SA government unswayed by Israel-Arab peace ties

The South African government continues to refuse to support Israel and its newly transformed ties with three Arab countries in three months, without resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as part of those agreements.

When the historic Abraham Accords between Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) was announced in August, the department of international relations and cooperation, said that it noted the developments with “concern”, describing the deal as “regrettable” on the grounds that the Palestinian people hadn’t been “engaged”.

Now, Naledi Pandor, the minister of international relations and cooperation, has doubled down on this stance by saying that South Africa “reiterates that sustainable peace and stability in the Gulf and the wider Middle East region requires an end to its core peace and security challenge, which is the occupation of Palestine”.

She was speaking on 20 October at a United Nations (UN) Security Council high-level debate on a comprehensive review of the situation in the Gulf region. This was days before the latest agreement was reached between Israel and Sudan.

South African Zionist Federation National Chairperson Rowan Polovin said, “The normalisation deal between Sudan and Israel could be a game-changer for Sudan and the African continent as it is set to deliver significant investment, agricultural development, and strategic co-operation between Israel, Sudan, North Africa, and the Middle East.”

However, Pandor’s views are unchanged. “The international community, including countries in the Gulf region, should continue to work towards a just and peaceful end to the occupation,” she said. This, she believes, should be a “viable two-state solution that will guarantee and safeguard the human rights and dignity of all people on both sides of the agreed Green Line”.

Said Polovin, “Instead of warmly welcoming this objectively positive development, South Africa bizarrely takes the side of the Palestinians over the Sudanese people. South Africa has a dubious foreign policy record, including granting immunity to former Sudanese dictator Omar al-Bashir instead of arresting him on his 2015 trip to the country. Since Al-Bashir’s overthrow in 2019, South Africa hasn’t played any known role in assisting Sudan with economic development, nor helped the country in its transition to democracy.”

Local political analyst Steven Gruzd believes that “the Abraham Accords with the UAE, Bahrain, and Sudan have surprised and wrong-footed South Africa diplomatically”.

“South Africa was slow to react, and somewhat predictable by trying to re-centre debate on the Palestinian issue. President Donald Trump’s efforts have turned conventional wisdom about the Middle East on its head. Normalisation with these states happened against a stalemate with the Palestinians. Trump’s stance has been that if the Palestinians won’t jump on the train, it will leave without them.”

Hussein Solomon, senior professor of political studies and governance at the University of the Free State, questioned Pandor’s depiction of the Israeli-Palestinian question as the core security challenge in the region. “I’m sure the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain will hold that Iran constitutes such a challenge,” he says.

He questioned South Africa’s opposition to these peace agreements. “Other countries like Oman, Morocco, Tunisia, and eventually Saudi Arabia will all have agreements with Israel since it’s in their national interest. This is something that senior diplomats will understand. The Palestinians have been ill-served by their leadership, and have alienated the Arab countries supporting them, and now more so by calling their moves ‘treacherous’.”

Meanwhile the permanent representative of South Africa to the UN, ambassador Jerry Matjila, echoed Pandor’s sentiments while speaking at the Security Council video teleconference open debate on the situation in the Middle East on 26 October.

He was critical of Israel’s recent agreements with Arab states, saying, “No peace plan or initiative can have any merit or succeed if all parties to the conflict aren’t included in such talks as equal partners from the very beginning.

“We had hoped that these events would lead to less suffering of Palestinians … [but] these agreements appear to coincide with increased illegal settlement activity and destruction of Palestinian agricultural land. While formal annexation may have been suspended, de facto annexation continues.”

Matjila referred to Israeli authorities announcing plans earlier in October for the advancement of more than 5 000 new housing units in the West Bank, which he said marked 2020 as “the year for the highest settlement expansion since 2012, with over 12 000 units being advanced”. To Matjila, this settlement activity “contradicts these agreements, and calls into question the benefits of these agreements for peace as they have not eased the occupation”.

He emphasised that South Africa viewed these settlements as illegal, and implied that there were double standards in how the Security Council dealt with them. “Israel continues to violate security council resolutions and international law. Why then, has there been no action to hold Israel accountable?” he asked.

But, according to Gruzd, “The ambassador is hypocritical in referring to ‘double standards’ when dealing with Israel. South Africa is more than happy to single out Israel annually at the UN’s Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva. It’s a standing item at every single UNHRC meeting, yet South Africa opposes ‘country-specific’ criticism of any other country.”

Matjila also said that there had been a number of international conferences that had led to positive steps in the peace process, so “South Africa fully supports the call for an international conference with the participation of all concerned parties for discussions on a genuine peace process, including the resolution of all final status issues.

“South Africa will continue to work with all like-minded countries to support international efforts aimed at the establishment of a viable Palestinian state, existing side by side in peace with Israel within international recognised borders, based on those existing on 4 June 1967, with East Jerusalem as its capital, in line with all relevant UN resolutions, international law, and internationally agreed parameters,” he said.

Solomon said he agreed with Pretoria regarding illegal settlement activity, “however, an international conference won’t resolve anything given the Palestinian divisions and the inability to develop a more nuanced position. More importantly, South Africa doesn’t have the capacity to play the role of some sort of mediator – we cannot even keep the lights on within our country. So, our foreign policy must reflect our strengths.”

Said Gruzd, “South Africa will keep fighting in the Palestinians’ corner and [will continue to] see the normalisation as a betrayal, but it needs to recognise that important players in the Arab world have moved on.”

Polovin said he believed that South Africa “should be at the forefront of assisting African states to improve their human-rights record on the basis of improved economic ties, investment, bilateral relations, and joint projects, but instead it uses its foreign policy airtime to obsess over Israel.

“South Africa should side with African states and their transition to democracy over the corrupt Palestinian leadership,” Polovin said.