Misrepresentation and gaslighting

Ronald Lamola’s 25 November address, (left), embodies the misrepresentation and selective narrative that have come to define the African National Congress’s (ANC’s) stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict. The South African Jewish Board of Deputies responds.

Historical context: twisting events

Lamola starts with an explanation of the history of the ANC and the people of Palestine, explaining that it “didn’t start last year”. In this sense, he’s correct. The ANC does indeed have a longstanding relationship with the Palestinian cause.

He then goes on to “add the voice of the ANC to the vehement condemnation of the wanton aggression currently being perpetrated by Israel against Lebanon”. In this case, Lamola knowingly omits critical context. Israel’s military actions target Hezbollah, a militant and political entity within Lebanon, not the Lebanese state or its people. Many Lebanese civilians have expressed gratitude toward Israel for countering Hezbollah, a group that has dominated and destabilised Lebanon’s diverse society. Moreover, the Lebanese military hasn’t engaged directly, and the situation cannot be framed as a war against Lebanon itself.

It’s also important to note that the Israel Defense Forces’ campaign in Lebanon is a reaction to more than a year of terror activities and missiles launched at the north of Israel from southern Lebanon, which is entirely ignored by Lamola. Hezbollah began a campaign of rocket fire into Israel on 8 October 2023. The group has averaged 150 to 200 rockets per day for the past 14 months, causing 60 000 Israelis to evacuate their homes and become internally displaced.

Misrepresentation of Palestinian leadership

Lamola asserts his belief that the Palestinian people will emerge from the conflict stronger and “united under the leadership of their sole and authentic representative, the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO]”. This statement whitewashes the fact that Hamas, not the PLO, is the elected government of Gaza. Palestine is in no way united or unified under the PLO. This narrative erases the complexities on the ground, and presents a sanitised version of events that suits the ANC’s agenda, removing the unsavoury reality that Hamas, an Islamist terrorist organisation, was democratically elected.

Selective historical retelling

The Department of International Relations and Cooperation minister then goes on to state that Israel has enjoyed impunity for decades, and that in “1948 … Israel consolidated its occupation of Palestinian territory beyond that allotted to it by the partition plan”. This statement ignores key historical context.

The plan, though accepted by Jewish leaders, was rejected by Arab states, which then waged war against the nascent Israeli state in the belief that it could be wiped off of the map and that the territory would be incorporated into their states. The land that was gained by the Jewish forces, despite their being heavily outmanned and outgunned, was then incorporated into the new borders of Israel. Israel couldn’t have “consolidated its occupation of Palestinian territory” as there was no state of Palestine before the partition and no occupying Israeli state. Jewish-owned land prior to partition was purchased legally from Arab and British landowners, not occupied or stolen through any force or coercion.

Notably, following this war, the West Bank was incorporated into Jordan, and Gaza belonged to Egypt. Neither Jordan nor Egypt chose to cede control of these territories to the Arab Palestinian population, nor did they give citizenship to these people. The same Arab population that was on territory incorporated into Israel was given full Israeli citizenship, with all the rights and benefits that this affords them.

Antisemitism and criticism of Israel

Next, Lamola makes the now tired proclamation that “it cannot be that any criticism towards Israel is rendered antisemitic”. We don’t hold all criticism of Israel to be antisemitism, but that there are clear markers under which criticism is demonising, delegitimising, and couched in double standards that render it antisemitic.

We recall that on the steps of the Peace Palace in The Hague, Lamola said, “In South Africa, we live side by side with Jews. They run companies and thriving business. It’s not about antisemitism.” This statement indicates that the minister sees the Jewish population as a separate entity to the general South African population, and that he disregards antisemitism as a legitimate problem in the country.

It’s also disingenuous to believe that replacing the word “Jew” with the term “Zionist” somehow sanitises the bigotry and antisemitism of a statement. Lamola’s invocation of “ubuntu” is hollow in light of Hamas’s actions – rape, murder, kidnapping – which starkly contradict any principles of humanity

Distortion of Iran’s role

At this point, Lamola goes on to make another blatantly gaslit statement in, “It cannot be that every action aimed at justice is rendered as a proxy action by Iran or another force.” Mr Lamola, there’s a big difference between a protest or political campaign aimed at gaining “justice” and the wanton rape and murder of civilians, launching of indiscriminate rockets, terror raids, and regional destabilisation that has occurred at the hands of Iran and its proxies. Creating a false equivalency by calling these “actions aimed at justice” is incredibly infuriating.

As the minister of international relations and cooperation, Lamola would be well versed in the destructive and destabilising influence of Iran across the globe. Any attempt to conceal this is clearly contrary to the stated goals of the South African foreign policy doctrine.

Genocide allegations: misleading and unsupported

The minister states, “The events that have unfolded from October 2023 to date … have marked one of the most tragic and violent periods in the history of the people of Palestine and of the region, who have suffered unspeakable atrocities in an unrelenting campaign of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and war crimes.”

Again, the minister is using half-truths and libel to push his narrative. On 7 October 2023, Hamas launched an attack on the people of Israel resulting in 1 200 deaths and the kidnapping of more than 250 hostages. It is Hamas who started this war, and Hamas who then took refuge among the population of Gaza, using schools, hospitals, and civilian homes as shields, callously putting civilians in the firing range.

Moreover, the minister knowingly misrepresents the findings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which hasn’t found that a genocide is occurring. In fact, it’s important to note that the ANC-led South African government immediately adopted an adversarial stance and began propagating a narrative of genocide from 6 November 2023, merely a month after the Hamas attacks. To date, the court hasn’t issued any findings to the effect that Israel was acting in violation of its international legal obligations.

On 26 January 2024, the ICJ actually declined to order Israel to suspend its military operations in Gaza, instead ordering it to “limit harm to Palestinians, preserve evidence, and submit a report within a month on all measures taken in response to the court’s order”. This indicates that the court lacks the evidence to prove South Africa’s malicious claims. Furthermore, on 28 March, the ICJ again rejected South Africa’s request to order Israel to cease its operations in Gaza and its request to call on third party states supporting Israel’s military effort to cease doing so.

Put together, it’s clear that there’s no court ruling or indication that a genocide is occurring. Thus, the purpose of the South African-led ICJ case appears less about the pursuit of justice or the application of human rights and more of a targeted political attack. The continued use of the term “genocide” and ongoing claims of war crimes are thus libel against Israel in a campaign of demonisation and delegitimisation. Indeed, United States National Security Council spokesman John Kirby called it “meritless, counterproductive, and completely without any basis in fact whatsoever”.

Historical distortion

It’s clear that just as the ICJ application appears to have cherry picked its facts, so, too, Lamola continued this trend, when he concluded his speech by quoting late PLO leader Yasser Arafat, who inferred that he bore both a gun and an olive branch. This statement is clearly disingenuous, given Arafat’s own refusal to accept the Ehud Barak’s offering of peace – a real olive branch – at Camp David in 1998.

Palestinians in Gaza and under the rule of the Palestinian Authority suffer because of their leaders, who depict Israelis as monsters and eternal enemies. They suffer because of a political deadlock created by those glorifying martyrdom and opting for violence instead of diplomacy. Lamola’s speech gaslights the South African public with misrepresentations that align neither with the complexities of the conflict nor the principles of the South African Constitution. Instead of advancing constructive dialogue, his rhetoric fosters polarisation and disinformation.