On January 7 an X account with the handle @Sentletse published a post calling for my expulsion from the EFF. The post went viral in no time. The accusation was not corruption.
It was not organisational indiscipline. It was not betrayal. The offence, apparently, was thinking.
More specifically, the offence was a piece I wrote for Business Day, in which I argued that the ANC has not aligned itself with Palestine but with Hamas, and that Israel’s innovation-driven development model offers lessons South Africa would be reckless to ignore (“The ANC didn’t choose Palestine — it chose Hamas”, January 6). There was no reference to evidence and no effort to address the arguments themselves. The demand was not for debate, but for cancellation and expulsion.
Read Full Article on Business Day
[paywall]
That is intimidation, not activism, and it is hardly new behaviour for this X account. @Sentletse is not an anonymous troll account. It is verified, visible and influential.
And that record matters. Over time, the account has repeatedly crossed the line from criticism of Israeli state policy into conspiratorial thinking and collective blame. Criticism of Israel, even sharp criticism, is legitimate and necessary in any democracy.
But when critique collapses into conspiracy, when a state is turned into a symbolic villain blamed for global disorder, and when mere association becomes grounds for expulsion or silencing, politics gives way to dogma. Posts attributed to the account include claims that Israel and the US “export terror”, suggestions that foreign nationals are being “smuggled” into South Africa as part of destabilisation plots, and blunt slogans like “F**k Israel” accompanied by images of armed fighters. These are not reasoned positions.
They are designed to inflame, provoke fear and manufacture moral panic, not to advance understanding. There is a distinction that must be maintained. That is the context in which my writing was targeted.
Not because it lacked coherence or honesty, but because it challenges an emerging orthodoxy that declares some questions off-limits, some conclusions compulsory, and some platforms illegitimate. What accounts like @Sentletse attempt to do is short-circuit debate. They do not persuade; they discipline.
They do not respond; they threaten. Reputational harm becomes the weapon of choice, not intellectual engagement. The method is now familiar: isolate a thinker, flatten their work into caricature, attach a moral label (“Zionist”, “sell-out”, “imperialist”), and then demand institutional punishment.
No reading required. No thinking encouraged. This is not revolutionary politics at all; it is an effort to enforce ideological conformity.
[/paywall]
