SA maintains Israeli embassy to keep a diplomatic presence: Paul Mashatile
In 2023, MPs voted in favour of closing down the Israeli embassy due to its attacks in Gaza. The same year, thousands of protesters marched and called on President Cyril Ramaphosa to shut down the embassy.
South Africa took Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing Israel of genocide against Palestinians.
Mashatile said: 'One of the challenges we had, we wanted to have a presence in that region and we decided that if we close their embassy, they will close ours and that locks us out of a region where we want to have a presence to be able to engage.
'Some people might say you don't have to be there physically but we felt let's leave room for now to be able to engage because that region is important for us.
'We want to see the people of Palestine having their independence. We have been supporting them and that is why we went to the ICJ.'
Mashatile said the government was not ignoring parliament but had to consider what it needed to do to put pressure on Israel.
'We continue to do that [put pressure on Israel]. Even in Russia [where Mashatile went on a working visit this month], this is a matter we were discussing with other leaders — Indonesia, China who were with us there — to say how do we manage this situation.
'President [Vladimir] Putin in particular was accused of abandoning Iran and people were saying, 'Iran are your friends, are you not helping them?' and he was saying 'I am engaging them' ... there is a particular way that sometimes leaders turned to do things, so one could have expected that maybe because Russia is a friend of Iran they are going to run in there to try to be on the side of Iran but they tried a different approach of engaging both sides to say there can be peaceful resolution of this problem.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
5 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
GNU remains committed to transformation agenda, says Ramaphosa
Taking questions in the National Council of Provinces on Wednesday, President Cyril Ramaphosa was bullish about the Government of National Unity's commitment to transformation. President Cyril Ramaphosa says while parties in the Government of National Unity (GNU) may differ on certain policy issues, 'the fundamental commitment to the GNU's transformational agenda remains in place. 'At a broader level, through the Statement of Intent, which was signed by various parties as part of the Government of National Unity, we are committed to translate the values of our Constitution into focus — particularly with regard to the achievement of social justice, redress and equity. That is what we all signed up for when we entered into the Government of National Unity,' Ramaphosa told delegates in the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) on Wednesday, 25 June. He was responding to a question from the DA's Nicolaas Pienaar on whether, with reference to his recent working visit to the United States, he conceded that the GNU had to rework its Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) policies to attract more international investment. Ramaphosa said Pretoria's visit to the US had not focused on BEE. But not before poking fun at the Oval Office meeting with US President Donald Trump, in which Trump dimmed the lights to show a video splicing EFF leader Julius Malema's rendition of 'Dubul' Ibhunu' and AfriForum's white-cross farm protests to 'prove' his false claims of a genocide in SA. 'I would've thought that we would not be making any reference to the United States, but, be that as it may, I'm rather pleased that the lights here have not been dimmed, because any act of dimming lights continues to worry me,' said Ramaphosa. He continued: 'Our visit to the United States did not focus on issues of Black Economic Empowerment. It focused on resetting our relationship with the United States and ensuring that we continue to open conversations with our major trading partners, and our commitment to Black Economic Empowerment — as expressed through various policy documents and statements — remains steadfast.' The issue of BEE has once again become increasingly prominent for reasons involving the Trump administration's focus on SA's transformation policies and the recent publication of a B-BBEE policy direction that could allow Elon Musk's Starlink internet service provider to operate in the country without ceding ownership. At the same time, the DA, a GNU partner and SA's second-largest party, is challenging section 15A of the Employment Equity Amendment Act in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, arguing it violates section 9 of the Constitution by enabling discrimination based on race. The DA's legal challenges to key pieces of legislation the ANC believes will further transformation, such as the Employment Equity Act, National Health Insurance, the Expropriation Act and the Basic Laws Amendment Act, have highlighted divisions within the GNU. Last month, Ramaphosa defended South Africa's redress policies in Parliament, arguing it was not BEE holding South Africa's economy back but exclusive ownership. Transformation should be seen as a 'national project' Echoing his previous comments, Ramaphosa on Wednesday said that SA needn't choose between transformation and economic growth. 'We must dispense with the false notion that we must make a choice between transformation and growth. Black Economic Empowerment is not only compatible with investment and growth, but is essential to the achievement of broad-based growth, as well as prosperity. It must be seen as a process through which we take measures — direct measures — to bring those who were excluded from economic activity into the economic mainstream. 'To think that it will happen on its own, when in the past measures were taken — including laws [that] were passed to ensure that only a minority benefits — we would be deceiving ourselves,' he said. Ramaphosa said that although the government had made progress on transformation 'across a range of measures, … we can do better. 'As with any other policy, we must constantly assess whether we are achieving our goals and whether we are making the improvements that we wanted. 'Various departments in our government, including the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition, are continuing to review the various measures that are in place, to align these with the priorities of our government in ensuring that we have industrialisation, inclusive growth and also that we facilitate access to finance for emerging black-owned and managed enterprises,' he said. Transformation, he said, should be seen 'as a national project'. 'It should never be seen as a project that belongs to just a few amongst us. All of us must be involved in this, including those who benefited under the previous system. They must be seen to be actively involved in advancing the system of all, because failing to do so could lead to lack of growth in our economy — it could lead to reversals. So all hands — black and white — must be on deck to promote transformation in our country, to enable all South Africans to play a role in the economy of their country,' he said. Starlink deal In an appearance before Parliament last month, following his department's publication of the policy direction that could significantly alter the way SA regulates empowerment in the information and communication technology sector, Communications and Digital Technologies Minister Solly Malatsi maintained the direction was not giving Starlink 'special dispensation'. The proposed direction provides communications licence applicants with a workaround to a rule in the Electronic Communications Act that requires licence-holders to be 30% owned by historically disadvantaged groups. Musk has previously criticised SA's ownership laws ad nauseam. This is the main barrier that has prevented Starlink from applying for a licence to operate in South Africa, as it does not comply with the rule, according to a News24 report. Malatsi faced backlash from several MPs, who called for the withdrawal of the proposal, which has been published for public comment. On Wednesday, Ramaphosa said that as far as he was concerned, Malatsi had not violated any of the country's laws in publishing the policy direction. 'There are going to be hearings — there are going to be public hearings — where our people will make inputs on the efficacy of what he has announced. What he has announced is very much in line with our laws. There is no violation as far as he's concerned and as far as I'm concerned with regard to our laws, and it's not specifically aimed at one or any company,' said Ramaphosa. He said the policy direction was aimed at ensuring that those who wanted to participate in this process 'may find greater ease to do so', and it was also aimed at 'synchronising that communications [legislation]' with other laws. DM
Daily Maverick
5 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Not the Iran we thought it was — what has changed in the Persian Gulf?
On paper, it looked like a mismatch. Iran is not only one of the oldest and most established countries in the Persian Gulf but also at least 75 times the size of Israel, with a population nine to 10 times larger. Size for size, it's a modern-day David and Goliath match-up, with ancient history squarely on Iran's side. At the height of its reign, especially under Cyrus the Great (559-530 BC), the Persian Empire, modern-day Iran, extended as far as Egypt, and its military might was unassailable. In more contemporary times, Iran defended itself against the aggression of Saddam Hussein during the eight-year Iran-Iraq War. Sudden tide Yet, since 12 June 2025, when Israel struck Iran's nuclear site and killed at least 14 atomic scientists and 16 top military officers, Iran's response has been something of a damp squib. A leaked intelligence report by the White House suggests that, but for US President Donald Trump's intervention, Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, might have been killed in the recent Israeli strikes. In response, a barrage of Iranian missiles was fired on Tel Aviv and Haifa, with civilian casualties. Perhaps this has been the most significant dent in Israel's defence system in the last five decades. However, the response has been far below the notion of Iran as a nation of warriors and the potential nemesis of its precocious neighbour, especially after the fall of Syria's Hafez al-Assad. Things got so bad for Tehran that, at one point, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even claimed that Israel was 'in full control of the Iranian skies', which Tehran could not deny. What happened? How did mighty Iran lose its military footing so calamitously? The weakening of Iran's military strength is not as sudden as it appears. It is the result of years of isolation and economic sanctions, driven mainly by three suspicions: One, that the Shia variety of Islam (and its allied franchises) subscribed to by Iran's ruling elite is the mainstay of radical and extremist terror groups; two, that it is the main sponsor of at least two radical Islamic groups and arch-enemies of Israel — Hamas (in Gaza) and Hezbollah (in Lebanon); and three, that its nuclear enrichment programme is not for peace, but for war. All three points are interlinked, and by 2015, the lack of progress on the third one saw the imposition of economic sanctions by the US, Britain and France, among others, targeting and undermining Iran's receipts from oil sales and weakening its economy. But Iran remained a major military force despite the sanctions. It cultivated closer ties with China and Russia, made desperate attempts to diversify its economy and used fronts to sell its oil. Burden of history All this time, Netanyahu wanted to strike. He pressured the US to tighten the screws on Tehran and maybe back a pre-emptive Israeli strike, but his repeated claim that Iran was only 'months … or even weeks' from the final stages of getting the bomb, was met with scepticism, if not indifference, by the Democratic White House. After the debacle in Iraq, where the US lost more than 900 troops and spent over $2-trillion based on faulty intelligence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, no Democratic president, whether Barack Obama or Joe Biden, had the appetite for another full-scale war in the Persian Gulf without a convincing reason. Then, two events altered the dynamics of power and politics in the Persian Gulf. Hamas, long regarded as Iran's proxy, attacked Israel on 7 October 2023, killing about 1,200 people and abducting more than 250. This act of terror not only transformed moderate elements in Israeli politics, it also further hardened extremists like Netanyahu, who vowed to crush Hamas and Hezbollah and make Iran pay a heavy price. Trump factor When Trump was elected president, one year after the Israeli-Hamas war broke out, his brand of tweet-and-deal-making diplomacy, not to mention his close ties with Netanyahu, meant that Iran was on very thin ice. The stalemate in negotiations between Iran and the nuclear inspectors, including the expulsion of the veteran International Atomic Energy Agency officials, further raised suspicions about Iran's claims that its nuclear programme was for peaceful purposes. Yet some argued that Tehran's reluctance to cooperate and its rigmarole were merely bargaining chips to ease sanctions and repair its moribund economy, that it was still a long way from the bomb. Even though The Wall Street Journal reported recently that US intelligence still doubted Netanyahu's claims about Iran's nuclear enrichment, Tehran appears to have played all its cards, and the days of the old regime may be numbered. Pre-emptive or not? With Trump mulling direct US involvement in the war, I asked a source in the Israeli Foreign Ministry on Monday, 23 June whether the US bombing of Iran was a pre-emptive strike, a move that the Nigerian government had condemned in a statement. 'It is not a pre-emptive strike,' the source replied. 'It is a targeted military operation to remove a concrete threat after the pre-established period of negotiations has elapsed. The objectives have been set: the nuclear programme and the ballistic capabilities.' What has changed Here is how Israel systematically weakened and significantly degraded Iran's military capacity, especially in the last two years, forcing the mullahs in Tehran to shelter behind the veil in what may prove to be a decisive new phase in the war in one of the world's most troubled regions. One, Iran's regional allies — Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Al-Assad in Syria — have either been neutralised, rooted out or forced to flee. The pager attack by Israel on Hezbollah members and affiliates in Lebanon and Syria last September was particularly devastating. At least 42 people were killed and 3,500 injured when their booby-trapped pagers exploded, revealing a major breach in Hezbollah's security, causing panic in high places in Iran. Although the Houthis of Yemen have occasionally threatened security in the region, they have also been significantly contained or dispersed, making Iran even more isolated and vulnerable. Two, Israel has carried out precise strikes on Iran's military leadership, assassinating, among others, the chief of the general staff of Iran's armed forces, General Mohammad Hossein Bagheri, who was only a heartbeat from Supreme Leader Khamenei. The country's air defence system has been degraded, and even though it has managed to fire hundreds of missiles toward Israel, their potency and impact have been largely limited. Third, the economic sanctions have limited Tehran's ability to modernise its military. At the same time, support from its main ally, Russia, has been curtailed by Russia's ongoing war with Ukraine, leaving Tehran largely on its own. Unlikely mediators It's an irony that, in its moment of travail, Iran is now looking to Qatar and Egypt, two countries that it has long despised, for mediation with Israel and the US. Netanyahu still has to answer for the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, and hopefully, that should keep him on a tight leash. After centuries of military, cultural and geopolitical conquests, is the sun finally about to set on the 'Gunpowder Empire?' Or is there still one magic spell left under the mullahs' turbans? DM
Eyewitness News
7 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
Ramaphosa defends new regulations for global companies looking to do business in SA
CAPE TOWN - President Cyril Ramaphosa has defended new regulations that won't require global companies like Starlink to hand over 30% ownership when doing business in South Africa. He said regulations introduced by the Communications Minister, Solly Malatsi, on 'equity equivalence', as opposed to transferring shares to local owners, were permitted by law. Ramaphosa was answering questions in the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) on Wednesday, where he was quizzed about transformation and Elon Musk's company Starlink, which has been critical of the country's Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) laws. The first citizen was questioned by the Democratic Alliance (DA)'s Nicolaas Pienaar on whether he would commit to supporting investments like Starlink, which is yet to be granted a licence in the country. 'Will the President commit to supporting investments of this nature without requiring businesses to hand over 30% of their companies?' Ramaphosa said the new regulations on equity equivalence, which is investment without share ownership, should be welcomed, as the government tries to find new ways to trigger investment without doing away with transformation. 'If you're not able to have joint ownership, we want equity equivalence. That will help to address the injustices of the past.' He said several companies invested in the country had welcomed this and were actively participating in transforming the economy and had committed to investing more money. ALSO READ: ICASA again probing Musk's Starlink for allegedly operating illegally in SA
