When South Africa took Israel to the International Court of Justice on allegations that included genocide, the ANC-led government did not anticipate how easily such accusations could be redirected back at it. Genocide is among the most serious charges that can be levelled against a state. Once invoked, it shapes global narratives.
The accused risks isolation, while the accuser is often seen as occupying the moral high ground. That moral certainty now appears less secure. With similar rhetoric being aimed at South Africa by US President Donald Trump, attention has turned sharply toward the ANC.
The irony is striking: language once used confidently against others now invites scrutiny of the government’s race policies and the country’s high crime levels. This scrutiny is heightened by the ANC’s apparent silence on the killing of unarmed civilian protesters in Iran. Whatever the reasons for this restraint, it undermines claims of consistent moral principle.
Read Full Article on Business Day
[paywall]
South Africans are entitled to ask what truly motivated the ICJ action. Was it driven by anti-Semitism, moral outrage, strategic interests or broader geopolitical considerations? In international affairs, credibility depends on consistency — and when it is lacking, the chickens come home to roost.
JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an email with your comments toletters@businessday.co.za. Letters of more than 200 words may be edited for length. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.
[/paywall]
