South Africa considers closing Israeli embassy
The Cabinet is expected to decide by the end of the year on the potential closure of the Israeli embassy in Pretoria.
This was revealed by International Relations and Cooperation Minister Ronald Lamola during a question-and-answer session in the National Council of Provinces on Tuesday.
Responding to a question from EFF MP Virgill Gericke about the steps he has taken in honouring and executing the November 2023 resolution of the National Assembly to close down the Israeli embassy, Lamola said consultations have taken place within the relevant government cluster system to prepare a memorandum for submission to the Cabinet.
'In accordance with the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, the authority to decide on the possible closure of the Israeli embassy in South Africa rests solely with the Cabinet.
'Once Cabinet has deliberated and reached a final destination, the Department of International Relations and Cooperation will act in accordance with these directives,' he said.
Lamola indicated that the Israeli embassy remained downgraded.
'The downgraded embassy only just facilitates the normal processes of visa and travelling of civilians between the two countries, with no full operation of a full embassy in terms of liaising on political, diplomatic, and also economic relations between the two countries.'
He also said since the matter was processed through the Cabinet process, he was unable to specify the date it will be resolved.
'But I can state that before the end of the year, Cabinet will have processed the matter.'
Asked what outside forces were exerting pressure on the Cabinet or the government to relent on its initial resolve to close the Israeli embassy, Lamola said the authority to decide on the possible closure of the Israeli embassy in South Africa rests solely with the Cabinet.
'Cabinet has to undergo its internal processes, which it will be undergoing to deal with this matter, and it is being processed.
'It will be processed objectively, in line with the South African constitution, with no external pressure to be exerted on the South African government by any forces or anyone. The South African government will act within its sovereignty to make decisions informed by facts, policies, the Constitution, the National Development Plan, and national interests,' he said.
Asked whether his department has considered other measures like economic sanctions against Israel as part of intensifying pressure against the continued Israeli attacks and aggression against Palestine, Lamola said the matter will require the Cabinet to deliberate on whether to exert economic sanctions and any other pressures that may need to be executed.
'But the South African government will continue to support the work that has been done by other countries. The European Union, its member states, have also begun to sanction some of the leaders of the Israeli regime in terms of economic sanctions, and also some countries like those in the G-7 have announced this type of measures.'
He explained that the existing decision that has been taken relates to taking the Israeli government to the International Court of Justice.
Lamola also said economic sanctions against Israel will require all countries to play a role through various instruments.
'The wheel is coming to a full cycle with all member countries of the UN, either putting economic sanctions, political pressure through diplomatic channels, and we are leading the legal route of the process. So there is a contribution by many member states of the UN to continue to exert the necessary pressure to stop the ongoing genocide by the Israel Defense Force.'
Pressed on whether cutting diplomatic ties with Israel effectively disqualified South Africa from playing any mediating role in the much-needed peace process, Lamola said that as the Cabinet was processing the matter, all factors would be considered.
'But the resolution we are talking about is because it is a parliamentary resolution which the Cabinet is duty-bound to consider within the principle, obviously, of the separation of powers.
'We will look into all the facts and all the prevailing circumstances and present a way forward.'
He said South Africa's position with regard to the two-state solution was firmly remaining.
'We continue with that position in the various platforms of the United Nations. We continue to argue for a reason for cessation of hostilities, for the Israel Defense Force to stop its military operation in Gaza and the West Bank. We continue to call for humanitarian access to the people of Gaza and the West Bank. We continue to call for an immediate dialogue and cessation of fire that must lead to engagement towards the two-state solution,' Lamola added.
First published by IOL
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
40 minutes ago
- Russia Today
Art of the bluff: Israel's moves against Iran lays post-US Middle East bare
If the Academy handed out Oscars for political theater, Donald Trump would be a shoo-in for the 2025 award for Worst Performance in a Leading Role. His latest remarks are less about statesmanship and more about saving face as global events spin far beyond the grasp of American diplomacy. And the harder he tries to project himself as a dealmaker pulling strings behind the scenes, the clearer it becomes: Western dominance is cracking, and Washington is reacting more on impulse than strategy. The latest flashpoint – the 2025 escalation between Israel and Iran – has exposed the crumbling illusion of American leadership. Despite Trump's claim that he 'convinced' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to strike Iran, the facts tell a different story. Netanyahu brushed off the advice and launched a sweeping assault on Iranian targets – not just military, but symbolic. In one bold move, he derailed already fragile nuclear talks between Washington and Tehran, revealing exactly who sets the agenda in the region now. Faced with this reality, US leaders had two choices: admit their influence over Israel had faded, or publicly support the strikes and cling to the image of leadership – even if it meant further undermining their credibility as a neutral arbiter. Unsurprisingly, they chose the latter. Backing Israel at the expense of diplomacy with Iran has become business as usual. Washington isn't conducting the symphony anymore; it's trying to stay in rhythm while the conductor's baton is in someone else's hand. So when Trump talks about having 'leverage' over Israel, it sounds more like community theater than statesmanship. Even he doesn't seem to believe the part he's playing. In 2025, once again, the United States isn't leading the charge – it's being dragged along. And the more American leaders insist everything's fine, the more obvious it becomes: the age of Western supremacy is fading out, in a blaze of theatrical flair that rivals Trump's own off-script improvisations. A close look at Trump's statements – and those from his administration – in the wake of Israel's strike on Iran reveals a political paradox: while the US officially opposed escalation, it did nothing to stop it. Why? Because the political cost at home was too high. In an election year, Trump couldn't risk a fight with one of the GOP's most reliable bases: pro-Israel voters and the powerful lobbying machine behind them. Trump tried to play it both ways. On one hand, he said, 'It wasn't a surprise to me,' and claimed he neither endorsed nor blocked the strike. But just days earlier, he boasted: 'I talked to Bibi. He promised not to do anything drastic. We held him back.' That's a crucial detail. At least on the surface, the Trump White House wanted to avoid escalation. But once the missiles flew, Trump pivoted hard: 'Israel has the right to defend itself.' 'The US wasn't involved in the operation.' 'But if Iran hits us, we'll hit back harder than ever.' This about-face reveals just how little influence Washington had. Netanyahu played the hand he wanted – defying US interests, derailing diplomacy, and still compelling American support. Warnings from Washington didn't even register. Caught flat-footed, Trump scrambled to regain control with vague reassurances: 'Iran might still get a second chance.' 'We're open to talks.' 'Iranian officials are calling me. They want to talk.' These weren't policy statements. They were PR – a bid to dodge blame for a failed containment strategy. His line that 'I gave Iran a chance, but they didn't take it' is less a fact and more a way to recast himself as the peacemaker – the guy who ended tensions between India and Pakistan and now promises to 'make the Middle East great again.' Is this genuine diplomacy? Or a carefully crafted performance aimed at domestic audiences – and international ones, too? Trump even welcomed Vladimir Putin as a potential mediator: 'He's ready. He called me. We had a long talk.' By doing so, he tried to recast the situation from an American failure to a global problem that needs collective resolution – conveniently shifting the spotlight away from US accountability. And while Trump played diplomat, Axios reported that Israel had actively lobbied for US participation in the strikes, and the Wall Street Journal revealed that Trump had promised Netanyahu he wouldn't stand in the way. All signs point to this: any restraint Washington projected was a smokescreen for its inability – or unwillingness – to rein in its closest Middle Eastern ally. In the end, Israel got what it wanted. The US got sidelined. And Iran got a loud-and-clear message: America isn't calling the shots. Netanyahu exploited the weaknesses baked into the US political system – proving once again that alliances don't equal parity. And while Trump talks of giving Iran another chance, the truth is this: Washington is now playing by rules written in Jerusalem. The current Israel-Iran confrontation has sparked alarm worldwide. But while tensions are high and missiles have flown, the chances of full-scale war still appear slim. Tehran, despite its fiery rhetoric, has shown restraint. It seems to be holding out for a return to diplomacy – and possibly a new round of talks with Washington. The US, too, is in no mood for another drawn-out Middle East war. With its strategic focus shifting elsewhere and voters tired of endless foreign entanglements, Washington is eager to avoid getting pulled into something deeper. A slow, uneasy de-escalation looks like the most plausible outcome – the only question is how long that will take. Make no mistake: Israel's strikes inflicted heavy damage – particularly on the IRGC's infrastructure and the supply networks for Iran-backed forces in Syria and Lebanon. But Iran's retaliation – a massive drone and missile barrage on Israeli territory – was a shock to the Israeli public. It caused serious destruction and considerable casualties, raising questions about Netanyahu's gamble. Inside Iran, the regime faces mounting economic pressure and growing public frustration. Yet there are no signs of collapse. The leadership remains intact, held together by tight control and elite loyalty. A new deal with the US could offer much-needed economic relief, giving leverage to more pragmatic voices in Tehran that favor engagement over confrontation. As for Israel, the longer-term political fallout is still unclear. Netanyahu may have boosted his image as a tough, decisive leader – but if talks between Washington and Tehran resume and produce even a temporary agreement, Israel could find itself isolated. Netanyahu's open friction with the Biden administration over Gaza and Iran may come back to haunt him. If diplomacy moves forward without Israel, it could leave him out in the cold – and facing heat from both domestic critics and international partners. Meanwhile, regional powers like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar are stepping up. They've launched a flurry of diplomatic efforts – including quiet lobbying in Washington – to further rein in Israeli escalation. These countries have no interest in another war. They're worried that if things spiral, US bases and assets across the region – from Iraq to the Gulf – could become targets. That would bring serious security risks and economic disruption, just as these nations are trying to push forward with growth and reform. Their message is clear: further chaos in the Middle East is not an option. These states are now emerging as key voices for de-escalation – working to steer the crisis back to the negotiating table. Despite the intensity of the current standoff, the likeliest path forward remains a tense but managed de-escalation. Neither Iran nor the US wants a war. Israel, meanwhile, is walking a tightrope – trying to look strong while navigating a shrinking space for unilateral action. That leaves a narrow window for diplomacy. The real question is: when will the politics – in all three capitals – catch up with the need for a deal?
Russia Today
4 hours ago
- Russia Today
South Africa considers closing Israeli embassy
The Cabinet is expected to decide by the end of the year on the potential closure of the Israeli embassy in Pretoria. This was revealed by International Relations and Cooperation Minister Ronald Lamola during a question-and-answer session in the National Council of Provinces on Tuesday. Responding to a question from EFF MP Virgill Gericke about the steps he has taken in honouring and executing the November 2023 resolution of the National Assembly to close down the Israeli embassy, Lamola said consultations have taken place within the relevant government cluster system to prepare a memorandum for submission to the Cabinet. 'In accordance with the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, the authority to decide on the possible closure of the Israeli embassy in South Africa rests solely with the Cabinet. 'Once Cabinet has deliberated and reached a final destination, the Department of International Relations and Cooperation will act in accordance with these directives,' he said. Lamola indicated that the Israeli embassy remained downgraded. 'The downgraded embassy only just facilitates the normal processes of visa and travelling of civilians between the two countries, with no full operation of a full embassy in terms of liaising on political, diplomatic, and also economic relations between the two countries.' He also said since the matter was processed through the Cabinet process, he was unable to specify the date it will be resolved. 'But I can state that before the end of the year, Cabinet will have processed the matter.' Asked what outside forces were exerting pressure on the Cabinet or the government to relent on its initial resolve to close the Israeli embassy, Lamola said the authority to decide on the possible closure of the Israeli embassy in South Africa rests solely with the Cabinet. 'Cabinet has to undergo its internal processes, which it will be undergoing to deal with this matter, and it is being processed. 'It will be processed objectively, in line with the South African constitution, with no external pressure to be exerted on the South African government by any forces or anyone. The South African government will act within its sovereignty to make decisions informed by facts, policies, the Constitution, the National Development Plan, and national interests,' he said. Asked whether his department has considered other measures like economic sanctions against Israel as part of intensifying pressure against the continued Israeli attacks and aggression against Palestine, Lamola said the matter will require the Cabinet to deliberate on whether to exert economic sanctions and any other pressures that may need to be executed. 'But the South African government will continue to support the work that has been done by other countries. The European Union, its member states, have also begun to sanction some of the leaders of the Israeli regime in terms of economic sanctions, and also some countries like those in the G-7 have announced this type of measures.' He explained that the existing decision that has been taken relates to taking the Israeli government to the International Court of Justice. Lamola also said economic sanctions against Israel will require all countries to play a role through various instruments. 'The wheel is coming to a full cycle with all member countries of the UN, either putting economic sanctions, political pressure through diplomatic channels, and we are leading the legal route of the process. So there is a contribution by many member states of the UN to continue to exert the necessary pressure to stop the ongoing genocide by the Israel Defense Force.' Pressed on whether cutting diplomatic ties with Israel effectively disqualified South Africa from playing any mediating role in the much-needed peace process, Lamola said that as the Cabinet was processing the matter, all factors would be considered. 'But the resolution we are talking about is because it is a parliamentary resolution which the Cabinet is duty-bound to consider within the principle, obviously, of the separation of powers. 'We will look into all the facts and all the prevailing circumstances and present a way forward.' He said South Africa's position with regard to the two-state solution was firmly remaining. 'We continue with that position in the various platforms of the United Nations. We continue to argue for a reason for cessation of hostilities, for the Israel Defense Force to stop its military operation in Gaza and the West Bank. We continue to call for humanitarian access to the people of Gaza and the West Bank. We continue to call for an immediate dialogue and cessation of fire that must lead to engagement towards the two-state solution,' Lamola added. First published by IOL
Russia Today
8 hours ago
- Russia Today
African state condemns Israeli strikes on Iran
Algeria's Foreign Minister Ahmed Attaf held a phone conversation with his Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi, on Monday. During the call, Attaf reaffirmed Algeria's firm condemnation of the Israeli attacks on Iran. Attaf called the Israeli strikes an 'aggression,' emphasizing the urgent need for the UN Security Council to intervene and uphold the principles of the UN Charter and international law. Algeria's Foreign Ministry earlier released a statement accusing Israel of pursuing 'a policy based on the illusion of ensuring its own security and stability at the expense of that of its neighbors,' starting with the Palestinians and extending to surrounding countries 'without exception.' During the Monday phone call, Araghchi briefed Attaf on the aftermath of the Israeli airstrikes, which he said posed an ongoing threat to the stability and security of the wider Middle East, according to the Algerian Foreign Ministry's statement. The conversation took place days after Israeli warplanes launched a series of coordinated attacks across Iran, targeting critical infrastructure – including a uranium enrichment site in Natanz, and assassinated several senior military commanders and nuclear scientists. Iran responded by firing dozens of ballistic missiles into Israel. The Israeli strikes have drawn sharp rebukes from several African governments. South Africa, which has brought genocide charges against Israel over its military campaign in Gaza, said the attacks on Iranian soil raised serious legal questions about sovereignty and territorial integrity. Egypt also criticized the operation, describing it as an 'extremely dangerous regional escalation' and 'a blatant' violation of international norms. Meanwhile, Sudan's transitional government has ordered the immediate evacuation of its nationals from Iran. According to the Sudan News Agency, Prime Minister Kamil Idriss issued the directive during a phone conversation with Sudan's ambassador in Tehran, Abdel Aziz Hassan Salih, on Saturday. Sudan earlier criticized Israel for its 'unjust aggression' against Iran, calling it a 'serious threat' to international peace and security.
