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:

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.

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).

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.

SOUTH AFRICA CLAIMS ISRAEL IS BEHIND ITS ‘AFROPHOBIA’ VIOLENCE

Beset by internal social strife, South Africa indulges in cheap scapegoating blaming Israel – Is anyone surprised?

By Marika Sboros

So, Israel, the world’s most overworked, overused and abused scapegoat, is the “hidden hand” behind South Africa’s latest xenophobia crisis.

Of course, it is. If you believe the latest conspiracy theory to emerge recently from the fever swamps of South African social media.

But has Israel really been orchestrating South Africa’s xenophobic violence – or “afrophobia”, as activists and academics in the refugee and migration space now call it?

**Protecting** **Africans from South Africans**. The South African police during a protest against illegal immigrants organised by March and March in Goodwood, a Cape Town suburb, on May 30, 2026. (Photo: Roger Bosch/AFP)

And if so, why and how would tiny Israel find time and inclination in its hectic military schedule despite fighting ongoing wars back home, including against the Iranian behemoth?

In retaliation, apparently, for South Africa taking Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in December 2023, on a genocide in Gaza charge. Or so the theory holds.

Israel could be understandably miffed at South Africa lodging its ICJ case “urgently” within weeks of a genuine genocidal attack by Hamas on October 7, 2023. That urgency speedily dissipated, and South Africa’s case has proved ill-judged.

Its own lawyers recently requested and were granted an extraordinary 18-month extension. This means that its written submissions won’t be completed until 2029.

Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs was unsparing on X:

“This case was never about the facts. It has always been a propaganda campaign by South Africa in the service of Hamas, masquerading as a legal process.”

One local Facebook “influencer” said the xenophobic violence would disappear “like the night when the sun rises” if South Africa dropped its ICJ case.

A pan-Africanist Facebook group claimed that Israelis were poised to swoop into South Africa, destabilise it from within by pushing Black Africans “to the margins” and to rebuild it “in their own image.” With a little help from friends in “Western powers” (aka the US).

That led critics to suggest that the conspiracy theory is aimed as much at US as Israeli “hidden hands”.

“HOME-GROWN’ HIDDEN HANDS

Yet accusing Israel of trying to destabilise South Africa from within describes precisely what years of ANC governance have actually done after more than 30 years since “liberation”. From within. By its own hand.

The hidden hand has always been home-grown.

If Soviet-Jewish writer and war correspondent Vasily Grossman were around, he’d say:

“Tell me what you accuse Jews of and I’ll tell you what you’re guilty of.”

It’s the closing line of a longer passage in his novel, Life and Fate, where he argues that antisemitism is never an end in itself. Rather, it is a mirror for the failings of individuals, social structures and state systems.

With those words and a novelist’s precision, Grossman captured what psychologists call “projection”. It is the mechanism by which people and institutions attribute to others the very impulses, failures and crimes they cannot face in themselves.

Their accusations are not random, say psychologists. They are often confessions.

Accuse Jews of controlling the world through money and fear, and you may be the one controlling through precisely those means. Or you may be helpfully deflecting attention from the real controllers.

A South African example of that projection is in a speech by Dr Imtiaz Sooliman, founder and CEO of Gift of the Givers, a local charity acknowledged globally for its humanitarian disaster-relief work.

On October 5, 2023, Sooliman addressed an anti-Israel rally in Cape Town beneath a banner declaring “We Are All Hamas”. He said, in his own words, that:

“…They (Zionists) run the world with fear. They control the world with money.”

He attempted to pre-empt accountability by saying antisemitism charges are just tools to silence criticism of Israel. However, while there is plenty to criticise in Israel’s government and its policies, genocide and apartheid are not part of that legitimate critique. As legal scholars across the world (not all of them Jews) say.

And antisemitic tropes are tropes, whatever political cover is thrown over them.

PROTOCOLS REVISITED

Sooliman’s language feeds into the core premise of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That’s an enduring publication, which the Russian Tsarist secret police fabricated between 1898 and 1903. It purported to be the minutes of a secret meeting of Jewish leaders plotting world domination through control of global financial systems, governments and media.

The Times of London exposed it as a clumsy, plagiarised forgery in 1921. That did not dent its popularity. If anything, it became even more popular. Hitler cited it. Henry Ford distributed 500,000 copies of it across the US. It is still in print.

Sooliman’s declaration is one of the oldest tropes in the Jew-hater’s lexicon. It feeds off the original “blood libel” – the term for the claim that Jews kill Christian children to drink their blood in religious ritual. It dates back to the 12th century.

It is testimony to Jew hatred’s enduring power that both claims have retained their power into the 21st century. It is, after all, the world’s oldest hatred. (Call it “antisemitism”, if you prefer that 19th-century, pseudo-scientific euphemism coined by Jew-haters themselves to make their loathing sound respectable.)

Jew hatred has helped to make “Zionist” the anti-Israel lobby’s preferred code word for Jew. Lobbyists deploy Zionist as a swear word for Jew and a deliberate strategy to avoid detection of hate speech online. Social media platforms are slow to close the loophole because the distinction between legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy and antisemitic conspiracy theory dressed up as political commentary is notoriously difficult to police at scale.

Perhaps the most common and ironic example of projection in modern times is the ubiquitous accusation that Jews, aka “Zionists”, have committed genocide in Gaza. There can be no worse accusation to make against victims of actual genocide than to accuse them wrongly of being perpetrators of it.

That is projection in its most naked form.

DARK GLOBAL TRADITION

Hamas’s charter is explicitly genocidal towards Jews. Hamas political bureau member Ghazi Hamad declared on Lebanese TV on October 24, 2023, that October 7 was “just the first time and there will be a second, a third, a fourth” until Israel’s existence “finished”.

And while this is a South African story, it sits in a very long, very dark global tradition. It includes the latest mutation of Jew hatred with documentation over 900 years old.

Jew hatred has caused pogroms, mass expulsions of entire communities from countries Jews had lived in for generations, and the systematic murder of six million Jews.

The accusations change. The consequences for targets stay the same.

Post-October 7, Jews are being savagely attacked worldwide and killed just for being Jews. As the title of US author Dara Horn’s book bleakly notes, People Love Dead Jews.

October 7 is where nine centuries of Jew hatred, unchecked and unashamed, have ultimately led.

Yet October 7 denialism is rife. Some critics deny that Hamas committed atrocities on October 7.

They call it “resistance”;
They say that Israel “had it coming”;
that it was a “false flag” or “psyop” (psychological operation), in which Israel staged the massacre of its own civilians to gain sympathy and justify genocide on Palestinians in Gaza.

That is Holocaust denial in real time.

It raises the question of where this conspiracy theory linking Israel to xenophobic violence began.

Mzoxolo Mpolase, managing editor of Political Analysis South Africa, did some forensic work in an article on his website on May 27. He traces the conspiracy theory to a single January 2026 post in the Times of Israel’s open blog section, a platform for third-party contributors with no implied editorial endorsement.

WHERE IT ALL BEGAN

The author is a former South African, Grant Gochin, now based in California, USA, where he is a writer, financial advisor and serves as the Honorary Consul for the Republic of Togo in West Africa.

Gochin argued that African states are trapped by colonial borders and that South Africa should fragment into smaller sovereign entities. That was his opinion, nothing more, as Mpolase notes.

That’s where the chain of evidence ends, as Mpolase notes.

Gochin posits no funding channel, instruction or organisational relationship between Israel, its government’s policy and South Africa’s xenophobic or afrophobic protests.

Seth Mandel, writing in Commentary Magazine on June 11, 2026, identifies an “emerging, seemingly iron rule” about accusations against Israel that may help to explain the real dynamic behind the conspiracy theory.

“Pay attention to the when, and you’ll figure out the why.” He could have been channelling Grossman.

Mandel gives four notable items, including a column in The New York Times on May 11, with “wild accusations that Israel is training dogs to rape Palestinian inmates, along with uncorroborated allegations of state-sanctioned abuse.”

On May 12, a major commission released a two-year catalogue of evidence showing that Hamas used mass rape and sexual torture as a key weapon of its military strategy on October 7 and after.

That made the timing of the Times piece, in pre-empting the results of an actual investigation into Hamas, “suddenly clear”, as Mandel notes.

Grossman saw the mechanism in 1960. Mandel documented it in real time.

It is all the more disturbing, then, that South African government ministers at the highest levels and respected NGOs (non-governmental organisations) have enthusiastically helped to spread the hidden-hands conspiracy theory.

Foreign Minister Ronald Lamola gave the keynote address at a symposium co-hosted by DIRCO (Department of International Relations and Cooperation) and the South African Institute of International Affairs in Cape Town on May 25, 2026. He condemned the xenophobic violence strongly and took care not to mention Israel by name.

He undid that good work by saying that “with the current geo-political environment, and South Africa’s role in the international space, including our case at the ICJ, you cannot exclude state and non-state actors trying to erode the human-rights standing of South Africa.”

That was a dog whistle with a foghorn attached.

**Master Manipulator**. Giving the keynote address at a symposium co-hosted by DIRCO in Cape Town on May 25, 2026, South African Foreign Minister **Ronald Lamola** condemned the xenophobic violence taking place in his country and although not mentioning Israel by name, implied such by stating that with “our case at the ICJ,” against Israel, “*you cannot exclude state and non-state actors trying to erode the human-rights standing of South Africa*.”

PROPAGANDA TV CHANNEL

Prominent refugee and migration academics and activists in South Africa have amplified it. Chief among them is Julie Eccles, a public face of Kopanang Africa Against Xenophobia (KAAX).

KAAX is a broad, grassroots civil-society coalition that claims to advocate for pan-African solidarity and constitutional rights for everyone, regardless of nationality or legal status.

**Seeking Safety**. Far removed from Israel, a man sits with a blanket to keep warm as thousands of Malawians take refuge on June 20, 2026 in Sherwood Park outside Durban, South Africa. Around 12,000 people have passed through the camp in recent weeks, seeking safety amid intimidation campaigns by anti-migrant South African groups. (Photo: Per-Anders Pettersson/Getty Images)

Everyone except “Zionists”, apparently, in Eccles’s book.

She appeared on a Salaam Media panel on June 3, with Sharon Ekambaram, KAAX co-founder and head of Refugee and Migrant Rights at Lawyers for Human Rights, Prof Loren Landau, professor of migration and development at the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa, and Oxford University in the UK, and Mthunzi Mdwaba, a controversial South African businessman and legal academic.

The panel’s topic was Xenophobia in South Africa: Is There a Hidden Hand Stirring the Chaos?

On live TV, Eccles named a “hidden hand”, Martin Moshal, who she described as “an Israeli billionaire” and “dyed-in-the-wool Zionist.” She said that he had donated “at least R40-million to Action SA”, a party that “doesn’t even have a seat in parliament,” and “talks openly” about turning South Africa into “whatever his vision is.”

She got most of that wrong. Whether by default or design, neither reflects well on her or KAAX.

Action SA has six seats in Parliament. Moshal is South African, born and raised in Durban, currently living in Sydney, Australia. He is a venture capitalist, a philanthropist, and the largest known donor to opposition parties in South Africa, including the DA (Democratic Alliance), Action SA, the IFP (Inkatha Freedom Party) and BOSA (Build One South Africa).

**Singing for Salvation**. While a man plays his guitar as thousands of Malawians take refuge on June 20, 2026 in Sherwood Park outside Durban, South Africa, certain leaders in South Africa try play a different tune pointing a finger of blame at Israel. (Photo: Anders Pettersson/Getty Images)

Eccles said none of that. Instead, she played by the anti-Israel lobby’s rule book of injecting Jewish figures as shadowy puppet masters into local disputes and manufacturing foreign conspiracies where no logical connection exists.

MORE DOG WHISTLES

Mdwaba declared himself “happy” that Eccles had “mentioned Israeli elements.” That was his loud dog whistle to scapegoat Israel as a hostile actor behind the xenophobic violence.

Landau, whose reputation at Wits and Oxford universities rests on rigorous, evidence-based analysis, could have challenged and corrected Eccles’ claims in seconds. He said nothing about her misrepresentations. Neither did Ekambaram.

Salaam Media, a Johannesburg-based media agency and radio station that claims to be committed to “humanitarian journalism”, could have included at least one dissenting voice on the panel. There were none. The question in the panel’s title was rhetorical, and the answer decided before the cameras rolled.

That is not journalism. It is propaganda.

The ANC’s support for the Palestinian cause is the main backdrop to the conspiracy theory. It remains rooted in its history of solidarity with anti-colonial liberation movements, regardless of how violently extreme.

The apartheid smear against Israel drives much of its rhetoric. Some South Africans who actually lived under apartheid recognise and reject it as a propaganda weapon. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Its Arab citizens vote, sit in the Knesset and serve on the Supreme Court.

That is not apartheid.

And South Africa is no stranger to strains of afrophobic violence. Since “liberation” in 1994, there have been at least six major waves of such violence against Black African migrants. The worst came in May 2008, when 62 people died, some were left burning alive in the streets, and over 100,000 were displaced.

Since October 7, the response from some ministers, including President Cyril Ramaphosa, has been sartorial. They don a Palestinian scarf in public and ignore deepening potholes in the country’s literal and figurative roads.

The formula for scapegoating Jews has not changed globally in 900 years.

The accusation is always a confession. The charge is always a mirror. And the target is always the same.

US Representative Ritchie Torres put it bluntly on X in 2024, after Iran’s Supreme Leader praised American campus protesters against Israel:

“When … the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism and antisemitism … praises you, you have become useful idiots on the wrong side of history.”

Show South Africa’s scapegoating, hidden-hand conspiracy theorists anything remotely close to a peace sign, and they will still see a clenched fist.

They may think they are on the right side of history by demonising Israel and Jews who support it. If they keep going – and they most likely will – their place is secure as useful idiots on history’s wrong side.

*Feature photo: Recuring violence against foreigners from across Africa is now the norm in South Africa. Seen here foreign nationals holding a placard during an anti-xenophobia march outside the City Hall of Durban on April 8, 2015 where the protestors marched against anti-immigrant violence, a week after hundreds were viciously attacked. (Photo credit should read RAJESH JANTILAL/AFP via Getty Images).

About the writer:

Marika Sboros is a South African freelance investigative journalist with decades of experience writing fulltime for the country’s top media titles on a wide range of topics. She started her career as a hard-news reporter in the newsroom of the now defunct Rand Daily Mail, a campaigning anti-government newspaper during the worst excesses of the apartheid era. She commutes between South Africa and the UK.

Follow Marika Sboros on X: @MarikaSboros
Subscribe on Substack: Marika Sboros

‘ALL THE WORLD’S A STAGE’

A South African take on “As You Like It” is playing at the International Court of Justice at The Hague.

By Craig Snoyman

“Honestly m’lord, we know he was in the bank when the robbery took place, we believe he is one of the robbers. Grant us an urgent interdict preventing him from doing any further robberies. If he is the robber then we are stopping further robberies. If he is not the robber, well then, he is not suffering any harm. We’ll bring comprehensive evidence in to due course to show that he is actually the robber, we promise.”

This is not much different from the argument presented by South Africa when it arrived at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 29 December 2023. The South African government sought renewed international relevance by filing an urgent case against Israel. And so it was that South Africa arrived, breathless with urgency, armed with the faded moral aura of Mandela with robes billowing, waving documents and followed by an army of lawyers in its wake, that might bankrupt a small country. In front of the world’s cameras, it demanded that immediate relief for what it alleged was a genocide.

The application was marked urgent.

The request for provisional measures screamed emergency.

The world was told there was no time to waste.

**Hocus Pokus**. Teetering on the verge of bankruptcy, the ANC announced in early January 2024 that it had suddenly managed to stabilize its finances – no explanations given – and in the same week, approached the ICJ to ask that Israel’s actions in Gaza be classified as “genocide”. Under the shadow of Iran’s plotting over proceedings, supporters of the trump-up charge *outside the Western Cape High Court on 11 January 2024 in Cape Town, South Africa. (Photo: Gallo Images/Brenton Geach)*

And the court played its part. The world watched two days of oral argument — a mere fortnight after filing. The provisional measures order followed against the presumptive robber, sorry, make that prospective genocider. All very urgent. All very now. All very theatrical — but then the world is a stage.

South Africa’s initial application ran to 84 pages. Its memorial, filed in October 2024, ran to over 750 pages of text with more than 4,000 pages of exhibits and annexes. Having seen the general competence of the South African government, one cannot, even on the most generous assessment, believe that it was capable of producing 4,750 pages of material between the Hamas attack of 7 October 2023 and the filing date of 29 December 2023. The unanswered question that the South African government has still not been willing to answer in public is how long, exactly, was this ‘urgent‘ application in the making before the moment of urgency that supposedly required it? The leader of the South African legal team, John Dugard– the man who has spent at least the last 10 years agitating against Israel – probably knows the answer. The circumstantial evidence suggests that it was not a mere three months in creation.

“Urgency” allowed South Africa to leapfrog the queue and obtain interim relief before a final hearing. The premise of urgency was that the harm was occurring now, that it could not wait for the judicial mill to grind at its exceedingly slow pace. Any delay would cause irreparable damage to rights that deserve protection. Whether the other party is left carrying the stigma as a robber, or a genocider, is outweighed by the risk of potential harm.

On 26 January 2024, the International Court of Justice issued its Order on provisional measures. The court explicitly stated that its order was “not a ruling on whether Israel is in breach of the Genocide Convention.” The former President of the ICJ, Joan Donoghue — who had presided over the very hearings in question — explained that the court had not found that it was plausible that Israel was committing genocide. It had found that certain rights asserted by South Africa — not the right to be free from genocide as such, but rights under the Genocide Convention — were plausible enough to justify provisional protection from irreparable harm pending a full hearing.

**Corrupting the Court**. Despite former ICJ President Joan E. Donoghue clarifying to the BBC that the court did **NOT** conclude that there was a “plausible case” of genocide against Israel in Gaza, did not stop the global hysteria from propagating otherwise in order to besmirch the character of the State of Israel.

This finding detonated through global media like a diplomatic hand grenade. South Africa celebrated and its domestic commentators declared that the ICJ had found that Israel was ‘plausibly committing genocide.’ Legal academics issued breathless analyses confirming that the court believed genocide was occurring. I recall one very prominent South African law professor asking Natasha Hausdorff where she got her law degree, after Hausdorff had pointed out to her that the court had not found there was a plausible genocide.

The distinction is not technical wordplay. It is the difference between a court saying “we find it plausible that the party is a robber” and a court saying “we find it plausible that there are rights worth protecting while we decide whether the party is a robber.” The court followed the latter principle. South Africa’s government either did not read that part, or found it inconvenient. The world’s media, supplied with South Africa’s narrative and disinclined to examine ICJ jurisprudence on a Friday afternoon, ran with the finding that a genocide was plausible.

South Africa filed its memorial in October 2024: 750 pages of text, 4,000 pages of exhibits. Israel could and did raise preliminary objections to jurisdiction and admissibility, choosing not to raise the issues as a standalone exercise earlier, which would delay proceedings for six to twelve months while they are decided. Israel has raised these arguments in its counter-memorial, filed on 12 March 2026, requesting extensions from the court. South Africa opposed these extensions on the grounds that they “undermined the urgency of the proceedings.”

THE ‘PLOT’S’ (ANTI)CLIMAX

On 21 May 2026, a notice was published on the ICJ website which granted South Africa until 22 November 2027 to file its replying memorial, and set 22 May 2029 as the deadline for Israel’s rejoinder. The same country that stated extensions undermine the urgency of the proceedings asked for and was granted an extension of 18 months. If previous court procedure is followed then Oral Hearings, should probably occur in late 2029. A final judgment as to whether genocide actually occurred would only be expected sometime in 2030 or 2031.

If the matter was urgent enough to demand provisional measures within two weeks of filing, it is curious that when faced with Israel’s 1,000-page counter-memorial and its 4,000 pages of exhibits, South Africa now requires 18 months to formulate a reply. Perhaps South Africa’s founding memorial represented the entirety of the government’s awareness, and the subsequent 4,750-page memorial required far more critical analysis on a matter which is far more complex than it had initially led the world to believe. One wonders whether Pretoria’s legal team had war-gamed the scenario where the funding pipeline has dried up when further rounds of written pleadings and oral hearings still need to be attended to. Perhaps that accounts for the 18-month extension request. Perhaps the delay is not about complexity. Perhaps it is about waiting to see whether the financial climate improves, whether the government in Tehran survives and proves generous, or whether some other source of support emerges to defray the huge costs of this case.

**Murky Machinations**. Responding to allegations that the ANC received funding from Iran to finance the legal costs to charging Israel at the ICJ in the Hague of “genocide”, the Iranian Ambassador to South Africa, Mansour Shakib Mehr, refuted such allegations at a press conference saying that in any event, “the case was filed by the South African government” and “not filed by the ANC.” (Photo: Supplied)

Israel has carried the ‘genocide state’ label since 7 October 2023 — the date Hamas committed the largest massacre of Jews since the Second World War. This label was magnified by the January 2024 order, mischaracterised by governments, adopted by protest movements, and has been continuously repeated by worldwide legacy and social media for the last two and a half years.

No finding of genocide has been made.

The ICJ has not concluded that genocide occurred or is occurring. The court has issued provisional measures — temporary interdicts pending a full hearing — but has explicitly declined to rule on the merits. But Israel will continue to carry the ‘genocide state’ label until the finalisation of the case.

What will happen if, sometime around 2030, the ICJ finds for Israel on the preliminary objections alone, by holding that the court lacks jurisdiction, or that the application is inadmissible or that the genocide convention cannot be expanded into a general mechanism for adjudicating the legality of the use of force? Or my personal favourite: that no dispute exists because no “positively opposed views” had been found and there had been no exchanges, either publicly or privately, to establish a dispute. This would be a monumental screw-up on the part of South Africa, and Dugard did not address the issue particularly well in January 2024. The case would be dismissed without any finding on the merits. In the court of public opinion, Israel would not be found innocent of genocide, because the court would have examined whether genocide occurred. It would simply have been determined that South Africa had no standing, or that the court had no jurisdiction, or that the application was procedurally defective.

“WORDS, WORDS, WORDS”

The genocide label, however, will remain in circulation. The articles will not be retracted. The resolutions will not be rescinded. The protest chants will not be updated. Public opinion operates on narratives, and the narrative of a “genocide state,” “ICJ genocide case” “plausibly genocidal” will be further grist to the mill.

Israel would emerge from nine years of lawfare and worldwide accusations of genocide in the world’s highest court, having its reputation treated as collateral damage by a government in Pretoria that has neither the answers to confront it legally or to comply within the timeframes it originally demanded to prevent undermining the process.

**Rot in the Republic**. While the republic of South Africa’s government focuses on pursuing false charges of genocide against Israel, it fails abysmally in dealing with humanity issues at home like these foreign nationals sleeping on the street after fleeing their homes amid anti-immigrant protests in Durban, South Africa on June 9, 2026. While demonstrations across the country have escalated into violence, resulting in injuries and the deaths of foreign nationals, South Africa’s government prefers to focus on Gaza! (Photo: Reuters/Rogan Ward)

And what if Israel is successful on the merits? There is apparently an amicus curia brief (a report to aid the court by a non-party) by some of the world’s pre-eminent military experts, stating that Israel’s war in Gaza has been more protective of non-combatants in a warzone than any other war in the history of mankind. It makes no difference. For the duration of this case — which will extend into the 2030s, Israel has carried and will continue to carry a status in international community that one might describe as the legal equivalent of a skunk at a garden party. No formal finding of genocide. No conviction. A verdict of acquittal. But the association, repeated daily in global media, in university campuses, in governmental statements from hostile states have real-world effects on trade, on diplomatic relations, on the treatment of both Israeli nationals and Jews abroad.

South Africa will continue to play the role of the global avenger until a final verdict is delivered and possibly even beyond. And while it reads its lines and while its government officials talk of accountability and international law, they speak with the sincerity of men who have spent the better part of the last few years avoiding both.

About the writer:

Craig Snoyman is a practising advocate in South Africa.

FROM URGENCY TO DELAY: WHAT HAPPENED TO SOUTH AFRICA’S ICJ CASE?

South Africa exposes through ineptitude its true motivations behind its fabricated case against Israel.

By Kenneth Moeng Kgwadi

Nearly two months after Hamas launched its deadly surprise attack on the State of Israel, the ANC-led government brought a case against Israel before the United Nations’ International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing it of violating the 1948 Genocide Convention. South Africa alleged that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) were committing acts of genocide in Gaza.

The move was not entirely surprising, given that the ANC had refrained from unequivocally condemning the initial Hamas attack, during which approximately 1,195 people were killed, more than 5,400 were injured, and 251 others were abducted and taken into the dark and dangerous tunnel network beneath the Gaza Strip.

**What a Drag!** South Africa’s “genocide” case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is set to drag on for at least another three years after Pretoria requested an 18-month extension to file its response to Israel’s defence.

There have been allegations that Iran influenced and financially supported the ANC in pursuing legal action against Israel. While these claims remain contested, they have fueled debate about the motivations behind South Africa’s decision to bring the case before the International Court of Justice.

It is also noteworthy that none of the 22 Arab states spanning the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region took the lead in initiating similar legal proceedings against Israel. This raises legitimate questions about why South Africa, located thousands of kilometres from the conflict zone, assumed such a prominent role.

To make matters worse, Egypt, which shares a border with Gaza through the Rafah Border Crossing, maintained strict controls on the movement of Palestinians into its territory during much of the conflict. Given the geographic proximity and direct regional implications of the war, it would have seemed more logical for one or more neighbouring states to spearhead the legal challenge against Israel rather than a country situated at the southern tip of Africa.

The South African government’s recent request for an 18-month extension to submit its written response, or Memorial as it is formally known, demonstrates that there was no real sense of urgency from the outset, despite claims to the contrary when it initiated its legal campaign against Israel at the end of 2023. Common sense suggests that, had the matter truly been urgent, South Africa would have acted with greater speed and efficiency in assisting the ICJ by providing the necessary legal material and evidence required for the Court to make a determination.

**Pitfalls of the Plotters**. What began with pretentious haste by South Africa’s legal team has now slowed to a snail pace through ineptitude. Seen here in early days of the proceedings at the ICJ are Vusimuzi Madonsela, the South African ambassador to the Netherlands (right), with South Africa’s justice minister, Ronald Lamola. (Photo: Hollandse Hoogte/Rex/Shutterstock)

It is quite evident that the ANC-led government was misled by Iran and Hamas, who knew that the allegations levelled against Israel were fabricated and lacked any factual basis.

It is hypocritical for the ANC-led government to initiate a legal case and then become the very party requesting a delay in its own proceedings. There appears to be little logic in such a course of action. What, then:

– becomes of the claims that genocide was taking place in Gaza?

– Was this legal action not intended to halt what the government described as an ongoing genocide?

If the government already possessed the facts and evidence that prompted it to approach the ICJ, why would it require almost two years merely to submit a written Memorial? Such a delay would perhaps be more understandable if it had been requested by Israel, the respondent in the case, rather than by South Africa, the applicant.

So far, we have learned that this ICJ case has already cost taxpayers a staggering R130 million, and it is likely to require even more funding beyond 2029 should the government of the day choose to continue pursuing it. The prolonged delay risks rendering the case increasingly irrelevant, as geopolitical realities are constantly evolving and may ultimately diminish its significance in the years ahead. Israel is expected to hold elections before the end of this year, while South Africa is preparing for its own national elections in 2029. These political developments could significantly influence the nature of relations, or tensions, between the two countries.

‘BURDEN’ OF PROOF

What is clear is that the ICJ case carries not only a substantial financial burden but also far-reaching economic and diplomatic consequences, some of which South Africa has already begun to experience. Several individuals have effectively been shown the door after the United States declined to approve South Africa’s nominee for ambassador to Washington, D.C. Relations between Pretoria and Washington continue to deteriorate, with tensions further exacerbated by the United States’ Afrikaner refugee programme. At the same time, escalating tariffs threaten to affect ordinary South Africans who are already grappling with economic hardship.

**Unwelcome in the USA**. Not mincing his words in offending the US president, the newly appointed South African Ambassador to the U.S. Ebrahim Rasool was declared *persona non grata* and expelled in mid-March 2025.

South Africa would be better served by adhering to a policy of non-alignment, refraining from direct involvement in foreign conflicts while continuing to advocate for peace and dialogue, principles it has sought to champion since 1994. Becoming entangled in distant geopolitical disputes risks imposing severe economic costs on citizens who are already struggling to make ends meet. Major BRICS members such as China and India have generally avoided unnecessarily escalating tensions with the United States, recognising the significant economic and diplomatic consequences that can arise from such confrontations.

About the writer:

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

KICKING THE GENOCIDE CAN FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD

The ICJ saga of SA vs Israel – an update.

By Lawrence Nowosenetz

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has recently kicked the genocide case brought by South Africa against Israel further down the road. It has authorised the filing of a second round of written submissions (court pleadings). The first round of pleadings consisted of a memorial and counter memorial. The court was requested by South Africa last month that a second round of pleadings was required because of the complexity of the case and the volume of Israel’s counter-memorial with numerous annexures. Israel also filed objections to the court’s jurisdiction and the admissibility of South Africa’s application.

Article 49 (3) of the rules of the ICJ provides:

“The Reply and Rejoinder, whenever authorized by the Court, shall not merely repeat the parties’ contentions, but shall be directed to bringing out the issues that still divide them.

In a ruling dated 29 May 2026, the ICJ has given South Africa until 22 November 2027, to file its reply and Israel has until 22 May 22, 2029, to submit a rejoinder.

Dr Gilad Noam, a member of Israel’s legal team said in a post on X dated 31 May 2026:

“… it demonstrates that South Africa’s allegations are wholly unfounded and that this is a case that should never have been brought in the first place. This case constitutes a manifest misuse of the Genocide Convention and of the Court itself. Regardless of how long it may take, the only tenable outcome remains the dismissal of South Africa’s claims in their entirety.”

What is the significance of this extension of time limits and the filing of further documents and what does this mean for the future of the case?

Clearly Israel’s counter memorial, its statement of defence has seriously derailed the entire case of genocide brought by South Africa. This is not surprising. The memorial filed by South Africa was filled with tendentious and inaccurate material which cannot stand scrutiny.

**South Africa’s Basket Case**. Dr. Gilad Noam, Israel’s Deputy Attorney General at the ICJ Ruling in January 2024, recently posted on X that “*South Africa’s allegations are wholly unfounded and that this is a case that should never have been brought in the first place.”* (Photo: ICJ.)

Legal wisdom has it, that if you cannot make out a decent case in your founding papers, you will be most unlikely to fix it in reply. The odds are that the case against Israel was at its high point in December 2023 when it brought the application for provisional measures but since then it is on a downhill trajectory as it has to embark on damage control to try and rebut Israel’s counter memorial. No doubt it will seek to introduce new material based on events subsequent to filing its original memorial. This is a two-edged sword. Much of the hype and misinformation about starvation, bombardment, violence against civilians, children etc has now been extensively researched by Israel and it is in a far better position to critique the unreliable reports by UN agencies and humanitarian organisations based in Gaza, many based on Hamas and lacking verification and sound methodology. Israel will be afforded the opportunity to offer these critiques in its rejoinder as well as its own careful research. Some of the reports stripping away the genocide case against Israel have already been published, for example the report of 311 pages published in September 2025 by the Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies in association with Bar Ilan University (BESA) entitled:

“Debunking the Genocide Allegations: A Re-examination of the Israel-Hamas War from October 7, 2023 to June 1, 2025”.

Let’s rewind.

On 29 December 2023, South Africa filed an application in the ICJ claiming that Israel was in breach of the Genocide Convention seeking preliminary urgent measures from the court to prevent genocide. This was less than three months after the invasion and atrocities by Hamas in Israel on 7 October 2023. Yet South Africa was able to assemble a fully researched account of Israel’s previous conduct in Gaza in earlier wars and an up-to-date record of the new war.

This application follows a similar approach to the 2019 Rohingya genocide case brought in the ICJ by the Gambia on behalf of the Organisation for Islamic co-operation against Myanmar. On 23 January 2020, the ICJ issued an order for provisional measures ordering Myanmar to prevent genocidal acts against the Rohingya Muslims. Since then, two rounds of memorials were also filed and the case was heard in January 2026. Judgment is expected in about six months. A relatively smooth passage yet at least seven years will have passed before a final outcome.

In the Gaza case, the court issued a provisional ruling on 26 January 2024 which has been widely misunderstood and often wilfully misrepresented. South Africa hailed it as a success and a vindication of its genocide claims. The ruling went down 5 to 2, with judges Julia Sebutinde (Uganda) and Aharon Barak (Israel) dissenting. Former president of the ICJ, Joan Donoghue, clarified that the court decided the Palestinians had a “plausible right” to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court. She emphasised that, contrary to some reporting, the court did not make a ruling on whether the claim of genocide was plausible, but found that there was a risk of irreparable harm (my emphasis). A far cry from establishing actual genocide in any shape or form.

**Playing with Plausibility**. The words of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have been subject to intense scrutiny since South Africa brought its case and has centred around the use of the word “plausible” in the ruling. Then-president of the International Court of Justice Joan Donoghue said the ruling had been misinterpreted.

For those unfamiliar with legal procedures, in proceedings for interim or provisional measures, the threshold of proof is not as high and easier to establish than in a final adjudication. A mere likelihood or plausible risk of harm suffices. In South Africa, this is called a prima facie case. However, in a final hearing, proof of genocide is far more onerous. Proof of genocidal intention is called dolus specialis (special intent) which amounts to evidence which allows no other conclusion. The normal standard of proof of criminal intent is beyond a reasonable doubt. Dolus specialis does not even allow any reasonable doubt. Genocide is the ultimate crime against humanity and this term has been carelessly and promiscuously bandied about in condemnation of Israel by many countries, activists and human rights groups alike without any respect for its true international legal meaning.

The case has progressed as follows:

On 28 March 2024, following a second request for additional measures, the ICJ issued an order for further emergency measures, that Israel must ensure basic food supplies, in order to allay famine and starvation allegedly facing Gaza.
On 24 May 2024 a further order was issued requiring Israel to cease operations in Rafah. The court was divided. The Israeli, German, Ugandan and Romanian judges interpreted the ruling as not requiring a ceasefire in Rafah, and allowing for defensive operations against Hamas including the rescue of hostages. Israel continued its operations as it interpreted the order likewise.
In April 2024, the ICJ requested filing of pleadings in the main case i.e. determination of violation of the Genocide Convention. South Africa submitted its memorial in October 2024, and after being granted an extension of time limits, Israel submitted its counter memorial in March 2026.

There is more.

Between May 2024 and December 2025 several countries joined South Africa against Israel including European countries Ireland and Belgium. Somewhat less countries have stated their support for Israel including the UK and the USA. Canada and Australia remained neutral. It bears mentioning that Ireland intends arguing for an expansion of the concept of ‘genocidal intent’ to include blocking by Israel the supply of food to Gaza. Someone seems to have missed the point that food could also enter Gaza through Egypt. No one is pointing fingers at Egypt.

The Presidency of South Africa issued a statement on 2 June 2026. It noted that a second round of pleadings is common in ICJ cases. It is indeed correct that in the Rohingya genocide case there was indeed a second round where the parties were afforded time limits of 6 months, but what the Presidency fails to explain is why South Africa requested 18 months to file its reply. According to the Presidency –“South Africa’s response is a simple one: self-defence is not a defence to genocide, there is none.”

In South African parlance this called a blaps or howler. Faux pax if you like. Why did the South African legal team plead complexity to the court in asking for a second round of pleadings and extended time limits if Mr Ramaphosa says South Africa’s case is simple.

The Presidency got it breathtakingly wrong. Israel’s case is not simply self defence. It is based on a firm foundation of lawful military action in compliance with humanitarian law and the law of war (jus in bellum) as well as absence of genocidal intent. Astute observers are asking whether South Africa’s case will hold up at all.

**Clear Distinction**. Following the misuse of the term for political propaganda against Israel, former president of the ICJ, Joan Donoghue, clarified in a BBC interview that the ICJ did **not** rule that the core claim of genocide was plausible but that the Palestinians in Gaza have “plausible rights to protection from genocide”. (Photo: Biography file, ICJ)

It is unlikely that the ICJ will hear the case any time soon, perhaps an outcome can be expected after 2030 if at all. By then a new government will have been elected in South Africa which might adopt a different foreign policy which is not aligned with the adversaries of Israel. Even if the case is unwisely pursued by South Africa, it will yield insuperable factual and legal hurdles which will ultimately be its nemesis.

About the writer:

Born in Pretoria Lawrence Nowosenetz obtained his BA at University of the Witwatersrand and LLB at the University of South Africa. He has been admitted as an Attorney in South Africa and as an advocate in South Africa. He practiced at the Pretoria and Johannesburg Bar and worked as a human rights and labour lawyer at the Legal Resources Centre a public interest law firm. Lawrence was Awarded a Fulbright Scholarship and completed professional internship in the USA. He was a a labour arbitrator and mediator, part time Senior Commissioner at the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) as well as a panelist at Tokiso Dispute Settlement. He was a member of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies and Pretoria Chairman. He has also served as an Acting Judge of the High Court, South Africa. He now lives in Tel Aviv.

A FAILURE OF FOCUS

The ‘Palestine-Israel question’ has overshadowed the atrocities taking place across Africa.

By Kenneth Kgwadi

Most African countries reclaimed their political independence in the late 1950s, with Ghana becoming the first sub-Saharan African country to attain independence, paving the way for several others to follow suit. This ushered in not only joy and euphoria, but also the hope that black self-rule would prioritise the interests of their respective countries, their people, and the broader African continent. However, too many countries have fallen short of this aspiration.

It still does not make sense that the profound and visible atrocities taking place across Africa do not receive the same level of global attention afforded to the Palestinian cause. The suffering on the continent stretches back centuries, from the era of slavery to the present day. Many African countries continue to endure repression at the hands of those who were once regarded as liberators during the struggle for independence.

**Pan-African Optimism**. Ghana’s independence in 1957 proved a pivotal event signaling the shift away from colonialism on the African continent. Two years after Nkrumah in 1964 pushed a constitutional amendment that makinge Ghana a one-party state and himself the life president, he was overthrown in a military coup.

Thousands of Africans continue to lose their lives to radical Islamist extremism, poverty, crime, poorly managed health outbreaks, civil wars, and state persecution. Yet, despite the scale and persistence of these challenges, such injustices often fail to attract adequate international attention and sustained global concern.

A silent war is taking place on our doorstep in the province of Cabo Delgado, where people from all 17 districts have been displaced out of fear for their lives following the brutal killings perpetrated by Islamic State Mozambique. The group has been terrorising the country since 2017, leaving thousands dead and many more displaced.

**Horrendous Hypocrisy**. While South Africa feigns concern for the Palestinians in Gaza, it ignores virtually on its doorstep where Islamic State Mozambique (ISM) is responsible for a significant portion of the over 6,500 total fatalities recorded since the Cabo Delgado insurgency began in 2017. Monitoring groups estimate that the group has killed thousands — including at least 2,800 civilians — while displacing over 400,000 people across the region.

Yet the South African public remains largely detached from what is unfolding in Mozambique. At the same time, many complain about the growing influx of Mozambicans into South Africa, despite the fact that many of these migrants are fleeing violence and insecurity while seeking safety and economic opportunities to sustain themselves and their families. The humanitarian crisis in Cabo Delgado serves as a reminder that migration is often a consequence of conflict, instability, and the failure to address the root causes of human suffering in the region.

There is a compelling need to invest in political, strategic, and military interventions to address the crisis in Mozambique, as it directly affects South Africa in several ways. Mozambique is one of Africa’s countries with significant economic potential, yet it remains unable to fully realise that potential because of the ongoing conflict. With its relatively advanced defense capabilities and larger economy, South Africa is well positioned to play a meaningful role in helping to resolve the current tragedy in Mozambique. Such efforts would contribute to creating a more stable and conducive environment for economic development, which could in turn reduce migration pressures between the two countries. A prosperous Mozambique would also become a stronger economic partner, helping to stimulate regional growth and create much-needed employment opportunities.

**Playing Politics**. Mounting pressures and tensions closer to home, South Africa’s ANC leadership prefers to focus on falsely accusing Israel at international courts.

It remains concerning that South Africa often expends substantial political capital on issues and conflicts taking place thousands of kilometres away, while opportunities exist to use that same influence to improve the socio-political and security conditions of people on the African continent. Greater investment should be directed towards helping to rebuild, industrialise, and develop African countries in order to create a more prosperous and stable continent. Such an approach would contribute more directly to the advancement of African societies than engaging in avoidable diplomatic confrontations with Western nations, which offer limited tangible benefits to the socio-economic development of the continent.

About the writer:

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

BIG MOVE IN SMALL TOWN – RECOGNITION, RECONCILIATION AND RESTITUTION

Jewish family supports historic move for Cape Town to rename Strand town square honouring family founder to recognition of local Muslim community.

By Ben Friedman

Ra’anana in central Israel is my home today. It wasn’t always.

I hail from the Strand, a beautiful False Bay town which is part of the area described as the “Fairest Cape”, bracketed by the majestic Hottentots Holland mountains, Somerset West and the turquoise blue of the Atlantic Ocean. Today, this town is making news in South Africa and it involves my family. Of this I am proud – proud of the past and proud of how we are forging a favourable future.

My family surname – Friedman – is so embedded in that town’s history. However, it is not only the past but the message we are sending for the future that is making news.

In a historic gesture of recognition and reconciliation, our family have approved the renaming of Ben Friedman Plain honouring my grandfather and family founder in South Africa to Strand Muslim Square. The exciting and enriching drama unfolding could not – and maybe not unsurprisingly – escape controversy.

It is no secret that today we live in a polarised, post-truth world where narratives are shaped by people’s prejudices and affiliations that cloud facts and the truth. Israelis and Jews know this more than most, given the sustained campaign of lies against Israel in the mainstream media, by influencers, social media, and sinister state-backed NGOs.

So, when local Muslim leader, Ebrahim Rhoda approached my brother, Barry Friedman with the request to approach the city council to rename the square to finally redress the wrongs of the past and to honour the Muslim contribution to the town, Barry expressed enthusiasm, but said that he would need to discuss it with the family. He knew that their only concern would be that the family’s history not be erased. With full understanding and sensitivity, Ebrahim, after some thought and investigation, suggested that if the renaming was approved, the traffic circle in front of our family store could be renamed Ben Friedman Circle. This, our family considered fair and agreed to the renaming of the town square subject to council approval.

**Prime Movers**. Taking a stand in the Strand are (l-r) Ebrahim Rhoda, Barry Friedman and Feisal Daniels at a recent Council meeting. (Photo: Carl Punt.)

The process took a few years and now the renaming will proceed but not without an ugly backlash resulting from the usual ‘culprit’ – misinformation.

There were those trying to frame it as a roughshod attempt to erase the “White” history of the Strand, or to view it in terms of a Muslim/Judeo-Christian conflict issue. It is neither. It is simply the long overdue acknowledgement of the Muslim’s community’s enduring history and contribution to the town that had for too long been neglected. I am sure that my late friend, Oesman Wentzel, who owned a classic diesel-powered fishing boat that I spent many happy hours on in my youth catching mackerel and snoek, would be very happy with this historic restitution — reflecting the harmony and unique community relations that characterised our lives in the Strand, in spite of the policy of Apartheid that tried to disrupt it.

**Roadworthy**. Ben Friedman Plein named after Benjamin Friedman who immigrated from Lithuania to South Africa in 1910 is to be renamed Strand Muslim Square honouring the over 200-year history of the Muslim presence in the town . (Photo: Jamey Gordon).

ENTWINED HISTORY

My grandfather, Benjamin Friedman, who arrived in Cape Town around 1903 as a penniless immigrant from Kaunas (Kovno), Lithuania, is the man that the Ben Friedman Plein (square) controversy is all about.

Speaking Yiddish without any knowledge of English or Afrikaans, he started work as a labourer at a salary of 2/- (20 cents) per day at the Cape Town docks.

Friedman & Cohen Department Store — “Since 1903”

Once he had acquired some knowledge of English and had enough funds to buy a bicycle, he cycled to Somerset West where a dynamite factory was opening to supply explosives to the mines. He bought a general dealer’s license, and with no funds and amazing divine providence was able to open a line of credit with JW Jagger, a major wholesaler in Cape Town.

**Muslim Festivity**. Friedman & Cohen “Wishing our Muslim Customers and Staff a blessed Eid Mubarak!”

He married Anna Cohen and they had five sons, including my father, and two daughters. The business thrived and eventually became a large department store in the Strand that still stands today. Benjamin played a big role in the development of the Strand and was a leader of the Jewish community, and was instrumental in the founding of the Strand Synagogue in 1930.

**Strand Shul**. The Strand Synagogue which Benjamin (Ben) Friedman laid the foundation stone in 1930

**Strand Synagogue Stone**. This stone was laid by Benjamin Friedman, April 21st 1930.

PARRALEL PIONEERING

Pioneering and building ingrained in the Friedman family was not only confined to South Africa’s developing coastal town of Strand but also in the future Jewish state of Israel. While Benjamin and most of his family were centered at the Strand, his one son, Solly Friedman, my uncle, was a visionary and a Zionist and emigrated to the then British Mandate of Palestine in the 1930s. He settled in Haifa, opening a law office in 1939 and went on to develop one of the biggest law practices in Israel specializing in marine law with ZIM shipping company being one of his major clients. Founded in 1945 by the Jewish Agency, the Israel Maritime League and the Histadrut, ZIM’s main task during its first years was transporting hundreds of thousands of immigrants to the emerging state. Some of the other ships that had been used for clandestine immigration before the establishment of Israel as a state were confiscated by the British Mandate authorities, and later joined the company’s fleet. My uncle would travel abroad negotiating the purchase of ships that formed the basis of Israel’s merchant marine fleet. In the days of the Mandate, he was constantly active in the courts, defending Haganah men brought up on charges by the British and trying to negotiate the release of impounded refugee ships. Emerging as Israel’s expert in maritime law, it would stand him in good stead as the lawyer for ZIM Shipping Company in the ensuing decades as it developed into one of the world’s top 20 cargo carriers. He relates that when the British left Palestine, most of the ships they had impounded were in Haifa harbour and the new Israeli government simply reclaimed them. How poignant that the biblical word ZIM means “a fleet of ships”. (Number 24:24).

**Friedman & Friends**. The writer’s uncle (2^nd left), pioneer marine lawyer in Haifa, Solly Friedman with friends in British Army uniform during WWII in Tel Aviv.

In parallel at the Strand, the Cape Malays are an ethnic group descended from enslaved and freed Muslims brought to the Cape from Indonesia and Malaysia in the mid-17th century. They were skilled labourers and political exiles, such as Sheik Yusuf, whose Kramat (a sacred shrine or tomb honoring a holy person in Islam) at nearby Macassar Beach is still a place of pilgrimage. This is undertakable as Sheik Yusuf is credited as the founding father of Islam in South Africa, having established the first enduring Muslim community in the region in 1694, during the governorship of Simon Van der Stel.

**Friedman Family**. Benjamin, his wife Anna and their five sons and two daughters.

Over time, the Cape Malays formed a unique cultural and religious identity with a distinct cuisine and a dialect of the Afrikaans language. They were among the first settlers in the Strand, which was originally called Mostert’s Bay. They were mainly engaged in fishing in False Bay and settled in the area of the current CBD of the Strand, where they had a thriving community of craftsmen, carpenters, builders, small traders, tailors and fishermen.

However, in the 1950s, when Apartheid was being heavily enforced, they were forcibly relocated to an area called Rusthof, located between Strand and Gordons Bay — a low-lying area subject to severe flooding in winter.

**Story of a Store in the Strand**. The staff today of Friedman & Cohen on the beach (top) and the early days of the store in the Strand.

However, the original mosques that were located around the CBD were maintained and remained, so that their physical link to the area endured.

Benjamin, whose small trading store on the Lourens River where the dynamite factory had opened manufacturing explosives for the gold mines, grew and flourished. He invested in properties and land, many of which were in the centre of the Strand, and where the original store was moved to. Over time, it developed into the modern Friedman and Cohen Department Store, which is now 110 years old.

**Family Founder**. What began with a bicycle ride, Benjamin Friedman from Kovno (Kaunas), Lithuania, founder of the family in South Africa.

The Strand had 25 Jewish families at its peak, but neighbouring Somerset West had 40 Jewish families. Relations between the Jewish and Muslim community was excellent – and many from the Muslim community were, and still are, employees of Friedman and Cohen. Many ‘old-timer’ customers would relate stories of how they used to buy on credit at our store, but when the frequent gale-force south easterly winds used to blow, they were unable to pay their accounts because the fishing boats couldn’t put to sea. Benjamin Friedman would tell them to pay when they could, and never placed any pressure on them.

As the town grew, so did the Jewish community, and Benjamin Friedman was instrumental in founding the Strand Shul (synagogue), where he laid the foundation stone in April 1930. It is interesting to note that the furniture for the new Somerset West shul was made by Muslim carpenters again reinforcing the enriching connection of the two communities.

The writer’s father, Abe Friedman who joined 10,000 South African Jews in the fight against Hitler and Nazism is seen here with his army unit (5th from left back row) on Temple Mount Jerusalem.

ROAD TO RENAMING

A prime mover in the renaming process is local Muslim community leader Ebrahim Rhoda — a school teacher and historian — who when he approached my brother Barry, explained that in spite of their community’s history and contribution to the Strand, there “was not one street name reflecting their heritage.” Most cities and towns name their streets after local residents who have left an enriching legacy and so, “it was time to truly acknowledge the Muslim contribution to the story of the Strand,” said Ebrahim.

Cape Muslim families such as the Rhodas, Gabiers, Wentzels, and Salies were prominent community members, and it is time that their stories and legacies of the Muslim community are honoured.

The proposal to rename Ben Friedman Plein to Strand Muslim Square is rooted in reconciliation and restorative justice — acknowledging a community forcibly removed during the Apartheid era from the Strand CBD under the Group Areas Act in the 1950s, whose 200-year heritage includes three mosques that still anchor the square today: Nurul Anwar, Market Street and Nurul Islam. The first place of worship in Strand, the Market Street Mosque, was built on the square itself.

**Historic Gem**. Constructed between 1850 and 1870 by freed slaves and free blacks, the Javia Mosque stands as the oldest surviving place of worship in Strand and is today a Provincial Heritage Site. The structure is recognized not only as an architectural gem but a cornerstone of the Muslim community’s heritage in the Western Cape.

Eddie Andrews, the City of Cape Town’s acting mayor and Mayoral Committee Member for Spatial Planning and Environment, expressed during this year’s Freedom Day on the 27 April in his address at City Hall, that the proposed renaming of Ben Friedman Plein to Strand Muslim Square adds weight to both history and reconciliation. Said Andrews:

“Ben Friedman Square stands in an area shaped by the long-standing presence of the Strand Muslim community, whose heritage stretches back over two centuries. Importantly, this process has been characterised by cooperation — supported by the Muslim community, endorsed by civic and faith-based organisations, and undertaken with the support of the Friedman family themselves.”

The renaming reflects what Andrews called Cape Town’s unique tradition of interfaith coexistence. “Cape Town is a city where Muslim, Christian, Jewish, and other faith and cultural communities do not simply coexist — but have, over generations, built relationships of respect, partnership, and shared belonging. This renaming reflects that reality.”

**Sheikh’s Shrine**. When Sheikh Yusuf, regarded as the father of Islam in South Africa, passed away in 1699, he was buried not far from the Strand on the hill overlooking Macassar. His Kramat or shrine is a place visited by pilgrims.

The proposal has been endorsed by the Strand Muslim Council, Nurul Islam and Aneeqah Congregation, Rusthof Methodist Church, and the Muslim Judicial Council. Business owners bordering the square raised no objections.

The controversy will pass as it should.

However, what must not pass is the good relations between the communities of the Strand. The Muslim and Jewish contributions to the town go back in time and stand to ensure an enriching future.

I look forward in the future when revisiting from Israel my hometown to see the renamed Strand Muslim Square and Ben Friedman Circle.

Benjamin who began this journey on a bicycle well over a century ago would be pleased and proud.

About the writer

A resident of Ra’anana, Israel, Ben Friedman was born and grew up in the Strand Western cape, South Africa and matriculated at Hottentots Holland High school Somerset West. He completed a BCom degree at UCT which was interrupted in 1967 by the Six Day War where he served as a volunteer on Kibbutz Amir.
Prior to immigrating to Israel with his family in 2010, he served on the Western Province Zionist Council for two years and was vice Chairman of The Phylis Jowell Jewish Day school Cape Town .
Retired after a successful career in fashion retailing, Ben is a lifelong passionate angler and a keen reader especially on Israeli /Jewish and Zionist history.

SOUTH AFRICA’S ESTEEMED ONLINE ‘DAILY FRIEND’ IS NO FRIEND WHEN IT COMES TO DEFENDING DEMOCRACY

A discourse with the editor reveals failures and fears to take on Islamic fundamentalism.

By Lawrence Nowosenetz

The Daily Friend (DFr) is a publication of the South African Institute of Race Relations, a proud an distinguished organisation established almost 100 years ago which has always stood for promoting democracy, freedom and rule of law. In short, classical liberalism.

In a recent text conversation with Michael Morris (MM) the editor of DFr I drew his attention to the statement of Dr Imtiaz Sooliman, head of Gift of the Givers who was awarded an honorary doctorate by the University of Cape Town. This subject was the basis of an article by the writer: University of Cape Town’s ultimate degradation – honouring Dr Sooliman (Lay of the Land 31 March 2026).

Dr Sooliman who is widely lauded as a great humanitarian expressed some extreme views which are quite irreconcilable with democracy and freedom. In a public interview on 7 October 2024, being the first anniversary of the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, he said:

“I don’t follow international law or human law. I follow Koranic law. I am a Muslim. I don’t need any permission from anybody in the world to tell me what to do. I break the laws all the time. Breaking the law is laws of the West and people and governments. It’s not Islamic law. I follow Islamic law, and Islamic law overrides any other law. … I don’t have to follow any law. My law is very clear to me. Allah himself has instructed me. I don’t need men to tell me what to do. I don’t follow them.”

Islamic law is quite different to Western law in that whereas democracy separates the state and its legal authority from religion, Koranic law is theocratic and makes no such distinction. The supreme authority is a religious leader whose authority cannot be questioned or challenged by legal restraints. Sharia, the legal framework of Koranic law does not protect individual rights as understood in liberal democracy. It is repressive and authoritarian. Women and homosexuals are oppressed and discriminated against. Apostacy is punishable by death. Historically non-Muslims were given the status of Dhimmi in Muslim countries where they were treated as inferiors, had to pay a special tax and had to dress in a certain way to identify themselves as non-Muslims. This is where the Star of David attached to the clothing of Jews originated. These practices are no longer followed but indicate the fundamentalism of Sharia law. Today Iran and Afghanistan are examples of Islamist repressive authoritarian theocratic rule.

Mr Morris was invited by the writer to express whether this statement of Dr Sooliman was in accordance with democracy and the rule of law in South Africa. He was not in agreement. He was not prepared to say that the statement of Dr Sooliman was a clear expression of rejection of South African law. His opposition to censuring Dr Sooliman for his adherence to a theocratic ideology and rejection of man-made law are worth examining in order to expose the serious flaws. At the outset Mr Morris endorses a dispassionate approach and in a spirit of enquiry, whether he lives up to that desirable standard is in doubt:

MM: “The statement was short and cannot be taken on face value. The true test of what he meant would be to interview Dr Sooliman to obtain clarity or provide further context.”

Michael Morris, editor at the Daily Friend.

There is a profound moral principal involved being that people are accountable for their deeds. Speech is included. More so when the statement is made publicly by a public figure such as Dr Sooliman. It is perfectly proper and widely practised to comment on face value of what prominent people say. Importantly, although he made this statement in 2024, despite countless interviews he has given since then, he has never modified or repudiated a single word. Strangely he has never been asked what he meant. No one seems to have misunderstood his message. His statement was sufficiently comprehensive to confirm that he rejects laws of man. His language is plain and unambiguous. Shorter statements than his such as political slogans have traction and are usually well understood without any embellishment.

MM: “It is unfair to single out the “fervent religiosity” used by Dr Sooliman as it is much like the views by Jewish and Christian fundamentalists who declare they owe fealty only to God and no other. There have been comments to this effect made by readers of the DFr. Are they also subversive of the very values UCT should be safeguarding?”

There is a fundamental difference between the fundamentalist readers of DFr and Dr Sooliman. He is a public figure who received a high honour for his humanitarianism. This is unique and unprecedented. No leader, whether fundamentalist or otherwise has publicly rejected the law of South Africa in the democratic era. The last time that happened was during Apartheid.

Islamism is radically different to any Jewish or Christian “fervent religiosity”. The ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, political Islam, which Dr Sooliman supports goes much further. It promotes using violence in the form of Jihad to establish domination and power in non-Muslim countries. Dr Sooliman, through Gift of the Givers made donations to Al Aqsa Foundation, an organisation forming part of the Union of Good, a coalition of Islamic charities supporting Hamas’ infrastructure, an organisation on the US State Department list of foreign terrorist organizations. The chairman of Union of Good was Sheik Yusef Al-Qaradawi a high-ranking member of the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2011, Dr Sooliman received an award from Sheik Yusef Al- Qaradawi for his service to Palestine. Al-Qaradawi is known as the key figure in shaping the concept of violent jihad and the one who allowed carrying out terror attacks, including suicide bombing attacks, against Israeli citizens, the US forces in Iraq, and some of the Arab regimes. He was banned from entering some Western and Arab countries. A true humanitarian would have distanced himself from Al-Qaradawi as many Muslim leaders have done.

**Proud Lawbreaker Honored.** Dr Imtiaz Sooliman who was honored at the University of Cape Town (UCT) by conferring on him an honorary doctorate for his humanitarianism, says , “I don’t follow international law or human law. I follow Koranic law. I am a Muslim. I don’t need any permission from anybody in the world to tell me what to do. I break the laws all the time.”

Certainly, no religious Jewish or Christian leader in South Africa has publicly defied democratic South African law in the name of religion. If indeed people of any faith have made similar public religious claims to Dr Sooliman, they ought to be wholly and immediately censured. Such statements violate the raison d’etre of democracy: The social contract which has underpinned liberal democracy for centuries. This is worthy of guarding by custodians of freedom such as The Daily Friend .

MM: “Not only the Koran, but the Torah and Bible are not repositories of human rights either”

At best a half truth. Indeed, there are parts of the Jewish and Christian Bible such as acceptance of slavery that are today abhorrent. However, modern political notions of justice and individual liberty owe much to Jewish and Christian teachings, rather than the Koran. The US Constitution is a prime example of the influence of Christianity. Koranic law places submission to Allah as a foundational value whereas the same cannot be said of Judaism and Christianity with regard to the relationship with God. Judaism teaches a holy covenant and Christianity teaches love of God through Jesus Christ. Islamic theocracy is inconsistent with the rule of the law of man.

MM: “Preserving liberty cannot be advanced by curbing liberty. Freedom of speech must be tolerated in order to counter intolerant ideas.”

In principle, yes, subject to Popper below. There is no suggestion of curbing the freedom of speech of Dr Sooliman. His speech is however subject to censure. The DFr should be in the forefront of declaring Dr Sooliman’s statement inappropriate and in clear conflict with Western democracy and liberty. Karl Popper, the renown Austrian-born British philosopher to whom I referred in our conversation, proposed the paradox of tolerance:

“We should therefore claim in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.” (My emphasis)

The Open Society and its Enemies Vol 1: K.R Popper (Routlege 1966) p 211

Dr Sooliman’s statement has not reached the criminal level but his Islamist theocratic views are clearly on the trajectory of intolerance. To repeat: He should be censured, not prevented from expressing himself freely. The South African Constitution itself recognises limitations to basic rights. Section 36 provides that the Bill of Rights “for limitation to the extent that it is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity equality and freedom …” There is no room for repressive Sharia authority in South African law.

MM: “Confronting him with semi-facts, innuendo, guilt by association and so on, only risks making him seem strong and you seem weak.”

A somewhat vague, personal and unsubstantiated remark unworthy of dispassionate discourse. The confrontation is based on the ipse dixit (exact words) of Dr Sooliman. There is nothing semi factual or innuendo (suggestion). His Islamist Muslim Brotherhood affiliations are on public record and indeed his own biography makes that plain. It is the duty of responsible people to call out dangers to democracy – no contest of strength is involved. Just accurate and reasonable analysis to enlighten and inform.

MM: “The meaning given to Dr Sooliman’s statement by the writer was convenient to his preconceptions.”

This is an ad hominem, personal and unsupported attack on the objectivity and the careful, fact-based assessment by the writer. The ideological background of Dr Sooliman is well documented and this includes beyond any question his adherence to the Muslim Brotherhood teachings as well as his support of Hamas. These are not preconceptions or subjective opinions of the writer but well documented background history on the worldview and political stance of Dr Sooliman. No reasonable person can conclude otherwise.

IN CONCLUSION

On 27 October 2025 Dr Sooliman declared to certain UCT interested parties:

“… to threaten your students and your university because you’re acting on the base of Israel. I think you should be stripped of your citizenship and thrown out of the country.”

An illiberal proposal which raises serious problems not merely because of its injustice and unconstitutionality, but also because it would require man-made law and enforcement to put into effect. The same legal structure Dr Sooliman says he does not need. It also is problematic because it is intrinsically anti- humanitarian and in violation of basic human rights. It does not behove a person who is bestowed with a prestigious honour for his services to society to make such dishonourable remarks.

Fortunately, South Africa has principled leaders prepared to speak out in upholding democracy. Recently convicted and sentenced EFF political leader Julius Malema made threatening and disparaging remarks about the prosecution and judiciary. This too cannot be tolerated.

“At a time when South Africa continues to confront significant challenges within its criminal justice system, it is important that leaders act responsibly and uphold the institutions designed to protect citizens. Accountability must be accepted with dignity, and disagreements must be addressed within the framework of the law. The rule of law is not negotiable. It is the foundation upon which our democracy stands. Undermining it, through reckless and unfounded attacks on the Judiciary, places that foundation at risk, and with it, the rights and freedoms of all South Africans.

Statement issued by Adv. Glynnis Breytenbach MP, DA Spokesperson on Justice and Constitutional Development, 17 April 2026.

It is troubling that an editor should go such lengths to find contrived and disingenuous arguments to evade the pressing and unavoidable reality that Dr Sooliman holds very hostile views on Western democracy and the rule of law which stand uncontradicted. The Daily Friend should protect freedom of expression by publishing the comments made by the writer about the views of Dr Sooliman as they are central to protection of democracy. At the very least, freedom of speech demands a frank and open publication of the concerns raised, no matter how unreasonable or disagreeable these are to Mr Morris. The loser in stifling this crucial examination of Dr Sooliman’s language is the hard fought South African liberal democracy itself.

About the writer:

Category: Israel- South Africa relations

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:

SOUTH AFRICA CLAIMS ISRAEL IS BEHIND ITS ‘AFROPHOBIA’ VIOLENCE

Like this:

‘ALL THE WORLD’S A STAGE’

Like this:

FROM URGENCY TO DELAY: WHAT HAPPENED TO SOUTH AFRICA’S ICJ CASE?

Like this:

KICKING THE GENOCIDE CAN FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD

Like this:

A FAILURE OF FOCUS

Like this:

BIG MOVE IN SMALL TOWN – RECOGNITION, RECONCILIATION AND RESTITUTION

Like this:

SOUTH AFRICA’S ESTEEMED ONLINE ‘DAILY FRIEND’ IS NO FRIEND WHEN IT COMES TO DEFENDING DEMOCRACY

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: