Ramaphosa’s anti-Israel rant ‘a red flag to a bull’

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa was the lead writer of an inflammatory article published in highly regarded international publication Foreign Policy on 25 February, accusing the United States (US) of complicity in genocide and lambasting Israel.

Writing with Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim; Colombian President Gustavo Petro; and Varsha Gandikota-Nellutla of Progressive International, the article paints Israel as the sole aggressor in the Israel-Hamas war. Ramaphosa makes no mention of Hamas or the atrocities the terrorist organisation committed on 7 October 2023. The article is a doubling down broadside against the US.

It demands legal and economic action against Israel, with its authors vowing to block arms shipments and enforce the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrants for Israeli leaders.

This article was published just one day before the funeral of the Bibas family, whose murder at the hands of Hamas terrorists remains a fresh wound for Israeli and Jewish communities worldwide. It happened to land on the same day that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) issued notices to US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)-funded HIV organisations terminating their funding for good. This will gut funding to South Africa’s HIV/AIDS programmes.

Bizarrely a day or so later, speaking at the 2025 Goldman Sachs conference, Ramaphosa struck a different tune, saying that he wanted the “dust to settle” and was eager to “do a deal” with US President Donald Trump to resolve tensions over South Africa’s land policy and its genocide case against Israel in the International Court of Justice. It was as if he had no hand in penning the Foreign Policy article.

“I don’t imagine that President Ramaphosa actually wrote the piece, but he would have had sight of it. And he gave his fulsome endorsement to it by lending it his name,” said Terence Corrigan, project manager at the Institute of Race Relations.

Ramaphosa’s Goldman Sachs interaction implied that South Africa wanted to reach a broad-ranging agreement with the US on diplomacy and trade amid strained ties between the two nations.

A dispute over Pretoria’s land and foreign policies has put it firmly in Trump’s crosshairs.

“We don’t want to go and explain ourselves,” Ramaphosa said at the event on Thursday, 27 February. “We want to go and do a meaningful deal with the United States on a whole range of issues, and the signals we’re getting are that we need to enable the development of that process. It’s inevitable that we will get together and do a deal.”

“It is like a split consciousness,” said Corrigan, “Ramaphosa understands the significance of the relationship with the US but can’t tone down the rhetoric.”

“South Africa’s foreign policy is ideological, not pragmatic. The African National Congress [ANC] has made its hostility to the US and its core allies abundantly clear. The concern is that South Africa lacks the diplomatic depth and global alliances needed to shield itself from the repercussions.”

Foreign affairs experts say Ramaphosa is playing a reckless game, one that could have disastrous consequences for the South African economy.

The US is now more likely than ever to strip South Africa of its African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) trade benefits, a move that would hamstring key industries and cost tens of thousands of jobs. AGOA grants duty-free access to the US market for African countries that align with American interests.

Michael Kransdorff, the chief executive of the Institute for International Tax and Finance and a Harvard trained economist, told the SA Jewish Report the timing and tone of Ramaphosa’s article was “disastrous”, like a “red flag to a raging bull”.

“On Friday, we saw with Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s failed visit to the White House how the Trump administration responds even to historic allies when they stand in the way of its foreign policy agenda. South Africa, which is more of a geopolitical ‘frenemy’ than an ally, is even more vulnerable,” Kransdorff said.

“Ramaphosa seems intent on positioning South Africa as a global leader in ideological opposition to US foreign policy. But as Trump just schooled Zelenskyy, to take such a stance, you need to have the cards, and South Africa simply doesn’t.”

“Our economy is fragile,” Kransdorff said. “High public debt, low growth, and high tax levels mean we are heavily dependent on US support. The public-health sector receives significant American aid —17% of South Africa’s HIV budget has been funded by USAID. Free trade access to the US market via AGOA also sustains hundreds of thousands of jobs in the agricultural and automotive sectors and generates crucial foreign revenue for our economy. The US is our second-largest export market.

“The US has already responded by cutting PEPFAR funding. I fear AGOA will be next. At the extreme, if Washington perceives South Africa as actively undermining its strategic interests, financial sanctions on key individuals could become a real possibility. It’s unbelievably reckless to risk wrecking the livelihoods of so many South Africans just so ANC politicians can feel important on the global stage.”

Political analyst Frans Cronje warned that sanctions had taken “a great leap forward” following the Foreign Policy article.

Joel Pollak, a senior editor at Breitbart News and a leading contender to be the next US ambassador to South Africa, told the SA Jewish Report that South Africa needed to come to the table with compromises, and the Foreign Policy article “wasn’t helpful”.

“AGOA specifies that countries benefiting cannot operate in a way that is counter to US foreign policy or national security. The likelihood of AGOA’s termination has increased dramatically,” he warned.

“Rather than being concerned, we should be vocal about the changes needed,” he said. “Amend the Expropriation Act; exempt foreign companies from black economic empowerment; and withdraw the International Court of Justice case. Tell the Palestinians that the time has come to ‘suspend the armed struggle’, as the ANC once did.”

The president’s office didn’t respond to questions at the time of going to print.