As South Africa gets praise internationally for hauling Israel before the International Court of in the Hague, back home a pro-Israel lobby has questioned the move spearhead by International Relations Minister Naledi Pandor who has become the face of the pro-Palestine movement.
As the South African team started presenting arguments to a 17-member bench, the Jewish Board of Deputies accused the government of antisemitism. The group claimed South Africa was too close to liberation movement Hamas and dragged prominent British politician Jeremy Corbyn into its criticism of the government alleging that he joined the South African team at the court as he’s himself anti-Israel.
“ Both DIRCO and the Department of Justice dismiss their Jewish community’s concerns over antisemitism with contempt. Global Jewry is united that these charges have at their root an antisemitic worldview, which denies Jews their rights to defend themselves. They won’t silence us by denying our reality,” said the national chairperson of SA Jewish Board of Deputies, Professor Karen Milner.
Milner also falsely claimed President Cyril Ramaphosa refused to arrest then Sudanese president Omar Al Bashir when he visited South Africa in 2015.
“Why did President Cyril Ramaphosa not feel “duty-bound” to hand over convicted genocide President of Sudan, Omar Al Bashir when he visited this country? Or see it as a “matter of principle” to hand over Russian President, Vladimir Putin to the ICC when he was expected to visit South Africa? Or take a “principled stand” when he met. last week, with Mohamed Dagalo of Sudan, the commander of the RSF militia who has just inflicted genocide on the non-Arab communities across Darfur?, asked Milner.
Ramaphosa was not yet President in 2015 and would not have been expected to make a decision on whether to detain Al-Bashir on the strength of an International Criminal Court.
Milner also questioned why South Africa did not adopt a neutral stance like it did in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. “ South Africa’s double-speak and double-standards is also evident with dogged determination to remain neutral and ‘talk to both’ sides in the Russian Ukraine war. Yet, with Israel it has taken constant punitive action, including refusing to offer condolences to Israel after the 7 October massacre, closing the SA Embassy, issuing a demarche to the Israeli Ambassador and now taking Israel to the ICJ,” she said.
The board’s comments as South Africa is being showered with praise globally for its stance on Israel for the move which has since been endorsed by the likes of Brazil, The Maldives, Namibia and Pakistan.
The South African legal team is made up of John Dugard SC, Tembeka Ngcukaitobi SC, Adila Hassim SC
Max Du Plessis SC, Tshidiso Ramogale, Sarah Pudifin-Jones, Lerato Zikalala, Vaughan Lowe KC and Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC.
The EFF has thrown its weight behind South Africa’s case while the ACDP has maintained support for Israel. “We stand in full support of this decisive action, reflecting our unwavering commitment to global justice and human rights,” said the red berets in a post on X.
International relations spokesperson Clayson Monyela said whether South Africa wins the actual case or not was of no consequence as the country has already scored a major victory by making Israel appear before the world’s highest court.“ Whatever the outcome, #SouthAfrica🇿🇦 has already scored a major victory for the #Palestinians & humanity. We’ve given them a voice before the highest court in the world. The evidence being presented to the #ICJ judges & to a global audience can’t be ignored,” said Monyela on X.