Al-Qalam 
By Iqbal Jassat
Aiding and abetting Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian Territories has been outlawed by the World Court’s latest ground-breaking judgement.
This ruling has been welcomed by South Africa’s International Relations Minister Ronald Lamola, as it conforms to the country’s long-held position on illegal settlements.
Not surprising though, Israel’s local Zionist lobby groups have expressed their dismay. Not satisfied with that, they have called for South Africa to “recalibrate” its foreign policy.
Whenever anyone representing the South African Zionist Federation (SAZF) writes to complain about Israel being treated unfairly, I cannot help but be reminded of apologists of the white minority apartheid regime led by the National Party.
Rowan Polovin of the SAZF, in his article “Crucial crossroads – Realigning South Africa’s foreign policy” (News24 – July 23), resorts to discredited tactics used by the Nats that not only irrational but also steeped in the era of racism apartheid and oppression of yesteryear.
Does it surprise anyone…? Certainly not because the SAZF is, by its own admission, an arm (pun intended) of the settler colonial regime.
Its declared aim is to defend Israel at all costs.
Usurping (no pun intended) the role of Israel’s embassy, the SAZF has, in effect, been swimming against the tide to save the disastrous public image of Israeli genocidaires.
Polovin’s latest piece is a classic specimen of “Hasbara” (false propaganda) by painting Israel as a “victim” of South Africa’s foreign policy. In doing so, he fails miserably to display an understanding of the history of our country’s revolutionary evolution of international relations from the vile era of apartheid to democracy.
The “recalibration” he argues for was instituted way back post-94 when Nelson Mandela’s leadership laid the foundation for a foreign policy underpinned by human rights as enshrined in both the Bill of Rights as well as the constitution.
And, of course, informed by it, South Africa’s stance on Palestine aligns perfectly with our values of Ubuntu. To take a principled position against the horrific genocide committed by Israel in Gaza as South Africa has done by leading the world, particularly the global South, at the International Court of Justice, is an example of a foreign policy imbued with human rights.
Polovin’s irrational arguments contain a number of contradictions. A particularly galling one is his insistence that Israel’s “right to self-defence” is enshrined in “International law”.
It is interesting to note that Israel’s decades-long defiance of international laws pertaining to illegal settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territories, the practice of Apartheid, the siege of Gaza, home demolitions, arbitrary detentions without trial, targeted executions, persecution of journalists, torture, etc, renders his argument on self-defence null and void.
Indeed, as many commentators have pointed out and correctly understood and explained by former Minister of International Relations Naledi Pandor, Oct 7 did not happen in a vacuum.
In The Politics of Dispossession, the late Palestinian Edward Said traced his people’s struggle through decades of occupation and denial of fundamental rights.
For instance, in 1991, he pointed to the fact that only Israeli Jews have sovereignty, while Palestinian Arabs live in a state of subordination and oppression.
“That the Palestinians struggle against and resist this state of affairs is a function of how injustice and sufferings do not defeat a people, nor compel it into submission, but rather drive that people to resist more, and to struggle further for political justice and rights”, Said wrote.
This climate of oppression and discrimination is known to most South Africans who were on the receiving end of white minority rule as apartheid, which is a perpetual atrocity committed by Israel against Palestinians.
It is thus no surprise that our foreign policy is rooted in a paradigm that espouses a firm commitment to freedom and justice for Palestine.
Polovin is completely out of depth by alluding that South Africa is “out of touch on the global stage”, whereas the facts are entirely different.
The articulation of sound legal arguments by South Africa’s galaxy of legal eagles at the International Court of Justice, led the way for a host of countries to follow through.
Far from being “out of touch”, it affirmed a stamp of approval for being in touch with the harsh reality of the worst form of genocide against Palestinian civilians.
If anyone can be accused of being out of touch, it can only be the SAZF and fellow pro-Israel lobby groups.
If Polovin and the SAZF dare to honestly scrutinise the levels of anger and disillusionment against Benjamin Netanyahu and his criminal gang of warlords, they will be surprised to discover that far from being a land of “milk and honey”, Israel is, in fact, a rogue regime.
Professor John Dugard in his “Confronting Apartheid”, deals extensively with this theme. And makes an interesting observation in his assessment of Israel’s failure to comply with its obligations in human rights law.
He writes that evidence of Israel’s violation of human rights law and international humanitarian law in the OPT is contained in the reports of UN fact-finding missions, NGOs and special rapporteurs, in books and press.
Unlike in the past, Israel’s gruesome violence and defiance of international laws are vividly displayed on television screens throughout the world.
Indeed the correctness of South Africa’s foreign policy – both moral and legal – has been vindicated by the highest court of the world, the ICJ.
Al Jazeera’s summary of the court’s latest ground-breaking judgement underlines the relevance of South Africa’s foreign policies:
The court said Israel has no right to sovereignty of the territories, is violating international laws against acquiring territory by force and is impeding Palestinians’ right to self-determination.
It said other nations were obliged not to “render aid or assistance in maintaining” Israel’s presence in the territory. It said Israel must end settlement construction immediately and existing settlements must be removed, according to a summary of the more than 80-page opinion read out by Salam.
Israel’s “abuse of its status as the occupying power” renders its “presence in the occupied Palestinian territory unlawful”.
If any “recalibration” is required, it must be by the relevant security and prosecuting authorities to investigate whether the SAZF is guilty of providing “aid or assistance in maintaining Israel’s presence in the OPT” in violation of the ICJ ruling.
Iqbal Jassat is an Executive Member of the MEDIA REVIEW NETWORK, Johannesburg.
