On October 7th, the paramilitary wings of Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, launched a series of coordinated armed incursions into neighbouring Israeli territory, the first invasion of Israel since the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. The incursion ended in the deaths of more than 1,200 people with 250 taken hostage.
The massacre was the worst attack Jewish people had experienced since the Holocaust. While revenge was expected from Israel, what could not have been expected was the Jewish nation’s unprecedented retaliation which has almost turned Gaza into a dust heap.
The humanitarian crisis being endured by the Palestinian people is surely appallingm, but of the many global sympathisers who have expressed support for them, South Africa has raised its voice a notch higher than others to the extent of taking Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on charges of genocide.
The 84-page dossier is a political surprise coming from Pretoria, which has generally been viewed on the continent as a sleeping giant.
Perhaps to put it more directly, South Africa has been sloth to actively intervene in continental or even regional human rights crises despite carrying sub-Saharan Africa’s biggest stick in terms of diplomatic and political strength, economic muscle and military prowess.
Some in South Africa are already reading cynical signs into Southern Africa’s regional giant’s sudden spurt of energy and action against Israel given the grueling horrors that have taken place in the past on the continent but did not attract the intervention of superpowers like South Africa.
Currently, the whole world is clapping hands for South Africa for standing against Palestine’s bully, Israel. But on the continent, precious few countries have actually signed on the dotted line to say they support SA’s case against Israel.
Many Africans remember the lives that were lost a few decades ago in support of the pan-African response to apartheid. The Frontline States, the forerunner to the Southern African Development Community (SADC), specifically came into being to fight against apartheid in all its manifestations. And even as they were under pressure from a hostile and murderous apartheid regime, many countries in Africa provided refuge, passage, training and other forms of support to SA’s freedom fighters.
More recently, human rights abuses and even outright military conflict has raged in countries such as Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and others over the years, but SA has been content to either adopt quiet diplomacy or hide so deeply within inept regional blocs that its ‘superpower’ role, now suddenly evident against Israel, has been blunted on the continent.
While this observation is in no way meant to exonerate Israel for its callous actions, many still question South Africa’s motives and the timing of its intervention in the Israel-Palestinian war.
The term “wagging the dog” has been wafting about since the ICJ case was announced. Wagging the dog or the use of diversionary foreign policy, is a tactic seen throughout history when governments seek to distract their citizens’ attention away from domestic issues, by taking on external engagements, frequently military, that promote patriotic responses amongst citizens. Also known as the “rally around the flag” approach, former US president Bill Clinton, was accused of wagging the dog when he ordered missile strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke out.
It’s no secret that President Cyril Ramaphosa heads for a tightly contested general election in a few months, with stiff economic headwinds, the sticky stench of corruption plastered all over his party and himself as well, a divided ruling party - the African National Congress (ANC), strengthening opposition parties and a litany of other issues.
The ANC government is surely desperate for a positive break and it can be argued that the ICJ case has provided an opportune moment to “rally around the flag”. Pictures from South Africa on various media outlets last week revealed masses of South Africans standing up proudly and patriotically, rallying behind their government’s cause.
Even the “pesky” media who are constantly breathing down the necks of the ANC with unending allegations of corruption and misgovernance, rallied around the ministers and leaders sent to The Hague, while opposition politicians grimaced at the goodwill the ANC was generating for itself.
The “Rally around the flag” is a powerful concept for politicians. Consider when South Africans stood united after winning the Rugby World Cup late last year and how that show of patriotism had unravelled by the time Ramaphosa’s public holiday for the achievement came about.
As facile as the term “wagging the dog” sounds, history shows that the external action designed to divert attention is rarely without merit. In fact, it would be unfair and inaccurate to say the underlying external action is unwarranted or that it should be read with the same cynicism as the act of wagging the dog.
In Clinton’s case, the former US president felt justified in the military action, while in Ramaphosa’s case, certainly there are questions to be asked of the situation in Gaza.
In a world where politics is increasingly and mind-numbingly binary, many forget that two or more things can be correct and true at the same time.
A case can be required to be heard at the ICJ to question Israel and make its leaders answer. And that case may be helping Ramaphosa and the ANC to momentarily distract from difficult issues at home, a few months from a dicey election. And South Africa’s actions against Israel may not resonate well with long-suffering fellow Africans. These things are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The Palestinians surely have a relationship with South Africa, one that spans beyond the modern independence epoch. The ANC has deep ties to the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), stretching back to its former leader and South Africa’s first post-apartheid president, Nelson Mandela. The ANC aligned itself with the PLO and other revolutionary causes while Mandela was in prison. After his release, Mandela was a vocal supporter of the PLO and its leader Yasser Arafat, saying in 1990 that the ANC identified with the Palestinians because they faced similar injustices.
“We identify with the PLO because, just like ourselves, they are fighting for the right of self-determination,” Mandela said.
Decades later, that sentiment remains in the South African government, and for many ordinary South Africans who see their struggle against colonialism and apartheid in the Palestinians’ plight and decades-long struggle for self-determination.
On the other hand, international relations experts see this as a bigger clash against South Africa and its allies versus the West bloc dominated by the USA. South Africa has been leaning further into alliances that have anti-Western and specifically anti-American moorings, such as BRICS. Pretoria has increasingly demonstrated its willingness to flex its muscles against the West, as seen in its position around the Russia/Ukraine war, which has raised America’s hackles.
So South Africa is not only capable of baring its teeth, such as when it upset the US over Russia, but as seen with the Israel case, it is well capable of biting as well.
Africans are, however, asking: where is all this aggression when dictators and other rulers on the continent are riding roughshod over ordinary citizens’ rights and degrading Africa’s democracy?
Could it be that injustices are easier to fix when oppressors are a continent-away and have different skins to you? And once the oppressors are next door and have the same skin, it’s better to stay in one’s corner?
