The South African government describes what is happening in the Gaza Strip as “genocide”. Recently, the country’s Parliament, in its resolution, called for the closure of the Israeli embassy in Pretoria and the “freezing” of diplomatic relations between the two countries until an agreement on a permanent ceasefire is reached.

As Ran Greenstein, an assistant professor of Sociology at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, points out to DW, “almost no other African country supports the Palestinians in the Middle East so strongly. There is an identification with the Palestinian struggle, because many South Africans feel that the Palestinians are going through the same unpleasant experiences that they suffered under apartheid.”

Diplomacy comes first…

This perception is rather diffuse and is not expressed by any specific organization or political movement. Greenstein believes that the Parliament’s decision is a “sign of solidarity”, but at the same time he emphasizes that the country’s foreign policy is shaped by the government, which would hardly decide to completely cut off diplomatic relations with Israel. Doing so, he recalls, would have negative consequences for relations with the EU, the UK and the US.

After the war in Gaza broke out, the South African government recalled its ambassador to Tel Aviv for consultations, while the Israeli government did the same with its charge d’affaires in Pretoria. Going a step further, South Africa called on the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague to issue an arrest warrant for genocide against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

In Israel, government spokesman Eilon Levi dismisses the accusations after disgust. On October 7, he points out, Hamas was the one who caused a genocide, therefore Israel is fighting a just fight and is on the “right side” of history.

Warrant for genocide in Gaza?

Critics of the International Criminal Court are mounting in Africa, who say judges at The Hague tend to investigate war crimes in African countries but not in other parts of the world. Politicians from the ruling African National Congress (ANC) party have repeatedly called for South Africa to withdraw from the ICC Statute, saying they question its impartiality. “Even if the Court does not take action now, we will no longer have any reason to believe in this institution,” says political scientist Kwandile Kondlo.

The resolution calling for the closure of the embassy in Israel was tabled in South Africa’s Parliament by the opposition Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) party, but was also supported by ANC MPs. It was finally approved by a large majority (248 votes in favor, 91 against). South African President Cyril Ramaphosa denounced that Israel’s “collective punishment of the Palestinian civilian population by unlawful use of force constitutes a war crime. Depriving the people of Gaza of supplies of food, medicine, fuel and drinking water is tantamount to genocide.”

BRICS in favor of ceasefire

Almost at the same time, Ramaphosa was convening, via video conference, an emergency summit of the BRICS group, which includes Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. The BRICS countries, which consider themselves representatives of the “Global South”, called for an end to hostilities in Gaza and a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict on the basis of a “two-state solution”. Otherwise, however, they failed to agree on a joint communique on developments in the Middle East.

Analyst Ran Greenstein believes that the radical stance of the South African opposition is part of a more general strategy, drawing dividing lines from the ruling ANC party. After all, EFF MPs had previously split from the ANC. “Now they want to show that they are more radical, that they don’t hesitate to go one step further and take a clear stand,” says Greenstein. Only the MPs of the Democratic Alliance (DA), the largest South African opposition party, express a different opinion.

All this has as a consequence, emphasizes Ran Greenstein, that South Africa cannot act as a potential mediator to end the war. “At this stage”, he points out, “Israel would not accept a South African initiative. After all, there are already other countries that play a similar role, such as Qatar, Egypt and Turkey.”

Thus, Pretoria’s foreign policy continues the tradition of Nelson Mandela, who maintained close relations with Yasser Arafat’s PLO. “After all,” Greenstein recalls, “the PLO was an integral part of the alliance of ‘anti-imperialist’ liberation movements launched by the ANC in the 1970s and 1980s under the guidance of the Soviet Union and China.”