TO ISRAEL

A third dimension of Jewish engagement is connection to Israel, which for many Jews serves as an important expression of their Jewish identity, serving as a homeland and the centre of Jewish peoplehood.

Connection to Israel is an area in which South African Jewry stands out (Figure 3). 66% of South African express a strong attachment to Israel, and when those who report being “moderately” attached are included, 90% express a positive connection. Significantly higher than elsewhere in the Anglo world.

The vast majority (89%) have visited Israel at least once and many have visited multiple times, a figure matched by Australia and the United Kingdom. By comparison, fewer than half of American Jews have visited Israel.

The one area where South Africa performs relatively poorly in terms of its Israel engagement profile is Hebrew literacy where only 24% report being able to speak Hebrew quite well, far below Canada’s 40%. The proportion in South Africa who can read Hebrew is higher (54%)

WHAT MATTERS MOST TO JEWISH IDENTITY

Figure 4 shifts the focus from behaviour to attitudes, examining the proportion of respondents who rated various elements of Jewish identity as being “very important” to their personal sense of Jewish identity. The exact same question was asked in the UK and Australia surveys hence our comparison is limited to these three countries.

Figure 4. Elements of Jewish Identity. The percentage that responded that this element was “very important” to their Jewish identity

Note. Q. How important or unimportant are each of the following to your own sense of Jewish Identity? This graph only shows the percentage that answered, “very important”. The other options included: important, unimportant, don’t know and prefer not to say.

South Africa however stands out. In all but one of the thirteen statements, South African Jews are more likely to select “very important” than their Australian and British counterparts. Moreover, in five areas South Africa stands out particularly strongly compared to the UK and Australia: moral and ethical behaviour (85%), remembering the Holocaust (81%), donating money to charity (55%), belief in God (53%) and payer (36%).

A SUCCESS STORY WITH CAVEATS

Taken together, the findings reveal a community that compares remarkably well with its counterparts across the Anglo-Jewish world. The South African Jewish population consistently ranks among the most engaged across multiple dimensions of Jewish life. Moreover, the high levels of importance attached to many elements of Jewish identity suggest that this engagement is not merely behavioural, but underpinned by strongly held values, beliefs, and sense of Jewish peoplehood. Overall, South Africa emerges as the strongest performing of the major English-speaking Jewish communities, with Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom occupying a middle position, while the United States ranks lowest overall. This is a particularly striking finding. Despite its relatively small size, South African Jewry emerges as one of the most engaged Jewish communities in the Anglo diaspora, consistently punching above its demographic weight.

These affirming findings about SA Jewry should be viewed alongside several important qualifications. South African Jewry is not a single homogenous community, and important differences exist across the geographical landscape. Across almost every measure from religious belief and practice to sociocultural expressions, connections and belonging, Johannesburg Jewry emerges as the most engaged Jewish centre in the country. Cape Town and Durban exhibit significantly lower levels of Jewish engagement in most areas. The national picture therefore conceals significant regional variation.

Moreover, South African Jewish life is not static. Tracking specific forms of Jewish engagement across historical surveys reveals diverging trends. On the one hand, there has been a gradual increase in Orthodox observance. The proportion of Jews who keep shabbat has risen from 9% in 1974 to 21% in 2019. This is mirrored in the data on Jewish strands of identity where a quarter of South African Jews have switched to a more religious Jewish strand of identity than the one they were raised in.

On the other hand, there is a parallel trend away from Jewish engagement. Intermarriage rates have increased such that in the 1970s 7% of all marriages occurring were interfaith unions, while in the most recent period (2015-2019) this has increased to 19%. Similarly, several markers that were historically near universal such as attending Passover seders, fasting on Yom Kippur, and lighting Shabbat candles, have declined in recent decades.

Why South African Jewry compares so strongly with its counterparts abroad is ultimately a question that warrants further study. However, several domestic factors likely play an important role, these include: exceptionally high rates of Jewish day school attendance – 75% of school-aged Jewish children currently attend Jewish schools, the highest in the Anglo world; relatively low incidence of intermarriage, strong communal institutions, and the dense social networks characteristic of a small and geographically concentrated Jewish population. Scholars have also pointed to broader historical and social influences, including the community’s largely Lithuanian heritage, the role of Orthodox outreach movements, and aspects of South Africa’s unique social and political history that may have reinforced communal cohesion.

Comparisons such as these do not tell us every dimension of a Jewish community. They do, however, provide empirical validation for something that many South African Jews have long felt intuitively: that there is something distinctive about both the breadth and strength of Jewish life in South Africa. Claims about the vitality of Jewish life in South Africa are not merely anecdotal; they are supported by a substantial body of evidence spanning religious practice, social connectedness, Israel attachment and the importance attached to many elements of Jewish identity. This broad-based pattern of Jewish engagement is perhaps one of the defining characteristics of contemporary South African Jewry.

To dive deeper into this fascinating set of findings based on the SA Jewish Community Survey, please join Midrasha Melton’s 2-part Online course with Reviva herself – Monday evenings, October 19 and 26 from 19H15-20H15 SAST.

To register/More Info: www.meltoncapetown.org or Lauren Snitcher at lauren@snitcher.org

See flyer above for details.

https://csirt.uct.ac.za/report-incident

Feature picture: Cape Town’s Old Synagogue, the first synagogue built in South Africa in 1863, which since 2000 has housed the South African Jewish Museum. (Photo: Ariadne Van Zandbergen/Alamy).

About the writer:

Reviva Hasson is a social scientist at the Kaplan Centre for Jewish Studies at UCT. In 2019 she coordinated the nationwide survey of the South African Jewish population.

THE FORGOTTEN CHILDREN

In a world of celebrities clamouring for fauxmanitarian shots for social media to shore up credentials, who speaks for Israeli children?

By Rolene Marks

On the train to Tel Aviv a few days ago, I watched a mother with her little girl travelling to their destination. The little girl, decked out in her princess dress and sneakers, armed with a backpack full of colouring books which she was busy with, happily chatted to her smiling mother and waved at the passing trains. I felt tears prickle behind my eyes. I looked at the innocent, pure child and the tears that threatened to spill out my eyes were indicative of an all too familiar emotion.

Why do people want to harm our children?

Why is the world silent when our children are harmed?

Ariel Bibas should have celebrated his 7^th birthday this year. His mother, Shiri, and father, Yarden would have made a beautiful party for him on Kibbutz Nir Oz. All the children would have come to celebrate. In our minds eye, we can see Ariel who loved Batman and his dog Tonto, celebrating with the joy he had lived with in his all-too short life. We can hear the infectious giggle of his baby brother, Kfir, with his broad grin and matching red hair. It was a dream we hoped for.

**Not to Be**. The ‘gingy’ Bibas kids, Ariel and Kfir, kidnapped from their home on kibbutz Nir Oz were brutally murdered in Gaza with their mother, Shiri.

Ariel never got to celebrate his birthday. Instead, Ariel, along with his baby brother Kfir and their parents were kidnapped from their home on 7 October. Shiri the lioness and her flame haired cubs, were separated from Yarden. They were murdered in captivity, their remains returned in a grotesque spectacle of horror. Kfir and Ariel and many others whose lives and innocence were stolen that day.

There are the children like Avigail Idan, who was just three years old when she was taken hostage that day, or Emily Hand whose devastated father told CNN death would have almost been preferable to her kidnapping, knowing the monsters who took her.

**Wrenched from her Bed**. Avigail Idan was abducted from kibbutz Kfar Aza at the age of 3 during the 2023 October 7 attacks and released after 50 days in captivity. Her parents were both murdered during the Kfar Aza massacre.

There are the children who in the last three years have lost friends, parents, siblings, grandparents and loved ones to war. I think of Avigail’s siblings, Michael (9) and Amalia (6), who hid in a cupboard in the safe room of their home in Kibbutz Kfar Aza, their mother’s body on the floor in front of them, their father’s outside. They hid for hours, thinking their little sister had also been murdered.

**Barbarism in the Bedroom**. While celebrities focus on the suffering in Gaza, they ignore the massacres in Israel as evident in this blood-soaked child’s bed in Kibbutz Kfar Aza in the aftermath of the Hamas assault on Israel on October 7. (Photo: PMs Office)

I think of the countless children traumatized by missiles, loss, sirens and everything else that they have endured over the last 3 years. I think of the children forced to flee their homes and all that was familiar in both the north and south of Israel, becoming internal refugees in their own country.

**Kidnapping Kids**. Seized on kibbutz Be’eri on October 7^th while at a sleepover at a friend’s house, Irish-Israeli girl Emily Hand (9) is seen here reunited with her father Thomas after being held captive by Hamas in Gaza for 50 days.

These are the children the world has forgotten.

If you are a celebrity/former royal worth your “humanitarian” credentials, one of the first things that you do, is ensure that you land your high-paying self on site of the nearest global tragedy – preferably a war zone. Bonus points if the war zone involves an ability to blame Israel. Going to the border with Gaza means hitting pay dirt – and you can wear your best Prada bucket hat and Jolie-esque like humanitarian outfit.

Of course, no visit to a war zone is complete without a camera crew to document your concern from every possible angle – especially the most flattering.

Earlier this year, former (are they still royal? Who can keep up?!) Royals, Harry and Meghan graced Jordan with their presence, courtesy of the World Health Organization. Suitably attired in this season’s Chanel pumps, Meghan managed to contort her face into looking concerned and emotional for the cameras. Whipping back the covers of a hospital bed, cameras captured a child who had lost a leg as a result of the war. Conveniently excluded from the messaging is that the particular NGO employed staff who posted pro-Hamas content. It felt so exploitive of the child’s private pain. Naturally they failed to pop over the border to visit with Israeli survivors of 7 October, former child hostages or the children of soldiers, given that Harry is patron of the Invictus Games which supports wounded veterans. Israel is a member of Invictus.

**Contrived Concern**. Harry and Meghan took a 2-day humanitarian trip to Jordan (seen here) in February 2026 at the invitation of the World Health Organization to focus on displaced persons and medical relief but failed or neglected to include Israel in their itinerary to engage with victims of a massacre. (Photo: Aaron Chown/PA Images/Getty Images)

I must be very clear – there is absolutely nothing wrong – and it is very important and admirable to care about the children of Gaza. We all should. The human cost of war is devastating and as an Israeli, I don’t want to see my neighbours suffer. The hideous reality of war is that children, the most vulnerable, are killed and every single death is a tragedy where words just simply fail. I do have to wonder where these newly minted child advocates were when Hamas was forcing children to become soldiers, a clear violation of international convention on child soldiers, or when they were mercilessly used as labour to dig tunnels. I wonder where these paragons of virtue signaling were when children are taught to hate and kill Jews in their schools and at summer camps. It is not something that they can deny – it is more than evident in the public domain through textbooks, media and proud photos of young Gazans in camouflage being taught to leopard crawl through obstacles and fire weapons.

It is not alternative education – it is child abuse.

Where were the voices of the glitterati when Hamas leaders openly boasted about their human shield strategy, wanting as high as possible casualty rates among children? Silent.

We all should be concerned for the children of Gaza – they deserve a better future.

What is missing from global concern is Israeli children. There are also children in Israel who have suffered tremendously. Who speaks for them? There has been a very conspicuous silence and lack of concern for their trauma, safety and loss.

In the media-friendly performative activism of the many, an important voice has been drowned out. Erased. Ignored. Deliberately.

There has been no visit from Angelina Jolie, the paragon of humanitarian work with refugees, to the communities that were evacuated from both the south and the north of Israel following Hezbollah’s firing on communities close to the border with Lebanon. Israel had over 250,000 internal refugees, many of them children who had lost loved ones, their homes and their foundations – but Ange ‘forgot’ to visit them. She still hasn’t met with our profoundly traumatized children.

From upon their platforms at awards shows and on social media networks, the talented and sanctimonious have preached (while wearing their pins celebrating the lynching of two IDF officers) and signaled their virtue about the horrors of war – but said nothing when our children were sitting in captivity. I don’t recall anyone expressing their horror about the murder of Ariel and Kfir Bibas – and the grotesque parading of their coffins in front of a baying mob in Gaza that included children. Suffer the innocents. We will never forget how the morally deficient tore down the posters of kidnapped Israeli children in cities all over the world.

Many took to their social media in what I can only describe is a carefully orchestrated campaign (by who, we have yet to find out) to share the exact same graphic about the impending death of 14,000 Gazan children. In May 2025, Tom Fletcher, the UN’s under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, claimed on BBC Radio 4’s “Today” show:

“There are 14,000 babies that will die in the next 48 hours unless we can reach them. I want to save as many as these 14,000 babies as we can in the next 48 hours.”

Needless to say, it never happened.

Neither did the apologies from the entertainment industry who all suspiciously shared the same graphic at the same time. Strange, that. There was no apology for the parading of Palestinian children with congenital disease who were readily exploited to push the mass famine narrative – or expressed outrage for the condition that Israeli children starved, beaten and harmed in unspeakable fashions in captivity suffered. No apology for Eitan Yahalomi who was one of the many child captives whose experience was made public, “First, he was beaten, then they put him alone in a cell with bars and he was left alone for 16 days in the custody of armed men from Hamas,” said his mother, Bat-Sheva.

**Reunited with Mom**. Seen here being hugged by his mother after his release, 12-year-old Eitan Yahalomi had been kidnapped from Nir Oz with his father Ohad (later murdered in captivity) and held hostage in Gaza for 52 days where he was forced to watch videos of the 7 October atrocities. (Photo: Israeli Defense Forces/Reuters)

The signalers of virtue and naturally women’s rights were missing in action when the reports of sexual violence committed against children were made public in all of their devastating details. Me too – unless you are an Israeli child.

Nobody seemed too concerned when missiles rained down from Hezbollah on to the communities of the north of Israel. There was no mention of the 12 Druze children, murdered by a Hezbollah rocket as it slammed into them on a sunny Saturday afternoon as they played football (soccer). We thought one little boy was hiding or missing – but he took the impact of the missile and there was nothing left of him.

What about these angels?

From the pulpits of pomposity, the noble and sanctimonious have said nothing about the ballistic missiles and drones that rained terror over Israel, courtesy of the Islamic regime who unlike Israel, did not target military installations. They targeted civilian centres.

Israel’s children have endured the unthinkable these last three years. No toddler should have the words for “sirens”, “hostage” or “fallen” in their lexicon. Acknowledging their suffering does not negate the suffering of Gazan children. Instead, it should motivate all of us to fight for a better world for all of them – but when it comes to speaking up for our children, who else if not we?

Do not let them be forgotten.

“ONLY DULL PEOPLE ARE BRILLIANT AT BREAKFAST”

Deconstructing Pretoria’s Latest International Court of Justice (ICJ) Submission.

By Yoram Blumstein

In Oscar Wilde’s 1895 play, An Ideal Husband, Mrs. Cheveley famously quipped that “only dull people are brilliant at breakfast.” This aphorism embodies classic Wildean satire of people who display early-morning, performative illocutionary acts of sagacity while lacking real substance. DIRCO’s (the Department of International Relations and Cooperation) August 2026 statement on South Africa’s submission to the ICJ bears a remarkable resemblance to Wildean wit. The accusations against Israel, as contained in the press release, are bereft of legal strategy and are not even based on the evidential foundations of probabilistic reasoning. This is nothing more than headline-setting and grandstanding to deflect attention from crucial domestic issues. DIRCO’s statement should not be construed as illogical or irrational, for there is “method in their madness”, as William Shakespeare might have added. The fact that the South African Presidency cleared DIRCO’s press statement shows intent.

This article argues that DIRCO’s “breakfast performance” must be seen in the context of political theatre and an obnoxious performance designed for domestic political expediency rather than grasping the prevailing facts on the ground and international law. DIRCO’s dossier on Israel’s so-called “non-compliance” with previous ICJ provisional measures will not be made public unless the plaintiff publishes it in full or a full bench of the ICJ commences deliberations on the submission. Notwithstanding this, DIRCO’s statement offers a vignette of the dossier, as it is laced with mendacity and utter “bullshit”. As such, the task of your writer is to deconstruct DIRCO’s ICJ statement, identify the thespians, question its underlying assumptions, and offer only the truth as opposed to its performative posture.

DECONSTRUCTION DIRCO “BREAKFAST” LIES

On August 25, 2026, DIRCO submitted a “dossier of evidence” (pursuant to Article 11 of the ICJ’s Internal Judicial Practice Rules) to an ICJ panel of judges alleging Israel’s “non-compliance with the court’s previous binding provisional measures. In essence, DIRCO cites casualties, displacement, deteriorating humanitarian conditions, mass starvation, the killing of journalists, a “so-called ceasefire”, etc. – purportedly perpetrated by the Israeli government.

To disprove the above lies, DIRCO’s statement:

Absolved Hamas of blame.
Failed to mention that Gaza is still an active war zone, as Hamas (while degraded, battered and bruised) is quietly rebuilding its military capabilities with the help of Iran, facilitated through a recent meeting between the Iranian regime and the terrorist organization’s expatriate political leadership in Tehran (Iran). The fact that Hamas recently elected Khalil al-Hayya as its political leader is an affirmation that the terrorist organisation is not prepared to disarm and will direct operations in Gaza from abroad, as some Hamas brigades are still operational and will not disarm – a key requirement as part of a later ceasefire framework.

**New Face, Same Mindset**. Hamas elected hardliner Khalil al-Hayya as its new leader, replacing Yahya Sinwar, who masterminded the October 7 massacre. (Photo: Turkish Foreign Ministry handout/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Ignored the fact that humanitarian aid has increased since the October 2025 ceasefire. However, logistical bottlenecks remain in meeting the daily (600) aid truck flows through various crossings as envisioned in the ceasefire. This is not a deliberate strategy by the Israeli government to withhold aid from Gazans but rather a corollary of logistical challenges caused by an active combat zone and the difficulty of aid distribution in the enclave’s collapsed infrastructure.
Neglected to reference that Hamas is weaponising aid by intercepting humanitarian convoys to secure funds for its operational longevity, the same way as the late Somali warlord, Mohammed Farrah Aidid, during Somalia’s 1991 civil war.
Slighted international and regional peace brokers by referring to “a so-called ceasefire.” The agreement signed in October 2025 is legitimate and involved Israel, the United States, Qatar, Egypt, Turkey and interlocutors representing Hamas. The Palestinian Authority (PA), while not included in the ceasefire negotiations, subsequently endorsed it, as did major Arab and Western capitals. In fact, Hamas has repeatedly violated the terms of the ceasefire as it refuses to cease hostilities, disarm and hand over the Strip to a body acceptable to Israel. A disarmed Gaza and the expulsion of Hamas’ remaining military leaders are a sine qua non for the Jewish state, as a repeat of October 7^th is unfathomable.
Submitted false claims that the Israel Defense Force (IDF) adopted a blanket approach to kill local journalists. On the contrary, some local journalists were discovered to be Hamas members.
Overlooked the fact that child fatalities, while alarming and tragic, did not consider that Hamas recruited child soldiers, often through coercion. Under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), if a child carries a weapon and engages in hostilities, they are treated as combatants. However, the opposing force must exercise a “duty of care” and “maximum restraint” when dealing with child soldiers. The recruitment of child soldiers by Hamas is well-documented and constitutes a war crime, especially under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This effectively means that Hamas individuals and leaders in Gaza can be charged with war crimes under international law for recruiting and using child soldiers.
Conveniently forgot to state that the IDF is the most moral army in the world, that warns residents through pamphlets, radio broadcasts, and “knock-on-the-roof” methods to shelter in place before it hits terrorist targets. In this case, international law permits the temporary transfer of residents to safe zones.

**Kids into Killers**.Three months before perpetrating the October 7 massacre, Hamas showing kids how to kill Jews at an exhibition in Gaza City on June 30, 2023. (Photo: Mohammed ABED / AFP)

CONTEXT MATTERS

Given the lack of evidence :

– What motivated DIRCO to lodge an ICJ submission formally?

– What are the contextual factors?

– Who are the actors behind it?

DIRCO’s statement on the ICJ submission was designed to deflect attention from crucial domestic issues. DIRCO seems to have a quixotic obsession with the Jewish state and the Palestinian cause – issues that are not in South Africa’s national interests. It is peripheral, and the ICJ case has diverted millions of dollars from domestic priority programs. A country’s foreign policy extends its domestic policy. Yet, DIRCO cannot claim that the ICJ case and its ongoing diatribe against the Jewish state serve the domestic base. DIRCO’s trite rebuttal is that South Africa’s foreign policy is based on democracy, human rights and self-determination for the oppressed. This is hypocrisy personified, as DIRCO’s leadership engages in selective moral outrage while remaining silent on the genocidal actions of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, Africa and beyond. The ICJ case serves the interests of the African National Congress (ANC), pro-Palestine activists, and senior government officials. It is palpable that the Islamists, in many guises, have an undue influence over South Africa’s Israel policy.

Although DIRCO claims to represent all domestic constituents, it is controlled by the corrupt, sclerotic and ossified ANC. Former DIRCO Minister Naledi Pandor, a veteran ANC politician, was the key architect of the decision to take Israel to the ICJ, with help from her former special advisor, now DIRCO Director-General, Zane Dangor. The timing of the latest ICJ submission also warrants scrutiny. It was submitted a few weeks before UNGA 81 (United Nations General Assembly) begins its annual anti-Israel gabfest in New York. South African leaders and diplomats will use the multilateral platform to promote and seek support for an unsubstantiated genocide case. This matters because momentum at the ICJ favours Israel, as some countries have distanced themselves from South Africa’s case. Columbia is a case in point. Although foreign policy rarely features in local government elections, the ANC is using the case for political expediency (as the party did in 2024 just before the national elections) to garner support, as opinion polls predict heavy losses for the party in key metropolitan areas due to service delivery failures, corruption, high unemployment, exorbitant crime, etc. These are “bread and butter” issues, and the French philosopher and diplomat Alexis de Tocqueville aptly remarked that real democracy takes place at the local level, in town halls. Yet, the ANC, which has ruled and pillaged South Africa for at least three decades, has failed to address crucial domestic issues and instead developed an idẻe fixe with Israel and the Palestinian issue.

**Prime Movers**. ANC veteran,Naledi Pandorwas the key architect of the decision to take Israel to the ICJ, supported by Zane Dangor.

QUO VADIS, DIRCO?

Oscar Wilde – known for his epicurean taste, hedonistic lifestyle, and nocturnal habits – would have satirically advised DIRCO to become nocturnal creatures, as logical reasoning (ratiocination), deep reflection and strategic thinking (in the mould of realist thinkers such as Niccolò Machiavelli, Hans Morgenthau, and Henry Kissinger happen after midnight, away from the morning’s geopolitical grandstanding and diplomatic theater. A nocturnal DIRCO would quietly build meaningful economic alliances with key regional and international players and sign trade deals to attract foreign direct investment (FDI). On paper, this is DIRCO’s foreign policy mandate, aligned with the South African government’s overarching National Development Plan (NDP) 2030, which aims to reduce inequality, alleviate poverty, and drastically create jobs. As of September 2026, South Africa’s unemployment rate stands at 33.6% (Statistics South Africa), one of the highest in the world, just behind Eswatini (34.4%) and Sudan (61.3%, primarily due to the civil war). Morocco has just overtaken South Africa as Africa’s most industrialised economy due to a pragmatic, business-friendly foreign policy that aligns with the Moroccan government’s domestic priorities. Despite South Africa’s economic malaise, DIRCO has become sublimely adept at shining at the breakfast table with meaningless, rushed media statements maligning the State of Israel, and has yet to master the art of nocturnal thinking.

**Diversion and Deflection**. While its ANC government focuses on attacking Israel, it fails to address young South Africans struggling to survive as employment remains a major economic and social concern.

About the writer:
Editor’s Note: Yoram Blumstein is a nom de plume the author uses to protect their identity because of previous security threats.

FAKING THE FIGURES

The first casualty in South Africa’s presented ‘casualty figures’ are the figures themselves.

By Kenneth Moeng Kgwadi

The recent submission by South Africa’s Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) of dossiers to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging Israel’s non-compliance with the Court’s provisional measures orders, creates the misleading impression that the Court’s proceedings have been concluded and that final verdicts have already been issued but are being disregarded by one of the parties.

This approach appears to deflect attention from South Africa’s failure to submit its response as soon as possible, as it claimed that the case was of an urgent nature. South Africa has requested an additional 18 months to submit its written response, or Memorial, which raises questions about the strength of its case and the evidence upon which its allegations are based. The prolonged process strengthens the belief that South Africa’s case relies heavily on contested or unsubstantiated claims rather than sufficiently verified evidence.

Of particular concern is the manner in which statistical figures contained in the official statement are presented as facts without adequately identifying or explaining their sources. The provenance, methodology and reliability of such data are essential, particularly when the figures are being used to support allegations in proceedings before an international court.

The statement claims that, as of August 2026, at least 73,407 Palestinians had been killed and 174,335 injured in Gaza since 7 October 2023. Such figures should be subjected to rigorous independent verification, particularly given the highly contested nature of casualty reporting during an active conflict. Where possible, casualty figures should be corroborated by credible and independent institutions, including relevant United Nations agencies, the International Committee of the Red Cross and other recognised humanitarian organisations with established methodologies for documenting casualties.

Presenting disputed figures without clearly identifying their source, methodology and verification status risks blurring the distinction between reported figures and independently verified facts. In proceedings as consequential as those before the ICJ, claims of this magnitude should be supported by transparent, verifiable and independently corroborated evidence rather than presented without sufficient qualification.

Hamas weaponized casualty figures as propaganda, and much of the Western media repeated them uncritically, allowing a terrorist organization to shape global opinion while avoiding scrutiny or accountability.

Journalists, international bodies and governments frequently use figures provided by the Hamas authorities without exercising the slightest suspicion thus failing to assure the authenticity of the numbers emanating from the same terrorist organisation that is eager to see Israel’s demise. It is hardly surprising that the figures presented are subjective and reflect a lack of impartiality notably advancing a particular political agenda.

In the casualty figures they provide to the world, they do not distinguish between combatants and civilians, as is often made clear in Israel, where soldiers are distinguished from civilians. They have to tell the world how many Hamas operatives have been killed and how many civilians have been caught up in the crossfire.

The ICJ indeed issued provisional measures orders, not a ruling on the merits of the matter. It has also not been found by the ICJ that genocide is taking place in Gaza. It is therefore important to analyse the wording of South Africa’s DIRCO statement, which presents the false impression that rulings have already been made and are being undermined by Israel.

What the government has not told its citizens is that it has asked for more time to file its reply in the genocide case against Israel before the ICJ. Israel will then be given until November 2029 to submit its rejoinder. This is not a simple case that will be resolved overnight. It will still have to be argued before the Chamber at The Hague before a verdict can be delivered after 2029.

The judgment to be made by the UN’s ICJ will not bear significant political implications, but rather offer a legal case study for international law students and practitioners, because the political situation in the Middle East is changing rapidly. Hamas, an Iranian-backed terror group, has announced its dissolution and supported the idea of allowing UN-backed technocrats to take over the running of the formal government. By 2029, there will be changes with respect to the military and political relations between the Palestinian Territories and the State of Israel.

South Africa should acknowledge that its case against Israel is not as tight and strong as it had hoped; hence, it is not easy to facilitate a mere reply to the case it initiated. It does not make financial sense that so much money has been spent on a case that has had no implications for the situation between Hamas and Israel. It was evident that diplomatic efforts by the US, Qatar, and Egypt played a much greater role than this costly legal case.

Feature picture: Compounding Confusion. Obfuscating the foundations of the genocide claim, South Africa readies to launch its legal assault on Israel at the opening of the hearings at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, Thursday, Jan. 11, 2024. (Photo: Patrick Post/AP)

About the writer:

Kenneth Moeng Kgwadi is a political scientist, journalist, and research fellow at the Middle East Africa Research Institute (MEARI).

MR. PRESIDENT, YOU ASKED WHEN THE IRANIAN PEOPLE WILL RISE UP. THEY NEVER STOPPED FIGHTING

The blood of Iranians nationwide attest to endless defiance and resilience.

By Marziyeh Amirizadeh

On September 1, President Trump posted a message asking a question that deserves a direct answer:

“When are the Iranian people going to rise up and fight?”

Mr. President, the answer is:

the Iranian people have been fighting for 47 years. They never stopped.

Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, the people of Iran have repeatedly risen against a regime that seized their country, destroyed their freedoms, persecuted religious minorities, imprisoned political opponents, and used misogyny, terror, torture and executions to maintain power.

What has changed is not the courage of the Iranian people. What has changed is whether the world chooses to hear them.

Again and again, Iranians have filled the streets. Again and again, they have paid an enormous price. And again and again, Western governments have looked away, often choosing negotiations, appeasement, or political convenience over standing with the people of Iran.

The Iranian people have been fighting alone for decades.

Here are only some of the chapters of that long struggle.

1981–1982:THE REIGN OF TERROR

During the early years of the Islamic Republic, the new regime launched a brutal campaign against political opponents and religious and ethnic minorities.

Thousands upon thousands were arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and executed as the clerical regime consolidated its power. Christians, Baha’is, political opponents, Kurds, Baluchis, and others experienced persecution and repression.

The message from the new regime was clear: anyone who challenged its ideology or authority could become a target.

Fueled by the Iranian Cultural Revolution decreed by Ruhollah Khomeini, the 1981–1982 Iran massacres were a state-sponsored campaign aimed at exterminating political and religious adversaries. Children and women were among those executed.

1988: THE PRISON MASSACRES

In 1988, one of the darkest crimes in the history of the Islamic Republic took place. Following an order from Ayatollah Khomeini, thousands of prisoners were executed over several months.

Victims were buried in secret mass graves.

Families were denied information about their loved ones.

The world moved on.

An informational Board at Whitehall, London draws attention to the 1988 Massacre of the Political Prisoners in Iran. (Photo: Loredana Sangiuliano/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

1999: THE STUDENT UPRISING

In July 1999, Iranian students rose against the regime following the closure of the reformist newspaper Salam. I witnessed those protests myself. I saw students being attacked by regime forces. I saw Basij members chasing protesters and, beating them, throwing people from buildings, shooting at them in the streets. I remember the terror of watching what was happening from the rooftop of my home. The crackdown became one of the defining moments of my generation.

I will never forget those days. And I will never forget how quickly the world forgot them.

Witnessed by the writer, the Iranian Student Protests of July 1999, also known as 18th of Tir was one the most widespread public protests to occur in Iran since Iranian Revolution.(Photo: Hassan Sarbakhsian)

2009: THE GREEN MOVEMENT

In June 2009, millions of Iranians took to the streets after the disputed presidential election. I witnessed this too, from inside Evin Prison. The demonstrations became known as the Green Movement. People marched peacefully and demanded that their voices be heard. The regime responded with violence, mass arrests, torture, and killings.

At the time, I was imprisoned because of my faith in Jesus. From inside prison, I witnessed the consequences of the regime’s crackdown. The women’s ward swelled with hundreds of new prisoners, many displaying signs of the brutality they suffered on the streets where they were arrested.

I also watched the international community fail to stand decisively with the Iranian people. President Obama’s silence was a devastating betrayal.

Supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi in Tehran before the presidential election of 2009, when the Green Movement rose out of massive street protests. (Photo: Ben Curtis/AP)

2011: KHUZESTAN AND AHVAZ

In April 2011, protests erupted in Khuzestan, as part of the broader wave of uprisings sweeping the Middle East. Iranian forces again responded with violence. Reports of deaths, injuries, and mass arrests followed.

Once again, Iranian protesters paid the price.

2017–2018: THE NATIONWIDE PROTESTS

Beginning in December 2017, protests on political reform quickly spread across more than 100 cities, challenging the entire system. People shouted against corruption, economic misery, and the Islamic Republic itself. The regime once again responded with force.

The world, once again, was silent.

2018: WATER PROTESTS

Protests in 2018 in southern Iran for lack of water.

In 2018, Iranians protested against severe water shortages, environmental destruction, and government mismanagement. The regime’s forces again brutally confronted protesters. Even protests over something as basic as access to water became a deadly confrontation with the regime.

A crowd of demonstrators gathered during economic protests near the Grand Bazaar in Tehran, Iran, in June 2018. Also known as the Dey Protests, the unrest over rising food and commodity prices, high unemployment, and financial mismanagement spread rapidly to over 140 towns and cities in every province of Iran.

2019: BLOODY NOVEMBER

After the government suddenly increased fuel prices, protests erupted throughout the country. The demonstrations about the price of gas quickly became an uprising against the Islamic Republic. The regime responded with extraordinary brutality. Security forces used live ammunition against protesters.

The exact death toll remains unclear but the message could not have been clearer: The regime was willing to kill its own people to remain in power.

Photos from Iran ‘Bloody November’ in 2019: The State Massacre Hidden by an Internet Blackout.

2022–2023:WOMEN, LIFE, FREEDOM

Then came the murder of Mahsa Amini.

Her death in the custody of Iran’s “morality police” ignited one of the largest uprisings in the history of the Islamic Republic. Women removed their compulsory headscarves. Young people confronted security forces. Men and women stood together.

The world heard the cry: Woman. Life. Freedom.

The regime answered with bullets, executions, torture, imprisonment, and intimidation.

Hundreds were killed,

thousands injured, and

tens of thousands arrested.

Iranian women and men demonstrated extraordinary courage. Once again, they were left largely to fight alone.

Men and women protest against the killing of Mahsa Amini in Tehran, Iran. 28 September, 2022. (Photo: IMAGO / Zuma Wire via social media).

2025–2026: ANOTHER GENERATION RISES ( LION AND SUN REVOLUTION)

This year’s protests demonstrated once again that the Iranian people have not surrendered.

Following the bloodshed killing, a hundred thousand of peaceful protesters and repression surrounding the January 2026 protests, many Iranians inside and outside Iran looked to President Trump with hope that this time America might finally stand decisively with them. His promise that “Help is on the way” inspired the protestors but left them to be slaughtered alone.

When the United States and Israel weakened key components of the Islamic Republic’s military and security apparatus, many Iranians expressed gratitude and renewed hope. But tens of thousands had already been massacred. The massacres continue. How many times must the Iranian people be expected to walk into the streets unprotected just to be massacred with no help on the way.

They’ve been to this rodeo before. They know exactly what happens when they come into the streets without the means to defend themselves.

They remember 1979.

They remember 1988.

They remember 1999.

They remember 2009.

They remember 2019.

They remember 2022.

They remember January 2026.

They remember those who never came home.

So, when President Trump asks, “When are the Iranian people going to rise up and fight?”, please understand:

They already have.

The question is not whether Iranians are willing to fight.

The question is whether the free world is willing to stand with them when they do.

WHAT ARE IRANIANS REALLY WAITING FOR?

With hundreds of thousands slaughtered on the Islamic Republic’s evil alter, Iranians are waiting to know that America will not abandon them again.

They are waiting for the United States and its allies to listen to the Iranian people rather than relying on illegitimate voices and organizations that claim to represent them but do not.

They are waiting for Western leaders to understand that the Iranian people, not the Islamic Republic’s lobbyists, apologists, or carefully manufactured “opposition” figures, must determine the future of Iran.

They are waiting for the West to recognize the opposition that millions of Iranians themselves support, including Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, and to engage directly with those who have the support of the Iranian people.

And above all, they are waiting for a clear signal that America will not throw them under the bus once they rise. Again.

MR. PRESIDENT, GIVE THEM A REASON TO TRUST AMERICA

The Islamic Republic has repeatedly demonstrated that it will slaughter its own people to survive. America has the military power, intelligence, diplomatic influence, and international alliances to make it much more difficult for the regime to massacre peaceful protesters with impunity.

The Iranian people do not have those protections.

You have a security detail protecting you because your enemies – including the Islamic Republic – have repeatedly threatened your life and attempted to harm you.

Continuing to go into the streets in the face of these threats shows extraordinary courage. But even courage has limits when facing unrelenting brutality.

DO NOT ASK THEM TO FIGHT ALONE

When one asks “When the Iranian people to rise again?”, help create the conditions in which they can survive once they do. Prevent the regime from shutting down the internet and hiding massacres from the world.

Neutralize the forces deployed specifically to murder peaceful protesters.

Continue putting economic pressure on the regime and dismantling its ability to finance repression and terrorism.

And most importantly, listen directly to the Iranian people. Support the representatives whom the Iranian people themselves recognize. Do not allow the Islamic Republic’s lobbyists or regime-friendly intermediaries to tell you what Iranians want.

Listen to Iran’s streets.

Listen to the mothers who lost their children.

Listen to the fathers who buried their sons.

Listen to the women who removed their hijabs knowing they could be arrested.

Listen to the prisoners who survived torture.

Listen to the families still searching for the graves of the regime’s victims. It’s not hard to do. Iranians have been speaking for 47 years.

IRANIANS ARE NOT WAITING FOR A REVOLUTION – THEY ARE WAITING FOR VICTORY

The Islamic Republic wants the world to believe that Iranians are passive, divided, or unwilling to fight. That is a lie. The Iranian people have demonstrated their desire for freedom again and again.

What they have learned through decades of bloodshed is that courage alone is not enough. They need the free world to stand with them. They need to know that when they rise, America will not negotiate their future away, choosing appeasement over freedom.

They need to know that their sacrifice will not be forgotten.

The Iranian people are ready.

They have been ready for decades.

They are not asking America to fight their battle for them.

They are asking America not to prevent them from winning it.

They are asking for freedom to determine their own future. They are asking for the opportunity to reclaim the country that was stolen from them in 1979.

And they are asking America to stand on the right side of history.

So, when the President asks:

“When are the Iranian people going to rise up and fight?”,

my answer is simple:

They never stopped fighting.

And my question to you Mr. President is: Are you ready to make sure they do not have to fight and win alone?

About the writer:

Marziyeh (Marzi) Amirizadeh is an Iranian American author, public speaker, human rights advocate, and President of Newpersia.org. She has written two books “Captive in Iran,” and “A Love Journey with God” which are available on http://www.marzisjourney.com. She is an Iranian American who immigrated to the US after being sentenced to death by hanging in Iran for the crime of converting to Christianity. She endured months of mental and physical hardships and intense interrogation in Evin prison – one of the most brutal prisons in the world.

PRETORIA’S GENOCIDE CASE DID NOT BEGIN AT THE ICJ

In line with the company the ANC keeps, Pretoria reached its political verdict first – the legal campaign followed.

By Shaun Schutte

Recently, I penned a piece on what lay beneath Gaza examining the military world Hamas constructed underneath its own civilian population. After all, the tunnels, hostages and submerged battlefield cannot be removed from any honest examination of what happened above them.

On 25 August 2026, South Africa submitted another “substantial dossier” to the International Court of Justice, alleging that Israel had failed to comply with the Court’s provisional measures. DIRCO (Department of International Relations and Cooperation) announced it publicly on 28 August, but the dossier itself has not been released.

South Africans are therefore expected to accept the government’s description without being allowed to examine the evidence, test its conclusions or establish whether it properly accounts for Hamas’s fighters, hostages and underground military infrastructure.

That took me back to the beginning—not the beginning of Israel’s military response, but the beginning of Pretoria’s political campaign.

The timeline is uncomfortable, but it is documented.

THE RELATIONSHIP EXISTED LONG BEFORE 7 OCTOBER

The ANC’s relationship with Hamas did not begin when civilians started dying in Gaza. In 2015, the ANC formalised party-to-party relations with Hamas during a visit led by

Hamas political leader Khaled Mashal. In December 2018, the ANC Parliamentary Caucus signed a further memorandum with Hamas’s Change and Reform Bloc.

**A ‘Stab’ at Israel**. “Hamas political leader Khaled Mashal at an ANC-supported rally in Cape Town on 21 October 2015. During the rally, Mashal said the wave of stabbing attacks against Israelis would continue. (Photo: AFP/Rodger Bosch)”

That agreement was not limited to ceremonial solidarity with the Palestinian people. It committed the parties to cooperation on matters of “common interest”, including international pressure against Israel, support for the BDS campaign and using Parliament’s oversight powers to implement the ANC’s decision to downgrade diplomatic relations with Israel.

Pretoria therefore did not suddenly encounter Hamas while responding to a humanitarian crisis in 2023. The governing party already had a formal political relationship with the organisation and had committed itself to coordinated pressure against the Israeli state.

TEN DAYS AFTER THE MASSACRE

On 7 October 2023, Hamas crossed into Israel, killed approximately 1,200 people and seized about 250 hostages before retreating into Gaza.

Ten days later, South Africa’s Foreign Minister, Naledi Pandor spoke directly with Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh.

DIRCO said Haniyeh requested the call and that humanitarian assistance was discussed, but the documented fact remains that South Africa’s foreign minister was communicating with the leader of Iranian-backed Hamas only days after the massacre.

**Basking in the Spotlight**. Seen here accusing Israel of genocide at The Hague is, South Africa’s foreign Minister Naledi Pandor who only 10 days after Hamas crossed into Israel murdering approximately 1,200 people and seizing about 250 hostages spoke directly with Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh.

Five days later, on 22 October, Pandor travelled to Tehran. She met Iranian president Ebrahim Raisi, delivered a message from Cyril Ramaphosa and held discussions with Iranian foreign minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian.

Then, on 27 October, the United States Treasury sanctioned Khaled Qaddoumi. Treasury identified him as a longstanding Hamas member living in Tehran, Hamas’s representative in Iran and the liaison responsible for maintaining relations between Hamas and the Iranian government.

By early December, Qaddoumi was in Johannesburg alongside other senior Hamas figures attending the Fifth Global Convention of Solidarity with Palestine.

This was not merely another Palestinian delegate arriving to discuss civilian suffering. It was the man formally identified as the connection between Hamas and Tehran, appearing in South Africa weeks after Pandor had spoken to Haniyeh and met the Iranian leadership.

Hamas, Tehran and Pretoria were not strangers discovering one another during a crisis. The relationships were already in place.

**Timeline to Terror**. Following up on 10 days after the Hamas massacre in Israel 7 October 2023 when Naledi Pandor spoke with Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh, she then 5 days later, on the 22 October, traveled to Tehran where she met the president Ebrahim Raisi and foreign minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian.

THE VERDICT CAME BEFORE THE CASE

By 6 November 2023, the South African government was already publicly referring to Israel’s conduct as genocide.

No case had been filed. Israel had not presented its defense, no ICJ judge had examined South Africa’s evidence, and much of the military infrastructure Hamas built beneath Gaza had not yet been exposed.

Pretoria reached its political verdict first. The legal campaign followed.

**Widening the Web**. Following the Hamas massacre of October 7, 2023, Khaled Qaddoumi, Hamas’ representative in Iran and the liaison responsible for maintaining relations between Hamas and the Iranian government, speaks during a press conference in Cape Town on November 29, 2023. (Photo: Roger Bosch/AFP via Getty Images)

Senior Hamas representatives arrived in Johannesburg during the first week of December. On 29 December, South Africa instituted its genocide case against Israel at the ICJ, and Iran immediately recognised the strategic value of what Pretoria had done. Tehran gave the case its full support and publicly praised South Africa’s action as courageous and honourable.

None of this proves that Iran wrote South Africa’s application or instructed Ramaphosa to file it. It does, however, destroy the carefully maintained impression that Pretoria approached this war as a politically detached guardian of international law.

While Iran finances, arms and trains Hamas, the ANC had already formalised relations with Hamas, committed itself to political pressure against Israel and maintained diplomatic

relations with Tehran.

After 7 October, Pandor spoke to Haniyeh, carried Ramaphosa’s message to Iran and met its leadership. Weeks later, Hamas’s own liaison with Tehran appeared in Johannesburg before South Africa approached the ICJ.

No verified evidence establishes that Iran purchased South Africa’s foreign policy.

The documented relationship shows that it did not need to.

The ANC had already aligned itself with Hamas, committed itself to political pressure against Israel and maintained direct contact with Tehran. By the time Pretoria approached

the ICJ, the direction of travel had been decided years earlier.

THE ALIGNMENT DID NOT END AT THE HAGUE

South Africa has condemned the killing of Israeli civilians on 7 October, and that fact must be acknowledged. However, as Pretoria’s international campaign intensified, the massacre, the hostages and Hamas’s continuing military presence were progressively pushed into the background.

The government repeatedly presented Israel’s conduct as genocide before the ICJ made any such finding. At the same time, South Africa maintained its relationship with Iran, condemned Israeli attacks on Iranian targets and rejected international pressure to distance itself from Tehran.

In March 2026, DIRCO director-general Zane Dangor rejected American pressure to cut ties with Iran. During the same diplomatic confrontation, Pretoria rejected demands that it abandon the genocide case against Israel.

Mr Zane Dangor – Director-General of the Department of International Relations and Cooperation

These positions do not exist in separate political worlds. Iran considers Israel an enemy and benefits directly when Israel is prosecuted internationally for genocide. South Africa has supplied that international platform.

THE MONEY REMAINS UNPROVEN

There have been allegations that Iran or Qatar financed the ANC or assisted with the ICJ case. Those suspicions intensified after the financially distressed ANC announced on 22 December 2023 that it had settled its long-running dispute with Ezulweni Investments, only seven days before South Africa approached the Court.

The timing raised legitimate questions, particularly because the settlement was not transparent. However, no verified evidence establishes that Iran or Qatar paid the ANC, funded the case or purchased South Africa’s foreign policy.

I will not convert suspicion into fact merely because it fits the chronology.

The financial allegation remains unproved. The formal relationship with Hamas, the contact with Haniyeh, the visit to Tehran, Qaddoumi’s appearance in Johannesburg and Iran’s support for the ICJ campaign are documented.

That evidence is enough to expose the political alignment behind Pretoria’s supposedly neutral legal crusade.

THE DOSSIER CARRIES SOUTH AFRICA’S NAME

Israel remains subject to international law, and credible allegations concerning particular attacks or military decisions must be investigated. What cannot be accepted is Pretoria presenting genocidal intention as established fact when the ICJ has made no such finding and South Africa’s newest dossier remains hidden from public examination.

The narrative advanced by Pretoria is remarkably convenient for Iran and Hamas. Push 7 October into the background, reduce the hostages to a footnote, remove Hamas from beneath Gaza, deny Israel the practical ability to destroy the military threat and then prosecute the destruction remaining above ground as genocide.

That is not a politically neutral account of the war. It is the strategic outcome Iran requires from a friendly government with access to the world’s highest court.

The dossier may carry South Africa’s name, but the political alignment behind it was established years before the first document reached The Hague.

Hamas built the battlefield beneath Gaza.

The ANC built the relationship that carried its narrative into the ICJ.

NOT IN THE NAME OF EVERY SOUTH AFRICAN

The ANC government has used South Africa’s name, institutions and international standing to carry this case into the ICJ.

It did not file the case in the name of the ANC. It filed it in the name of the Republic of South Africa, creating the impression that Ramaphosa’s political position represents the settled voice of our entire country.

It does not represent mine, and I am not alone.

South Africans were never consulted on whether the ANC’s longstanding relationship with Hamas and alignment with Iran should be converted into our national foreign policy. We were not allowed to examine the evidence, question the political relationships behind it or see the latest dossier submitted in our name.

Ramaphosa may control the executive authority that instituted the case, but he does not own the conscience of every South African citizen. He cannot take the ANC’s political alignment, stamp the name of our country across it and then tell the world that he speaks for all of us. Our name was used.

Our international standing was committed.

Our citizens were never given a voice.

If Pretoria believes its political alignment had no influence on this campaign, then let the Presidency, DIRCO and the ANC place their explanation beneath the documented evidence.

Until then, Ramaphosa must understand one thing clearly:

HE MAY SPEAK FOR THE ANC GOVERNMENT.

HE DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ME.

About the writer:

Category: International Relations

WORD HAS IT

Like this:

SAUDI ARABIA’S SECRET JEWISH MISTRESS

Like this:

PRETORIA’S HOUSE OF CARDS AT THE HAGUE

Like this:

A FAILURE OF A FILM

Like this:

HOW DO WE COMPARE?

SOCIOCULTURAL ENGAGEMENT

A SUCCESS STORY WITH CAVEATS

Like this:

THE FORGOTTEN CHILDREN

Like this:

“ONLY DULL PEOPLE ARE BRILLIANT AT BREAKFAST”

Like this:

FAKING THE FIGURES

Like this:

MR. PRESIDENT, YOU ASKED WHEN THE IRANIAN PEOPLE WILL RISE UP. THEY NEVER STOPPED FIGHTING

Like this:

PRETORIA’S GENOCIDE CASE DID NOT BEGIN AT THE ICJ

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

SOCIOCULTURAL ENGAGEMENT

A SUCCESS STORY WITH CAVEATS

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: