Lamola may soften stance to appease US

In one of his first media interviews as South Africa’s Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Ronald Lamola appeared to parrot the party line, but his delivery wasn’t vitriolic like his predecessor, Dr Naledi Pandor, according to analysts.

“We believe this [ICJ case] will be the beginning of the end of Israel’s impunity,” Lamola said in an interview on the Muslim radio station Salaamedia on 15 July. “Israeli exceptionalism is the reason that Israel continues to defy [ICJ orders], because they know that they will always find protection, but the ICJ has now exposed them to the world. This is a genocide aimed to eliminate the Palestinian people. We will continue with the case on behalf of the South African government.”

Speaking about pursuing South Africans in the Israeli army, he said, “That’s a process that should be guided by law enforcement. We have said if such evidence exists, and such people are identified, anyone who has that evidence must bring it to the attention of the police, so that they can investigate and the NPA [National Prosecuting Authority] can prosecute.”

He denied that the government had a relationship with Hamas, saying, “Our relationship is with the state of Palestine.”

Political analyst Daniel Silke believes Lamola may bring a fresh approach to South Africa’s foreign policy. “What’s critical for the Ramaphosa administration is to remain on relatively good terms with the United States. With the potential of a Trump presidency and a much more insular US, South Africa will need to play a much more pragmatic role in trying to placate the Americans. I think that’s what Lamola will bring to the table,” he said.

“In doing that, South Africa will need to be less radical in terms of her support for the Palestinians and Iran,” Silke says. “Lamola will hopefully take a much more pragmatic approach and realise that less ‘in-your-face’ pro-Palestinian is probably the way to go.”

Steven Gruzd, also a political analyst, says the African National Congress (ANC) still controls the department of international relations and cooperation (Dirco), with both deputy ministers and the new minister coming from the party. “It is still calling the shots. It’s early days, but judging by this recent [Lamola] interview, there will be a strong continuity of Pandor’s policies,” he says.

“There certainly remains within the ANC the same view on the Palestinian cause,” Silke says. “The same anti-Israel bias is still very much there. Perhaps it’s just going to be a marginally more nuanced foreign policy, understanding that South Africa’s fortunes lie not just with the BRICS countries [Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates], but with having better relations with the West. That perhaps, will take a modicum of pressure off Israel. But I don’t expect a dramatic change from the ANC.

“The GNU [Government of National Unity] partners are going to have a tough time in reconciling some of their views on Israel with the ANC’s prevailing view, and it will be interesting to see if any pressure from within Cabinet, perhaps behind closed doors, has a more moderating effect on the extreme nature of what was reflected largely by the Pandor Dirco,” says Silke.

South African Zionist Federation spokesperson Rolene Marks took Lamola to task in incorrectly claiming that Israel was acting with impunity in Gaza. “Israel has every right to defend itself under international law, which Lamola should be aware of. In addition, no finding of ‘plausible genocide’ has been made, as the substance of the ICJ case is still to be heard. This claim is misleading,” she said.

Meanwhile, the former minister, Dr Naledi Pandor, continues to spout her one-sided view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, peddling antisemitic ideas and encouraging boycotts against the Jewish state.

“It’s highly unusual for a former foreign minister to continue to be involved in international relations after retirement. Pandor clearly feels that she has the authority to continue making pronouncements,” said Gruzd.

Pandor implied in a speech at Rhodes University on 8 July that Jews isolate others or should be isolated. “I have no hatred of Jewish people, but you are either with us, or you are against us. And if you don’t hold the view we hold, we will label you as powerful institutions, and ensure we diminish your status in society,” she said. It wasn’t clear whether Pandor was saying South Africans must do this to the Jewish community, or that the Jews do it to South Africans, but either way, she emphasised that South African Jewry was a separate entity.

“This is not the Israel of Moses,” she stated. “It’s something else that we’re dealing with. It’s a cruelty which the world cannot tolerate. A country that enjoyed massive impunity is now exposed in its horrible dimensions for all the world to see, and South Africa did that.”

In what was her first appearance since retiring, she claimed that Hamas should remain in power if that was what the Palestinian people wanted, and that universities, sporting bodies, and trade unions should boycott Israel.

She implied that Jews were a dark force that controlled the world, and that South Africa had exposed this with its ICJ case. She claimed that though Israel said it was fighting only Hamas, the truth was that the Jewish state wanted to obliterate all Palestinians.

Pandor admitted that she had strong ties with Iran, and told students that resistance movements shouldn’t resort to violence like 7 October because it may lead to a loss of support. There was no mention of Israelis’ right not to be subject to violence.

Pandor said she spoke to Iranian officials about 7 October, and “Iran was very clear in its support for Hamas”. She repeatedly stated that she wasn’t anti-Israel or antisemitic, but “there’s almost conspiracy theories [in her talk] about Jews controlling the narrative and being unnecessarily powerful”, notes Gruzd.

Wendy Kahn, the national director of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) says, “Pandor’s tenure has been marked by an obsessive focus on vilifying Israel, deviating from the traditionally balanced approach of negotiation and dialogue. She has unashamedly demonised the Jewish state as she has done no other international player.

“This contempt has also been evident in her treatment of South African Jewry,” says Kahn. “Even after leaving government, she has continued to attack SAJBD President Zev Krengel and question the SAJBD’s understanding of antisemitism.

“Pandor’s distaste for South African Jewry was further observed in her enthusiasm to import the anti-Israel protests on US campuses to South African universities. It’s apparent that in her post-ministerial period, Pandor intends to continue this. We call on the universities to stand against Pandor’s toxic campaign, and ensure that their campuses remain safe spaces for all.”

Says Marks, “Pandor is negligent in encouraging protests against Israel on campuses, sacrificing stability at South African universities. Moreover, pro-Palestinian protests will disrupt learning and threaten Jewish students.

“Rhodes University also failed in its responsibility by organising an event that welcomed only anti-Israel speakers,” says Marks. “How can students develop educated viewpoints when exposed to only one perspective? This isn’t academia, it’s propaganda.

“Additionally, Pandor’s giggling when mentioning concern about South Africa’s foreign policy is inappropriate. This is no laughing matter. That she finds this situation amusing shows contempt for the people of South Africa. Pandor’s stance damages South Africa’s standing.”

Dr Glen Segell, a research fellow at the Ezri Center for Iran & Gulf States Research, says, “Although Dr Pandor is no longer a Cabinet minister, she still holds a significant sway in the ANC and more so among its supporters. Her constantly voiced negative views about Israel can endanger Jews in South Africa.” Instead of vilifying Israel and Jews, “Pandor needs to call openly for South Africans to respect each other’s identity, and emphasise that Jews have a spiritual and religious obligation to Israel and shouldn’t be held to answer to Israel’s actions.”