NAVI PILLAY AND THE HEDGEHOG TRAP

Why the Nobel Peace Prize sacrificed genuine peacebuilding for ideological reductionism and anti-Israel bias.

By Yoram Blumstein

By rewarding a rabid anti-Israel activist-jurist and chief peddler of baseless “genocide” and “apartheid” claims against the Jewish state with the prestigious Peace Prize, the Oslo Committee did not recognise peace – but weaponised lawfare and institutional bias against the Jewish people and Israel. The Nobel Committee, which lacks a moral compass, forms part of a coterie of ignoble institutions that espouse systematic animus towards the Jewish state and provide a fertile ecosystem for the normalisation of antisemitism. Israel and the United States (U.S.) rightfully rejected the decision to award the coveted Peace Prize to Navi Pillay, a South African ad hoc judge at the compromised International Court of Justice (ICJ) and former jurist on the International Criminal Court (ICC), as it is an affront to the Jewish people and rewards Hamas and Israel’s enemies. Conversely, the feckless South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, France, Iran, United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, and Hamas praised the award as a victory for international justice.

**Hands-on Hatred**. Navi Pillay addressing the Nuremberg Forum in Nuremberg on 9 October 2026 following the announcement that she will be awarded the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize has kept her hands on the ball on promoting anti-Israel bias. (Photo: Daniel Karmann/ Getty Images)

Fundamentally, the Oslo Committee (which bears sole responsibility for awarding the Peace Prize) betrayed Alfred Nobel’s (a genius, polyglot, and inventor of dynamite) stated conditions (as enshrined in his last will), which required the recipient to meet specific criteria for advancing international diplomacy, peace, and dialogue. Pillaydid not meet Alfred Nobel’s essential requirements to be elevated to the pantheon of great peacemakers such as Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, F.W. De Klerk, Henry Kissinger, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, Menachem Begin, Anwar Sadat and Elie Wiesel, amongst others, and is an affront to the Jewish people.

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

In his 1953 essay, “The Hedgehog and the Fox”, the British Jewish philosopher Sir Isaiah Berlin asserted that:

“…the fox knows many things, while the hedgehog knows one big thing.”

Berlin borrowed the line from the ancient Greek poet, Archilochus. Berlin’s dichotomy can serve as a heuristic tool to expose confirmation bias and as a stark warning against singular, dogmatic thinking. Metaphorically, hedgehogs are monists who reduce reality to a single, central vision or organising principle. By contrast, foxes are pluralists who relentlessly pursue different avenues, nuances, variety, and complexity without forcing everything into a rigid, singular vision. Berlin used the distinction to analyse Leo Tolstoy’s inherent personal contradictions, whom the British philosopher diagnosed as a “fox by nature”, but a “hedgehog by conviction”. Tolstoy, a cerebral writer, foresaw the infinite complexity of life, but he desperately tried to force it into a “grand singular theory of life.” In Berlin’s philosophical dichotomy, a hedgehog-like approach is not inherently bad, but political scientists like Philip E. Tetlock have repurposed the “fox-and-hedgehog” framework to warn analysts and policymakers against overconfidence, single-cause grand perspectives, and confirmation bias in expert forecasting.

THE NOBEL PEACE COMMITT’S HEDGEHOG TRAP

The Nobel Peace Committee’s diabolical decision fits the hedgehog diagnosis. The decision is inextricably linked to the current torrent of violent antisemitism and anti-Israel bias. It carefully reduced the criteria for the prize to a singular grand vision (as a purported fact), while filtering out complex realities about:

– the Israel-Palestine conflict

– the normalisation of antisemitism, and

– the role of terror networks such as Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah.

**Politicizing a Prize**. Would Alfred Nobel view the 2026 Nobel Peace prize to South African jurist Navi Pillay as a faithful fulfillment of his will or a weaponization of the award to legitimize anti-Israel hatred and prejudice?

Before the prize announcement, Pillay prodigiously used the label “genocide” and “apartheid state” to describe Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. She supports the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement and endorsed the UN Durban Anti-Racism Process, which set the tone for a notable uptick in modern antisemitism and institutional bias. In addition, she failed the neutrality test as an international jurist when she signed a joint letter accusing Israel of “domination and oppression” before heading the UN Commission of Inquiry into the Occupied Palestinian Territories. In September 2025, the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry, chaired by Pillay, released a report concluding that Israel had committed “genocide” in Gaza. However, the ICJ has yet to rule on South Africa’s baseless accusations. The report took statements from individual Israeli senior officials out of context and recommended criminal prosecution for senior Israeli officials at the ICC. Pillay and the bodies she represents are structurally biased against Israel and the Jewish people. Even when the Oslo Committee notified her of the award, she continued to accuse Israel of “genocide”:

“The last thing I did was the report on Gaza naming what’s happening in there as genocide…Why would you need courage to speak the truth? You interpret the law. You look at all the facts, so it’s an impartial decision.”

Check your facts at the door, Pillay:

Your reporting shows no impartiality; your statements and opinions are steeped in tendentiousness. You are an ingloriously useful idiot!

Pillay was visibly surprised when she was announced as the 2026 recipient, as other deserving nominees, such as U.S. President Donald Trump, played a pivotal role in negotiating a ceasefire in Gaza, spearheaded peace talks between Israel and Lebanon, and agitated for a modus vivendi between Israel and Syria. Geopolitical optics do matter. Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, continues to use her office to frame Israel’s actions in Gaza and Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) as “genocidal” while failing to acknowledge Israel’s defensive policies against a genocidal terrorist entity. The September 2026 United Nations General Assembly debates focused almost exclusively on Israel. The United Kingdom’s recent import ban on “settlement” goods, sanctions frameworks, and arms export restrictions align with European and Western nations (such as Ireland, Spain, the Netherlands, and France) in restricting trade with Israel following meritless advisory opinions from international legal institutions like the ICJ. In a different, yet crucial context, on October 4^th, the Green Party of England and Wales adopted a preposterous policy at its annual conference, formally equating Zionism with racism. While the Green Party is a fringe party with a few parliamentary seats, the decision carries significant political and diplomatic weight. It will further galvanise the normalisation of antisemitism in Europe and beyond. On October 17^th, during a local elections campaign rally in Rylands (Cape Town), a predominantly Muslim and Hamas-loving suburb, Ramaphosa emphasised South Africa’s ongoing genocide case against Israel and the African National Congress’ (ANC) steadfast support for the Palestinian cause. It is perplexing why a head of state would use a misguided foreign policy issue to attract Muslim voters when the focus should be on fixing service delivery failures in ANC-led municipalities.

Based on the above, the Nobel Committee fits the hedgehog framework with a singular, misguided vision. By betraying Alfred Nobel’s explicit wishes, the Oslo Committee has succumbed to the prevailing cosmos (which is dominated by narratives munificently bandied about by the “New Antisemites” – a violent neophyte species of state and non-state actors) that demonises and delegitimises the State of Israel. Hence, the said Committee has failed to uphold impartiality in awarding the peace prize to an individual whose career has been fixated on spreading disinformation about Israel. Regrettably, the Oslo Committee is afflicted with a growing pathology of institutional bias, as highlighted by incessant anti-Israel resolutions and declarations by the UN and its allied institutions.

**Institutionalizing Antisemitism**. Far from promoting peace and international law, the Committee’s selection of Navi Pillay exposes the double standards and deep-rooted hostility toward the Jewish state within international institutions.

A FOXLIKE COUNTERARGUMENT

Lamentably, the Nobel Committee exposed its bias in awarding the prestigious prize to Pillay by failing to consider:

– the prevailing facts on the ground

– alternative or contrarian perspectives

– Israel’s right to self-defense, and

– Pillay’s track record of vehement anti-Israel rhetoric.

These factors are inconsistent with the qualities of a peacemaker, which Pillay lacks. The facts speak for themselves. A fox would have determined that Israel did not commit genocide or war crimes, cause mass starvation in Gaza, or deliberately kill babies and civilians. In fact, Israel took reasonable measures, which are well-documented, to comply with laws of armed conflict and international humanitarian conventions.

The real danger lies in ideological monism, when international institutions (like the Oslo Nobel Committee) gravitate toward “hedgehog thinking” and compromise their role as neutral arbiters. By awarding the Peace Prize to Pillay, the Nobel Committee acted as the sole, supreme arbiter of peace, and the decision was biased, predetermined and influenced by the anti-Israel zeitgeist and extremist voices. The Nobel Committee’s decision is consequently alarming, as it facilitates the normalisation of antisemitism, which is disturbing to Jews as violent antisemitism sweeps across Western capitals.

Pillay is not a peacemaker and unworthy of the Nobel Peace Prize. She should have declined the award as she had not done enough to comply with Alfred Nobel’s wishes. The key state instigator of unfounded genocide allegations against Israel, South Africa, was the first to congratulate Pillay on her undeserved prize. Yet, the ANC’s reckless decision to take Israel to the ICJ provided the building blocks for antisemitism to thrive. Ambassador Rabbi Yehuda Kaploun, the U.S. Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism, remarked in early October that South Africa’s ICJ genocide case against Israel led to an exponential increase in antisemitism and anti-Israel hostility.

**Under the Shadow of Nobel**. Ambassador Rabbi Yehuda Kaploun, the US Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism asserts that South Africa’s decision to make its ICJ case against Israel a centerpiece of its foreign policy is contributing to global antisemitism.

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).

THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE OFFENSIVE

Hardly in pursuance of “peace” when an Islamist death cult applauds the announcement of the 2026 South African winner.

By Craig Snoyman

On 9 October 2026, the Norwegian Nobel Committee (“the committee”) awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Navanethem (Navi) Pillay for:

– her efforts to promote peace and international law”,

and announced that:

– “Peace requires justice”.

**Humanitarian or Political?** The decision to award the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize to former U.N. human rights chief Navi Pillay sparked fierce backlash from U.N. watchdogs for her longstanding anti-Israel bias and defending antisemitic rhetoric. (Photo: Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Image)

In Nuremberg, ironically, Pillay told a crowd celebrating her award: “The last thing I did is the delivery of the report on Gaza, naming what’s happening there as genocide.” In Oslo the committee said that it was “not taking a stance” on genocide, as “it’s her report”. Perhaps the committee should have made its announcement on 7 October, the day of the worst genocide of Jews since the Second World War, rather than two days later.

On 9 October 2009, seventeen years earlier to the day, the committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”. Obama’s response, as his memoir records, was a question: “For what?” In 2015 the committee’s secretary disclosed that the committee chose Obama because it believed the prize would help him achieve his goals.

The will of Alfred Nobel’s will is quite clear what the requirements for the Peace Prize are. It is for those who, “during the preceding year”, have “conferred the greatest benefit to mankind”. It is for the person who has done “the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”.

The records of the favoured candidates were clear. Vanessa Nakate campaigned for the vulnerable communities affected by climate change. The volunteers of Sudan’s Emergency Response Rooms were bringing food, medical help and evacuation to civilians in Sudan’s civil war. Yulia Navalnaya became the political voice of her husband, Alexei Navalny, who died in a Russian Arctic prison colony.

Pillay’s record was not as impressive. Having signed South African BDS petition to “Sanction Apartheid Israel” she had no qualms in chairing the singularly inappropriately named “Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel” She proceeded to conduct an investigation in which Israel refused the commission entry and the commission acquired its information from second-hand sources.

Ten weeks after she tendered her resignation, the commission published its results and conclusions, finding that the State of Israel was responsible for committing genocide, for failing to prevent it and for failing to punish it. In September 2024, it had recorded that Hamas was guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. In its 2025 report to the General Assembly it absolved Hamas, mentioning it once, in a quotation from an Israeli minister. It declared that Israel had the intent to destroy the Palestinians of Gaza, as this was “the only reasonable inference”. It traced that intent back to “decades of unlawful occupation and unlawful settlement, with racial segregation or apartheid”. When asked whether the states that still supplied arms to Israel were complicit in genocide, Pillay answered: “Yes.”

**Jaundiced Judgment**. And how did judge Navi Pilay (center) react when fellow UN Human Rights Council’s Commission of Inquiry into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict member, Miloon Kothari (right) expressed that social media was “controlled largely by the Jewish lobby,” she defended him saying he had been “deliberately decontextualized.” (Photo: Luke Tress/Times of Israel)

Her record as a judge at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (“the tribunal”) is equally chequered. When the defence in the Media case applied for Pillay’s recusal, because she had already expressly pronounced on the guilt of the radio station RTLM in an earlier case, the chamber in which she sat dismissed the application. When a press report accused three judges of the tribunal of laughing while defence counsel cross-examined a rape survivor about how her attackers had undressed her, Pillay, as president of the tribunal, called the report “a mischaracterisation of the scene”, and in the same statement declared that it would not be appropriate for her to discuss the conduct of other judges in an ongoing trial. The survivors’ organisations Ibuka and Avega suspended their cooperation with the tribunal.

Her attitude has remained constant. When her fellow commissioner, Miloon Kothari, told an interviewer that the “Jewish lobby” largely controlled social media, Pillay stated that he had been “deliberately misquoted”, without saying how. Kothari subsequently apologised and wrote that it had been “completely wrong” for him to describe social media in that way. Pillay was not as forthcoming.

In the Rwanda tribunal, the Appeals Chamber annulled and replaced various decisions over which Pillay presided, because of her misdirection concerning conduct outside the tribunal’s temporal jurisdiction. In the Palestine commission matter it was easier. Her commission was to investigate violations “leading up to and since 13 April 2021” and was not limited by time issues. During the investigation, Pillay stated: “The occupation is as non-ending as our mandate.” This followed earlier prejudicial remarks, when Pillay told the General Assembly that “Israel’s occupation is now unlawful”. The evidence of her bias, and her (lack of) regard for natural justice, did not prevent her from sitting on either the tribunal or the commission.

The Appeals Chamber in the Rwanda tribunal reversed Pillay’s Media case decision on the basis that a reasonable trier of fact could not find conspiracy to commit genocide to be “the only reasonable inference” from the evidence. Pillay, not a great historian, repeated her conclusion when deciding on Israel’s conduct, with a greater paucity of evidence. But then, a report to the UN General Assembly has no Appeals Chamber above it that can set aside such a legal conclusion.

In September 2022, when the United Nations Association of Germany proposed to present her with its Otto Hahn Peace Medal, Ron Prosor, Israel’s ambassador in Berlin said:

“To have Navi Pillay investigate Israel is like asking Putin to chair a commission of inquiry into Ukraine.”

The ceremony did not take place. In November 2025, when Sydney gave her its peace prize, the Premier of New South Wales declined to attend, and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry had said that the prize went to recipients “for having the ‘correct’ opinions, rather than for making a real contribution to peace.”

The Nobel committee wanted Obama to achieve in 2009, and it paid him in advance. In 2026 it wants Pillay’s report to achieve the definition of Gaza as genocide before any court has ruled, and it has paid her in advance as well. She is well positioned to pay it back, as she sits as an ad hoc judge in the Gambia v Myanmar genocide case and will no doubt work hard to change the definition of genocide.

The function of the Nobel Peace Prize committee was to ask what Pillay did in the preceding year for fraternity between nations, and what she did for fewer standing armies and for peace congresses. She ticks none of those boxes. She incites friction and animosity. She accused one nation of genocide and called the nations that arm it complicit. Nobody punished the committee for the Obama Peace Prize, and now the committee has taken another step further. It is no longer an award for anticipated fraternity; it is now an advance to persuade political opinion. Again, the committee goes unpunished. But this time the sin is more egregious. A political finding on genocide lets the committee ignore its own principles, and lets its members’ antipathy toward Israel translate the big lie of Israeli genocide into a Nobel medal.

**Pilay’s Prize**. By awarding to a recipient with an agenda of endangering Jews worldwide, has the Nobel Peace Prize -one of the five original Nobel Prizes established by the will of Alfred Nobel – been irreparably tarnished?

So, to you Ms Nakate, to you, the volunteers of Sudan’s Emergency Response Rooms, and to you Ms Navalnaya: speaking for the vulnerable, feeding civilians under fire or defying the Kremlin will not win you this prize. Better luck next year. President Obama asked “For what?”

The committee has now answered: the correct opinion, not peace.

About the writer:

Craig Snoyman is a practicing Advocate in Johannesburg.

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.

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

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.

“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).

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:

WORDS AND DEEDS MATTER: THE ALARMING RISE IN STOCHASTIC ANTISEMITISM IN SOUTH AFRICA

Is a Jewish presence in South Africa inextricably tied to the Israel-Palestine conflict, which has led to localized harassment?

By Yoram Blumstein

Recently, while I was having a drink at a restaurant in a South African city, an American woman approached me and complimented my Magen David (Star of David) necklace. I responded that I wear it proudly as it signifies my Jewish and Zionist identity. Since she wore a splendid Magen David gold bracelet, I returned the compliment. However, as the conversation gravitated towards our common Jewish identity, she mentioned that wearing her bracelet has elicited negative comments from some South Africans. This was unnerving and dawned upon me that antisemitism in South Africa has increased exponentially since October 7^th. It would be wholly inaccurate to label South Africa as inherently antisemitic. Still, the South African government, some opposition parties, and pro-Palestine organizations have provided an enabling ecosystem for the oldest form of hatred to flourish in the country. Against this background and based on recent evidence, this article examines the rise of stochastic antisemitism, the key drivers and agendas behind it, and the strategies that the South African Jewish community should employ to counter this diabolical trajectory.

WHAT IS STOCHASTIC ANTISEMETISM?

The concept has roots in its parent concept: “stochastic terrorism”. In short, stochastic antisemitism refers to the use of mass media, febrile political rhetoric, and public platforms to “demonize” and spread disinformation and malicious conspiracy theories about Jewish people and Israel. How does it work in practice? Firstly, while the actor is careful not to issue a direct command to commit a crime (antisemitic act), the hostile ecosystem or cosmos they generate makes an “act of violence or harassment statistically predictable but individually unpredictable.” Secondly, the actor fans rhetorical flames, and when an extremist or radicalized individual acts on it, the actor claims plausible deniability. South Africa fits this framework through a toxic mix of state and non-state tiers.

**Disturbing Question**. In the face of rising anti-Israel sentiment in South Africa, is it still safe for Jews in South Africa to visually identify themselves in public?(Photo: Carsten Koall/Getty Images)

FACING THE FACTS

Since October 7^th, global antisemitism has become violent, normalized, and familiar tropes about the Jewish people and Israel have been amplified on university campuses, multilateral institutions (like the United Nations and its associated agencies), workplaces, and tourist destinations frequented by Jews and Israelis, while Israeli artists and academics have been constant targets for boycotts and exclusions. Jews in Australia, the United States (US), Canada, and the United Kingdom (UK) have been subjected to deadly attacks, while state-sponsors of antisemitism – Spain, Ireland, Turkey, and South Africa – claim plausible deniability for their false assertions of genocide against the only Jewish state. The only genocide that occurred was on October 7^th when Hamas terrorists breached the Israel-Gaza border fence and murdered more than 1,200 Jews and Israelis. In Gaza, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) recovered documents detailing explicit instructions from the late Hamas leader, Yahya Sinwar, to kidnap and kill as many Jews as possible during the terrorist organization’s “Al-Aqsa Flood” offensive.

**It’s an Israeli Plot**. Amidst South Africa’s 2026 embarrassing xenophobic wave of unrest, Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Ronald Lamola joined Justice Minister Kubayi, suggesting that foreign actors — implying Israel — may be responsible to undermine South Africa’s global human rights standing. (Photo: DIRCO)

In South Africa, considered by many Jews to be a safe space to practice their religion and traditions, antisemitism, albeit not violent relative to other countries with large Jewish Diaspora communities, has reached stratospheric levels since October 7^th. The then African National Congress (ANC)-led government’s decision to charge the Jewish state with a spurious genocide case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) provided fodder for extremist elements in government and civil society to use the narrative and physical battle space to spread modern blood libels against Jews in South Africa, garnished with familiar racists tropes such as “Zionists”, “settler colonialists”, “occupiers”, “baby killers”, “an apartheid state”, “death to Israel and the IDF”, and other stereotypes. In addition, senior government ministers such as Ronald Lamola (Department of International Relations and Cooperation – DIRCO) and Mmamoloko Kubayi (Justice and Constitutional Development) made oblique, yet absurd, remarks that Israel may have stoked the recent xenophobic attacks against African migrants, as its purported foreign involvement is linked to the ICJ case. Relatedly, extremist foreign pundits and celebrities breached the threshold for idiocy and conspiracy theories by blaming the Jewish state for the recent influx of 60,000 African migrants from Morocco to Spain. This is nothing more than an aggregation of modern blood libels against Jews and the State of Israel.

**Jews behind Turmoil**. In the midst of the ugly 2026 anti-illegal immigration protests in South Africa, Justice Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi’ (above) suggested that Israel was behind the turmoil to try undermine South Africa in retaliation for its “genocide” case against Israel at The Hague. Joining the antisemitic bandwagon, former EFF MP, Mbuyiseni Ndlozi insinuated that Israel had been waiting for an opportunity to damage the country’s reputation. (Photo Frennie Shivambu )

Although the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) painted a rather sanguine picture of the safety of Jews in the latest edition of The Jewish Report, the methodology and statistics used by the Board’s antisemitic monitoring unit compare violent incidents relative to larger Jewish Diaspora communities in the West, which belies the increased weaponization of antisemitic propaganda on media platforms in South Africa. Batsheva Shulman penned an article in The Jerusalem Report (July 28, 2026) wherein she posits that South African Jews feel relatively safe to wear religious symbols (such as kippot) but often conceal their Zionism due to a torrent of campus and institutional pressures, as well as the anti-Israel mien of the South African government and the pro-Palestine lobby. Shulman’s article neglected to mention that most South African Jews, including this writer, cherish the State of Israel as their eternal homeland, whose establishment was the culmination of Theodore Herzl’s (z”l) vision of a permanent homeland for the Jewish people. References to Israel as a Zionist state are rather an affront to the Jewish people, as the Zionist debate ended when David Ben-Gurion announced the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. Admittedly, the principles of Zionism (as evidenced in naming conventions of Jewish organizations) exist as an eternal flame of our Jewish identity, and it would be remiss to treat that ideology through a negative prism. This is exactly what anti-Zionist cheerleaders, such as Megan Choritz, are espousing. Choritz is currently contesting a R500,000 ($31,000) defamation case brought by Professor Adam Mendelsohn of the University of Cape Town (UCT), who alleges that she maligned his reputation on social media platforms. When it comes to the Israel-Palestine conflict, the narrative or cognitive battlespace is controlled by the anti-Zionists. The narrative domain, as Ajit Maan (a leading expert on narrative and cognitive warfare) has noted, has emerged as the new center of gravity in modern conflict, and this applies to extremist actors as well. Maan’s theory upends the great Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz’s canonical traditional centers of gravity, which often treat information or psychological operations as support mechanisms for kinetic warfare. By contrast, Maan cogently argues, by way of “narrative identity theory,” that messages or narratives not only target the “audience,” but effectively become the “audience.” For example, malicious actors (especially the pro-Palestine lobby in South Africa) can manipulate an “audience” by linking the Israel-Palestine conflict to that audience’s historical trauma (misguided analogies between apartheid South Africa and Israel’s relations with the Palestinians). By cementing this narrative, the target “audience” rejects countervailing perspectives and foolishly believes it is in control of the “objective reality.” This dynamic has galvanized extremists, both on the right and left, to resort to information warfare against South African Jews and Israel. Their actions have spurred egregious statements by organizations and individuals with strong ideological ties to Iran, Hamas, Lebanese Hezbollah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad during public rallies.

**Sign of the ‘Times’**. Out in the public domain, the county’s popular Sunday Times headlines that Justice Minister Mamoloko Kubayi implies Israel was behind anti-immigrant protests.

AN UPTICK IN ANTISEMETIC STATEMENTS AND INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE

According to community security organizations (CSOs), there has been a discernible spike in antisemitic incidents since mid-2026, especially in Gauteng. These incidents include verbal abuse, online harassment and doxxing, while physical assaults remained rare. The pro-Palestine “useful idiots” continue to protest outside Cape Union Mart – a large Jewish-owned retail outlet. Philip Krawitz, Executive Chairman of the Cape Union Mart Group of Companies – a mensch and humanitarian – received repeated online and verbal threats to his life, so much so that he spent a period abroad and beefed up his security. To protect his reputation and businesses, Krawitz took the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) to the Western Cape High Court on the legal basis that labeling him a “genocide funder” and “baby killer” are defamatory and breached the threshold of peaceful protest and freedom of speech. Subsequently, the said court heard arguments over three days from Krawitz’s legal team and the PSC’s in mid-June 2026. The court reserved judgment, and at the time of writing, no date has been announced for a final ruling. The PSC’s political slogans, “From the river to the sea…”, “Zionism is colonialism”, and “Globalize the Intifada” are political shibboleths as these canards are being used to create a Manichean view of Israel and the Jewish people. Therefore, these shibboleths are used in a nuanced way by “useful idiots” to unilaterally determine who is an enemy (Zionist) and ally (anti-Zionist).

**Attacking Jewish Business**. Anti-Israel activists’ picket outside the Western Cape High Court where Cape Union Mart and its Jewish owner Philip Krawitz are petitioning the court to prohibit the Palestine Solidarity Campaign over weekly protests held outside the company’s stores since 2023 and from making “defamatory statements” and intimidating customers. (Photos: Matthew Hirsch)

To add fuel to antisemitic fire, on August 2nd, 2026, Haroon Orrie, the national coordinator of the Cape Town-based extremist and vigilante movement, People Against Gangsterism and Drugs (PAGAD), addressed a pro-Palestine rally in Cape Town, where he warned Zionists (by implication, Jews) and their supporters to “find a rock to hide under” and threatened to “unleash the party of Allah.” At the same gathering, the supporters (who were predominantly Muslim) waved flags of Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the head of the terrorist octopus, the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Cape Council of the South African Zionist Federation (SAZF) has exhorted the South African Police Service (SAPS) and the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) to investigate Orrie’s vituperative statements for potential violations of the Riotous Assemblies Act, the Intimidation Act, and anti-terrorism laws. PAGAD, which was previously outlawed in 2002 due to erstwhile urban bombing campaigns and high-profile assassinations in its anti-crime ideology on the Cape Flats, has managed to reconstitute itself as a movement bent on social activism. Yet, glimpses of its status quo ante are resurfacing in extremist mode. Hitherto, no action has been taken against Orrie and those of similar ilk, who continue to spew Jew-hatred in the digital and physical domains. This is indicative of a tolerant cosmos, spearheaded by the Hamas- and Iran-enamored South African government, which continues to threaten South African Jews, who serve in the IDF, with arrest. This is utter balderdash and hypocrisy since leading pro-Palestine activists continue their antisemitic encouragement with reckless abandon.

**Looking for Scapegoats**. It is images like this of an anti-migrant protest march through Johannesburg’s Alexandra township on 16 July 2026, that government ministers are suggestion Israel may have a hand in. (Photo: Ihsaan Haffejee/Anadolu via Reuters)

WHO ARE THE KEY DRIVERS OF THE STOCHASTIC NARRATIVE?

As pointed out earlier, stochastic antisemitism in the South African context refers to hostile anti-Zionist political discourse that can indirectly incite and normalize antisemitic incidents by providing a permissive environment. However, calls for direct violence or hatred against Jews are not intended. Notwithstanding this, in the South African context, the stochastic narrative gains traction at the intersection of the ANC-led government’s geopolitical posturing, as well as historical anti-Jewish/Israel racial stereotyping and tropes. These narratives have been operationalized and weaponized to equate Jews, pro-Israel institutions and businesses with the actions and military policies of the Israeli government. Thus, the vast majority of South African Jews, in the eyes of the extremist pro-Palestine, bear collective responsibility for the actions of the Israeli government in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), as well as Gaza. While not every criticism of Israel is necessarily antisemitic, the conduct of the South African government and its supporters in the pro-Palestine lobby makes the distinction inscrutable. Government officials, ANC bigwigs, and pro-Palestine advocacy groups are the key drivers of stochastic antisemitism in South Africa.

**Rot begins with the ‘Funnies’**. Creating the disturbing ecosystem of today, this 2021 South African cartoon in the local online newspaper *Daily Maverick*, exposes the ugly face of antisemitism. The cartoon depicts the Miss Universe organisation, Israeli Prime Minister at the time, Naftali Bennett, and a man representing the “Zionist lobby” at a beauty pageant.

South African government (ANC-led) policies and statements: The South African government’s aggressive pro-Palestine position and the decision to charge Israel with genocide at the ICJ were the immediate trigger for a rise in antisemitism since October 7^th. On October 8^th, public celebrations, praising the Hamas attacks, took place in Judea and Samaria, Gaza and some Arab capitals (although Arab leaders did not endorse these). In South Africa, Ronnie Kasrils, former minister of intelligence and a current member of the obscure and extremist South African Jews for a Free Palestine (SAJFP) movement, grotesquely praised the Hamas attacks as “brilliant and spectacular,” while Naledi Pandor, former minister of international relations and cooperation, was in direct contact with Hamas leaders after the attack, drove the false genocide narrative claim, and even inverted the Holy Quran by asserting that while “Muslims are peace-loving people…they are permitted to engage in jihad when necessary.” Pandor delivered these remarks on August 23^rd, 2025, at the Langa Masjid in Cape Town, while wearing a keffiyeh, a symbol of solidarity with the Palestinians. Under Pandor’s watch, the South African embassy in Tel Aviv was closed, while bilateral relations with the US administration reached an all-time low. Similarly, during a post-Cabinet media briefing in October 2023, Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni, who has a proclivity for idiocy and baseless utterances, accused the Israeli government of perpetrating a “Palestinian Holocaust.” These historical inversions have been amplified by Zane Dangor, director-general of the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO), who made dilettantish and infantile remarks about the origins of Zionism.

A clear pattern is emerging from the South African government policies: the creation of a permissive, rabid environment for antisemitism to flourish. Aside from its stochastic encouragement, it is a clear case of state-sponsored antisemitism.

**In the path of the Nazis**. A much older political cartoon widely disseminated by BDS South Africa utilized the classic Nazi trope of portraying Israeli and Jewish figures – some wearing yarmulkes – with long rat tails and exaggerated facial features gnawing on a block of Swiss cheese full of holes with then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in the centre The drawings are reminiscent of how Jews were depicted as vermin by the Nazis during the Holocaust.

PRO-PALESTINE OPPOSITION PARTIES:

The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) is the fourth largest party in Parliament and the most anti-Israel. The party’s leader, Julius Malema (who, by the way, is appealing a jail sentence for illegal possession of a firearm), has consistently called for the closure of the Israeli embassy in Pretoria, severance of business ties between Israel and South Africa, a boycott of Israeli goods, and cutting academic links with Israeli institutions. The EFF has repeatedly called for closure and defunding of Herzliya High School in Cape Town, under the spurious claim that the school acts as an “agent of a foreign genocidal state” because former students purportedly serve in the IDF. In the aftermath of October 7^th, Malema led several pro-Palestinian rallies where he uttered slogans and statements directed at Zionist and Jewish institutions. For example, the EFF’s leadership chanted, “we know where the murderers live…”, directed at Jewish community members. Led by former President Jacob Zuma, the uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MK Party) is the official opposition after the Democratic Alliance (DA), despite the party theoretically having the most seats after the ANC, decided to join the Government of National Unity (GNU). The MK Party is decidedly anti-Israel and has routinely accused Israel of “settler-colonialism”, “apartheid”, and “genocide.”

Al-Jama-ah, a party with few seats in parliament and with strong Islamist leanings – has an outsized influence in foreign policy debates and municipal governance in Johannesburg. The party proudly supports Hamas’s armed resistance against Israel, framing it as a legitimate struggle. The party previously clashed with Jewish and pro-Israel councilors in municipal councils to the extent that Jewish councilors wearing religious symbols were openly mocked.

PRO-PALESTINE ADVOCACY GROUPS:

The pro-Palestine lobby, most notably movements such as Africa4Palestine (BDS South Africa), Gift of the Givers, SAJFP and various groupings, are advocating for boycott, sanctions, and the diplomatic isolation of Israel. These grievances are ubiquitous on South African university campuses. Professor Adam Mendelsohn (Head of the Department of Historical Studies and Director of the Kaplan Center for Jewish Studies at UCT) delivered his inaugural lecture on April 29^th, 2026, to highlight the future of South African Jewry amid the normalization of antisemitism in academic and social circles. Mendelsohn is currently in a legal tug-of-war with UCT over resolutions adopted by its Council in 2024. In June 2024, the UCT Council adopted resolutions, inter alia, that UCT academics may not liaise with or cooperate with groups, research projects, or networks affiliated with the IDF or operating in the “Occupied Palestinian Territories.” The same university also rejected the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. Mendelsohn rightfully argued that UCT’s anti-Israel resolutions are a direct assault on objectivity and academic freedom, privilege anti-Israel academics and visiting scholars, and single out Israeli academics compared to other countries involved in human rights abuses. The Western Cape High Court is currently reviewing the administrative rationality of the UCT Council’s resolutions and will determine whether the adoption of such policies complied with standard governance obligations. Paradoxically, on March 30, 2026, UCT awarded an honorary doctorate to Imtiaz Sooliman, head of the Gift of the Givers charity. Sooliman is known for his virulent antisemitic rhetoric. During a public lecture at UCT in October 2025, Sooliman averred that he was “five thousand percent antisemitic…” and continued his diatribe against Israel and South African Jews: “We know antisemitism is used to shut you up. So, if you stand up against Zionists and they say you’re antisemitic, it’s because they want to cover their faults.” It is palpable that UCT, Africa’s most prestigious university and once a beacon and citadel of academic freedom, has now welcomed extremist elements into its fold. This is hypocrisy personified.

Stochastic narratives, as espoused by the South African government’s decision to take Israel to the ICJ on genocide charges, are the epitome of antisemitism and modern blood libel against the State of Israel and the Jewish people. Accusing a country of genocide is a serious allegation that should be supported by hard proof, not anecdotal evidence. The fact that South Africa has requested the ICJ for an extension until 2027 to present evidence means that there is no evidence at all and the court should dismiss it as a frivolous and cheap attempt to traduce the image of the State of Israel, which launched “Operation Swords of Iron” in self-defense against Hamas terrorists. In addition, the IDF took reasonable measures, in line with international law, to minimize civilian casualties.

The stochastic stratagems of the drivers have now shifted from demonstrations and boycotts to Jewish communal spaces. These are manifested in protests over Jewish participation in sports, youth events, and commercial and cultural events. The stochastic impact of this implies that Jewish existence or presence in South Africa is inextricably tied to the Israel-Palestine conflict, which led to localized harassment.

HOW DO SA JEWS COUNTER THE STOCHASTIC THREAT?

The boundary between legitimate criticism of Israel and hostility towards Jewish people by a powerful minority of pro-Palestine institutions and individuals, inspired by a permissive antisemitic ecosystem created by the ANC-led government, is inseparable. While the Cape Branch of the SAJBD has ongoing Equality Court cases against recidivist antisemites such as Nabeweya Lukie, an employee of the Muslim Judicial Council of South Africa, more needs to be done. If found guilty, these inveterate antisemites are often given a monetary fine (payable to the Cape Town Holocaust & Genocide Center), a public apology and retraction of antisemitic statements on social media, and a visit to a Holocaust Museum. While it is important to “name and shame” the antisemites, it is merely a defensive mechanism as it does not address the underlying hatred some harbor against Jews. Diaspora Jews, who became October 8^th Jews, woke up to a new reality after October 7^th. While Jews in Israel could rely on the Israeli government, IDF, and intelligence services to protect them, Diaspora Jews were at the receiving end of violent antisemitism as some governments did not do enough to protect Jewish minorities and instead mollycoddled Hamas sympathizers. Zvika Klein, Editor-in-Chief of The Jerusalem Post, pointed out that Jewish communities across the globe have spent billions of dollars on physical security, which is essentially a “defensive architecture.” While the physical protection of synagogues, schools, and community centers is important and the threats existential, it creates a “fortress mentality” that only treats the symptoms of antisemitism and not the root causes. Klein offers some useful advice by enjoining Jewish communities to realign their “defensive posture” to proactiveness. A lot can be achieved through political mobilization, legal advocacy, fostering ties with moderate faith groups, and deepening connections with Israel.

In the South African context:

The SAJBD must employ legal advocacy to criminalize antisemitic rhetoric propagated by PAGAD, individuals, and the pro-Palestine lobby. Hauling antisemites before the Equality Court is not enough, as the court cannot order criminal prosecution. Although freedom of expression is protected under Section 16 (1) of the Constitution, Section 16 (2) excludes “propaganda for war, incitement of imminent violence, and advocacy of hatred based on race, ethnicity, or religion that constitutes incitement to cause harm.” This threshold has been reached many times, most recently by PAGAD’s Haroon Orrie with his toxic incitement against South African Jews.

**Zionists must Hide.** “To every Zionist, to every business that supports Zionism …. you better find yourself a rock to hide under,” vowed Haroon Orrie, the national coordinator of PAGAD to a crowd waving Hamas, Hezbollah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad flags on the Sea Point Promenade on Sunday, 2 August, 2026.

As a deterrent, the SAJBD should pursue criminal prosecution under the Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Act. The Act establishes hate speech as:

“a specific criminal offense when a person intentionally publishes or communicates content that advocates hatred or incites violence/harm against a protected group…”

Criminal charges can be filed with SAPS. The NPA will be obligated to pursue criminal prosecution, which carries statutory penalties, fines or imprisonment.

To prevent high-profile public individuals from making stochastic statements and hostile rhetoric, the SAJBD should request a High Court injunction to restrain public figures and organizations from perpetuating a pattern of hostile rhetoric that infringes on the constitutional rights to Human Dignity (Section 10) and Freedom and Security of the Person (Section 12). The SAJBD must prove beyond reasonable doubt that rhetoric has crossed from political critique into targeting of specific individuals (Krawitz is a case in point) and Jewish community organizations. While robust, responsible free speech should be encouraged, the SAJBD should urge the South African government to heed several European countries’ decisive actions against pro-Palestine propaganda and slogans. Germany classified the phrase “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free…” as a criminalized symbol under Section 86a of the German Criminal Code. The German courts can order immediate criminal prosecution or fines if such slogans are displayed or chanted. In the UK, the authorities have designated Palestine Action under its counter-terrorism laws. Thus, membership of the group or public support thereof constitutes a criminal offense. France, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia and the US have taken similar action against pro-Palestine groups. The same fate should befall Africa4Palestine, SAJFP, PAGAD, and Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood/Iran-funded institutions in South Africa and the South African Jewish community should reclaim the narrative space by dispelling myths and lies about Israel and the Jewish people. This could be done with other faith groups, especially South Africa’s majority Christian community, which has strong spiritual ties to Israel. Melanie Philips has written an illuminating book, Fighting the Hate: A Handbook for Jews Under Siege (2026), which is a practical guide for Diaspora Jews to future-proof their communities amid increased Jew-hatred. A key takeaway from Philips’ book, relevant to the South African Jewish context, is the need to refute misinformation and disinformation about Israel. Most importantly, South African Jews ought to adopt a resilient, proactive posture built on Jewish identity, self-confidence and love for Israel.

Editor’s Note: Yoram Blumstein is a nom de plume (pen name) used by the author to protect identity due to ongoing security risks and prior threats related to previous reporting.

*Feature Picture: Hamas-supporting mob on Sea Point beach front, Cape Town, South Africa three years ago, where Jonathan Cohen was attacked – “strangled, kicked, hit, scratched, dragged, maligned, and almost pushed into the ocean” – by violent extremists targeting a prayer gathering for Israel.

THE RAMAPHOSA / PEREZ MEETING – PATHOS OR POLITICAL OPPORTUNISM ?

What truly lies behind the much-publicized meeting between South Africa’s President and the Rabbi parent of a SA-born Israeli soldier killed in the war in Gaza?

By Peter Bailey

The pathos in the unlikely meeting between President Cyril Ramaphosa and Rabbi Doron Perez and his wife Shelley, should be apparent in the personal exchange between them, despite their obvious political differences. The subsequent messaging from South Africa tells a different story.

President Cyril Ramaphosa meets with Rabbi Doron and Shelly Perez, parents of slain son, Daniel, killed in action on the 7 October, 2023.

The meeting on Monday 10 August between World Zionist Organisation (WZO) President Rabbi Doron Perez and his wife Shelley, with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, made the headlines in numerous media publications, mostly for the wrong reasons. Perez is also the CEO of World Mizrachi, a global religious Zionist organisation, established as the religious arm of the World Zionist movement. Ramaphosa, on the other hand heads the African National Congress (ANC), South Africa’s governing party, and staunch supporters of the Palestinian terrorist movements. The differences between the Perez couple and Cyril Ramaphosa could not be starker. Conversely the commonalities between the two could not be greater.

The political opportunism is evident, as the mainstream South African press has lambasted Ramaphosa for compromising on the ANC principles and approach to dealing with matters pertaining to Israel. Most journalists took the view that the South African charges of Genocide against Israel would lose their gravity in the face of the meeting with the Perez couple, particularly in the face of their strong Zionist credentials. The South African Jewish Report, on the other hand, took the pragmatic approach, lauding Ramaphosa and his government for the humanitarian action in intervening in order to assist in bringing closure to the tragedy that befell the Perez family. Newspapers in Israel were generally appreciative of the role played by Ramaphosa, despite the differences between South Africa and Israel.

Rhamposa is the South African leader whose International Relations Minister, Naledi Pandor, congratulated Hamas in a telephone call to the terrorist group leadership in Qatar on 14 October 2023 for, in her words, their fully justifiable invasion of Israel. This was just 10 days after the much-publicised vicious invasion by Hamas terrorists, accompanied by murder, rape, torture and other acts of vicious cruelty that had been recorded on the terrorists’ own body cameras, and later publicised by Hamas. The South African Government then had the audacity to lead the charge against Israel – the victim of the Hamas attack – by laying unfounded complaints of genocide and other human rights violations against the Jewish State at the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

**Pandor Pandering to Hamas**. Following SA’s Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Naledi Pandor holding a phone call with Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in mid-October 2023, Hamas released a statement asserting that the foreign minister expressed solidarity with their operation, leading to immediate public backlash and political controversy.

The Perez couple, on the other hand, are the parents of the late Captain Daniel Perez, who fell on 7 October 2023, while commanding his tank crew during their heroic defence of the Nahal Oz military base for two hours. This in the face of the vicious attack by overwhelming numbers of Hamas terrorists who had invaded Israel. The family has been through the horrific trauma of initially believing that Daniel had been wounded and kidnapped, enduring 163 days of torment, before all hope was lost after the IDF advised them that there was sufficient evidence to show that Daniel had been killed on 7 October, after which his body had been kidnapped into Gaza, where it was being held.

**Killed in Action**. Born and bred South African, 22-year-old Daniel Perez (z’l) was killed on 7 October 2023 whereafter his body was taken into Gaza.

The obvious similarity between the two, is that both Ramaphosa and Perez are South African-born political leaders. Going a little further, both head political movements, the former being leader of the ANC, while the latter is President of the WZO. Both are fathers, as the headline in the South African Jewish Report made obvious, using the words Father to Father, Ramaphosa helps World Zionist President. There is however a further much larger commonality between Ramaphosa and Perez and what they stand for, that is generally minimised, if considered at all.

While the ANC and the WZO can almost be described as sworn enemies, closer analysis reveals that the raison de etre of the two movements is almost identical. The African National Congress was founded as the South African Native National Congress in 1912, with the objective of uniting Black South Africans in the fight against British colonialism to reclaim South Africa for ts indigenous people. The World Zionist Organisation was founded in 1897 by Theodor Herzl as the Zionist Organisation, with the objective of uniting the Jewish Diaspora to fight for the return of the Jewish People to their ancestral homeland for 3,000 years, then under Imperial Ottoman Turkish rule.

The background is that the European Jewish Diaspora was largely the result of the Roman capture of Jerusalem, followed by the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 CE. This in turn was followed by the carrying off into Roman slavery of around 300,000 Israeli souls from Judea, as recorded by the Roman senator and historian, Cassius Dio. By 1900 the European Jewish Diaspora numbered some 9 million people, the vast majority of them restricted to a life of penury within the Pale of Settlement, demarcated for Jews by the Russian Empire. United States Jewry in 1900 numbered some 1.5 million, while Jews living in the Arab lands totalled between 5 and 600 thousand.

The irony and additional similarity between the ANC and the WZO is that following the Allied victory over Ottoman Turkey in 1918, Britain became the effective ruler of the former Ottoman Palestine. This was in terms of the League of Nations Mandate over Palestine granted to Britain, while South Africa had the status of a White self-governed British Dominion. Eastern Palestine soon became Transjordan, later the Kingdom of Jordan, while Western Palestine was slated to become the Jewish Homeland, an obligation which the British Government did not honour.

Britain egregiously reneged on the promise of the Balfour Declaration for the establishment of a Jewish Homeland, which was embodied in the Mandate, instead limiting Jewish immigration, while encouraging the growth of the Arab community. Just as the ANC felt forced to eventually begin an armed struggle against the White South African government in December 1961, so too the Jewish resistance movements were forced to start an armed struggle targeting the British military in 1937. The British failure to carry out its responsibilities under its Mandate over Palestine, is the direct cause of the conflict between Israel and the Arab community, who have chosen to refer to themselves as Palestinians, in an attempt to create a fictitious historical connection to Israel, as a counter to the well documented and established Jewish history in the region.

Arab aspirations since the early 1900s have resulted in continuous acts of terrorism against the Jewish residents of Palestine, a situation which has continued unabated and to ever increasing degrees ever since. These endeavours have morphed into the numerous Palestinian organisations waging an unremitted terror war against Israel in particular, and global Jewry in general. These are the same terror movements with whom the ANC controlled South Africa has found common cause, culminating in the Hamas invasion of 7 October 2023.

With that background, let us return to Cyril Ramaphosa and the Perez couple. Nobody can fault Rabbi Doron Perez and his wife for leaving no stone unturned in the quest for the return of their son Daniel’s body for a proper Jewish burial and a degree of closure following the terrorist inspired tragedy that befell their family. Ramaphosa must be lauded for his actions to achieve the release of Daniel’s body from its Hamas kidnappers, however, whether his actions were truly altruistic or not, leave more questions than answers. Careful reading of the press release by Ramaphosa leaves no doubt that he has every intention of making political capital out of his intervention on behalf of the Perez couple, without in any way blaming Hamas for the tragedy

SA GOVERNMENT PRESS RELEASE

President Ramaphosa meets Daniel Perez family following government intervention

Monday, 10 August 2026

President Cyril Ramaphosa has met with the family of the late Captain Daniel Perez following the intervention of the South African government in facilitating the release of his remains by Hamas. Perez, born and raised in South Africa, was taken hostage and killed on 7 October 2023. President Ramaphosa expresses his condolences to the Perez family and affirms South Africa’s support for an all inclusive peace process that will deliver a lasting peace for the people of Israel and Palestine.
The South African government remains engaged in assisting all South Africans, irrespective of race or religion, that are ensnared in conflict zones as well as assisting other foreign nationals where such support is requested.
This includes facilitating the release of South Africans trapped in a war in Syria, citizens that were sold to Russian mercenaries and the safe return of Ukrainian children.
Media enquiries: Vincent Magwenya, Spokesperson to the President – media@presidency.gov.za
Issued by: The Presidency
Pretoria

Noteworthy about this press release is that there is no mention of Hamas having been responsible for the kidnapping and killing of hostages during the terrorist invasion of Israel. Instead, they are lumped together with “all South Africans, irrespective of race or religion, that are ensnared in conflict zones as well as assisting other foreign nationals where such support is requested.” How much better would it be to offer support and assistance spontaneously, even when it isn’t requested, particularly in the case of South African citizens.

The abductees whose bodies were recovered from Khan Yunis, from top right clockwise: Alex Danzig, Nadav Poppelwell, Yagev Buchstab, Yoram Metzger, Haim Perry and Avraham Munder (Photos: Abductees and Missing Persons Headquarters)

Despite the claims to the contrary in the press release, neither Ramaphosa personally, nor the South African Government collectively, are on record as having done anything to facilitate the release of the other South African citizens who were kidnapped into Hamas captivity on 7 October 2023 and then held in Gaza as hostages. I refer here in particular to 62-year-old Aviva Siegel (kidnapped together with her husband Keith, an American citizen), and 79-year-old Channah Peri, whose eldest son Roey was murdered during the horrendously cruel terror attack by Hamas. Both elderly ladies were released from captivity on 23 November 2023, while South Africa was industriously busy preparing the documents for the malicious unfounded libellous charges laid against Israel at the International Court of Justice. Fully three months after the Hamas invasion of Israel, the South African government eventually delivered a diplomatic note to Israel on 21 December 2023, in which it condemned the 7 October attack targeting civilians, and the subsequent hostage taking. This was cynically done as it prepared the moral ground for laying the unfounded charges of Genocide against Israel a week later, on 29 December 2023.

Other than a few mealy-mouthed statements calling for the release of the hostages, neither the South African Government nor its President appear to have done or said anything to facilitate the release of any hostages or criticise Hamas and its terrorist partners. Hamas terrorists proudly recorded their numerous acts of violence and killing, followed by the mutilation and rape of their victims, many of whom were youngsters innocently attending a music festival. Ramaphosa and his government have much to answer for, and little to be proud of, despite the self congratulatory press release.

About the writer:

Peter Bailey made Aliyah from South Africa with his wife Jeanne in 2013 in order to join their three sons and families who were already in Israel. He spent 35 years in the glass industry in South Africa while also being active in military veterans affairs, being National Chairman of The South African Jewish Ex Service League prior to making Aliyah. He completed his compulsory military training in South Africa in 1964 and was commissioned as an officer in 1965, retiring with the rank of major, after 19 years service in the SADF Citizen Force. While on active service on the Namibian Angolan border in 1976 he commanded 101 Task Force’s Counter Insurgency Operations Training Centre. He has enjoyed a lifelong interest in military history and has conducted intensive research into the Jewish contribution to South Africa’s military history, writing many papers on the subject and giving relevant lectures across South Africa. He is the author of two published books, Street Names in Israel and Men of Valor, Israel’s Latter Day Heroes.

Category: Israel- South Africa relations

NAVI PILLAY AND THE HEDGEHOG TRAP

Like this:

THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE OFFENSIVE

Like this:

WORD HAS IT

Like this:

PRETORIA’S HOUSE OF CARDS AT THE HAGUE

Like this:

HOW DO WE COMPARE?

SOCIOCULTURAL ENGAGEMENT

A SUCCESS STORY WITH CAVEATS

Like this:

“ONLY DULL PEOPLE ARE BRILLIANT AT BREAKFAST”

Like this:

FAKING THE FIGURES

Like this:

PRETORIA’S GENOCIDE CASE DID NOT BEGIN AT THE ICJ

Like this:

WORDS AND DEEDS MATTER: THE ALARMING RISE IN STOCHASTIC ANTISEMITISM IN SOUTH AFRICA

Like this:

THE RAMAPHOSA / PEREZ MEETING – PATHOS OR POLITICAL OPPORTUNISM ?

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: