History will not tolerate Israel regime's deception
In response to the remarks made by one of the representatives of the Zionist regime in The Citizen newspaper dated 14 July, 2025, the embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Pretoria deems it necessary to share the following points with the vigilant people of South Africa and public opinion.
First and foremost, this statement is a response to the comments made by a representative of a terrorist and child-killing regime; a regime that, in just the past 20 months, has systematically massacred innocent people, including thousands of Palestinian women and children.
The ongoing daily genocide in the Gaza Strip committed by this regime is a stain on humanity and a clear sign of state fascism in the modern era.
The use of starvation as a weapon against the people of Gaza is another inhumane tactic employed by this apartheid entity, clearly in violation of international humanitarian law.
A regime that itself admits to possessing illegal nuclear arsenals, is not a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and escapes international oversight with the backing of certain Western powers, has not the slightest legitimacy to comment on other countries.
ALSO READ: Is GNU to blame for Powell's resignation as DA's international relations spokesperson?
The remarks of this Zionist official are a desperate attempt to divert public attention from the widespread crimes and ongoing genocide against the people of Palestine. This effort is not only baseless but also morally bankrupt and unacceptable.
In this context, it is worth recalling that the direct aggression by the Zionist terrorist regime against the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran on 13 June, 2025 – carried out with the support and coordination of the US – led to the martyrdom of more than 1 100 Iranian civilians, including women, children, university professors, doctors and members of the media and emergency services.
Over 6 000 others were injured, many of whom were women and children.
These illegal strikes also targeted Iran's peaceful nuclear facilities, which are fully under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency and have always remained transparent and compliant with international obligations.
Iran has never sought nuclear weapons and continues to cooperate with global mechanisms.
ALSO READ: Hamas delegation travels to Turkey as Gaza ceasefire talks falter
What has been done by the Zionist regime and the US against Iran constitutes a blatant act of aggression.
In accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, Iran exercised its legitimate right to self-defence and responded to the aggression with calculated precision.
Iran's determined response not only disrupted the Israel's military calculus but reaffirmed its strategic resilience and commitment to international law.
The record of the Zionist regime speaks for itself.
Over the past eight decades, Israel has carried out more than 3 000 terrorist operations inside and outside of the occupied territories.
ALSO READ: Trump contradicts Netanyahu, Palestinians in Gaza facing 'real starvation' [VIDEO]
As a result of its crimes, more than seven million Palestinians have been displaced and made refugees, hundreds of thousands have been killed and over one million Palestinians have been imprisoned.
In just the past 21 months, nearly 200 000 individuals – mostly women and children – have been killed or wounded in Gaza.
Moreover, over 40 000 residential areas and infrastructure sites have been destroyed or severely damaged.
Iran has always defended the rights of all nations to self-determination and has called for a fair and democratic resolution to the Palestinian crisis through a referendum involving all original inhabitants of the land, regardless of religion or ethnicity.
In this regard, Iran is the voice of the oppressed – not seeking imposition, but justice.
ALSO READ: Food arrives in Gaza after Israel pauses some fighting
Not seeking domination, but equity.
The Israel regime attempts to reverse the roles of oppressor and oppressed through false victimhood, but its hideous face is already known to the world and history will not tolerate such deception.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Eyewitness News
6 minutes ago
- Eyewitness News
Gauteng govt confident City of Joburg will host successful G20 Summit
JOHANNESBURG - The Gauteng government said it was confident that the City of Johannesburg would host a successful G20 leaders summit in November, as the troubled municipality prepares for the massive meeting of global leaders. The comments come after the Democratic Alliance (DA) in Joburg again raised concerns about the city not being ready for the global event, which takes place in less than three months. Heads of states and diplomats from across the world are expected to descend on South Africa for the summit, with Johannesburg the host city for the main event. At a media briefing in Midrand on Sunday, Gauteng Premier Panyaza Lesufi released a state of readiness report for the City of Johannesburg and other municipalities that will also be hosting some G20 side events. Lesufi said the report tracked the progress of issues that need to be fixed and how far each municipality was at resolving them. "The M2 between Midrand and Sandton, it was a dark city. The main road, the lights are there now. If you come from OR Tambo on the R24, the lights are back. If you check the grass cutting, we are almost at 70%. My only limitatation, and I have emphasised it to the mayors, I don't want to do this for G20, im doing it for the citizens of Gauteng. It's just that we are hosting this important event but we must go beyond G20 and sustain this."
IOL News
32 minutes ago
- IOL News
Call for Msunduzi councillor to be suspended following gun incident in council chamber
The Msunduzi Municipality Image: Doctor Ngcobo Independent Newspapers A call has been made for an ANC councillor in the Msunduzi Municipality to be suspended after he allegedly walked into the council chamber during a meeting with a gun. The incident occurred at the City Hall last Wednesday. The DA and the EFF said there is a pressing need to evaluate and overhaul the security at City Hall. While the African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) councillor described the act as criminal in terms of council procedures and shocking. The City Hall building houses, among other key offices, the chamber, the mayor's office and the municipal manager's office, and it used to accommodate the offices of some members of the executive committee. DA councillor Garth Middleton said the party was demanding the immediate suspension of the councillor in question and the urgent institution of disciplinary processes that must lead to his removal. 'During a full sitting of the Msunduzi Municipal Council, a deeply disturbing and dangerous incident unfolded before councillors, senior officials, and notably, the Speaker of Council herself. 'An ANC ward councillor was seen to be armed with a firearm inside the council chambers — a space designated for constructive governance, not intimidation or acts that border on militarisation.' 'This conduct is a flagrant violation of the Councillors' Code of Conduct, particularly Chapter 11.41.4, which expressly prohibits the carrying of weapons within council premises. When the matter was raised, as the ANC councillor exited the chamber, the Speaker merely remarked, 'It's been dealt with,' providing no clarity or assurance to the council or the public,' Middleton continued. He stated that this response was grossly inadequate and suggested a dangerous pattern of impunity. 'Council chambers are spaces for robust debate, often marked by passionate disagreements. Introducing weapons into this environment puts every councillor, staff member, and official at direct risk. Are we now to fear for our lives while serving our residents?' He added that this incident was even more serious, as people from the councillor's ward had been protesting outside the council meeting. ACDP's Rienus Niemand stated that they found the act to be intimidating. He said he was also taken aback by the attempt to suppress any action to deal with the matter. 'The Rules of Order are promulgated law and clearly prohibit such actions. The ACDP insisted that the matter be addressed by the relevant authorities. It is particularly concerning that while the councillor was violating the law in the council chamber, there was a protest meeting outside the chamber held by members of the same councillor's ward,' he stated. Niemand added that the ACDP condemns intimidation and illegal actions by elected office bearers and will ensure that the ANC and its misbehaving members are brought to book. EFF councillor Chuma Wakeni said they have called for an investigation into the matter. 'We want to know how it is possible for the councillor to go from the parking lot all the way to the council chamber with a gun. We want an investigation conducted into the security because the council chamber is a gun-free zone.' He added that what was also troubling was the reason the councillor had a gun: 'There was a protest against him, and he was being heckled by community members, so (apparently) he was carrying a gun to protect himself against the people he represents. We had to call on the Speaker to ensure that the councillor does not harm the residents.' The municipality had not responded to a request for comment by the time of publication. THE MERCURY
IOL News
32 minutes ago
- IOL News
The Empire's New Script: Daily Maverick's Ukraine Article and the Commodification of Black Suffering
Gillian Schutte analyses how Daily Maverick's portrayal of the Ukraine conflict aligns with Western narratives, while neglecting the complexities of the situation and the commodification of Black suffering. Image: IOL / Ron AI Editorial Alignment and the Disappearing Context The article by Ukrainian Ambassador Liubov Abravitova, published in Daily Maverick, follows a familiar trajectory. It recycles NATO-aligned discourse under the cover of international law and moral concern, while omitting the layered political conditions surrounding the Ukraine conflict. Editorially, the piece settles into a pattern—endorsing diplomatic talking points as journalism, with no critical engagement or alternative framing. While Daily Maverick positions itself as independent, its pages increasingly echo the language of Western foreign policy briefings. The ambassador draws attention to Russia's March 2025 decree compelling residents in contested territories to accept Russian citizenship or leave. This is described as forced naturalisation, a phrase lifted from the Crimea discourse post-2014. The framing ignores the collapse of Ukrainian governance in these regions, where local populations have faced prolonged exclusion from state services and civil protection. In such conditions, administrative procedures around citizenship become entangled with survival, rather than forming part of a premeditated identity erasure campaign. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova stated on July 16 that 78% of Donetsk residents had applied for Russian passports prior to the 2025 decree. She also noted that it was Ukraine that first revoked their legal documents in 2019, creating a condition of statelessness. Denis Pushilin, head of the Donetsk administration, confirmed that over 412,000 passport applications had been filed since 2019. He characterised these as acts of necessity from a population abandoned by its state and subjected to years of shelling. The ambassador's article remains silent on this timeline. The suggestion that those who decline Russian citizenship are denied services or threatened with expulsion is presented as a given, yet demands closer interrogation. On July 18, Russia's Human Rights Commissioner Tatyana Moskalkova stated that services such as pensions, education, and healthcare—cut off by Ukraine since 2014—had been restored by Russia. She cited a 2023 census indicating a 94% increase in service accessibility. The article makes no mention of Ukraine's 2017 Cabinet Decision #365, which halted pension payments to these populations, nor the 2019 language law (Article 7), which eliminated Russian-language education. The absence of such details distorts the motives behind passport acquisition, and in doing so, misrepresents the nature of power in these contested zones. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading Legal Rhetoric as Soft Power Strategy Legal arguments based on the Geneva Conventions feature heavily in the ambassador's narrative. Yet Geneva IV, Article 49, makes allowance for administrative action aimed at stabilising conditions in areas under military occupation. Vyacheslav Lebedev, Chair of the Russian Constitutional Court, has referenced this provision in support of the state's legal position—namely, that restoring local governance and documentation systems after Ukraine's retreat complies with international law. This interpretation is absent from the article, as is any reference to the broader jurisprudential debates surrounding conflict governance. President Vladimir Putin, responding on July 19 to international criticism, framed the humanitarian measures in these regions as necessary interventions. He remarked that Kyiv's government had subjected these communities to years of bombardment and deprivation while withdrawing their pensions and dismantling their hospitals. The historical record cited here is not addressed in Daily Maverick's editorial framing. The reader is left with a flattened timeline, in which Russia emerges as the sole aggressor and Ukraine as a passive victim. Abravitova's argument draws selectively from international conventions to characterise Russian legal policy as a weapon of war. There is no attempt to locate the policy within a broader geopolitical context. No reference is made to the 2014 US- and EU-backed coup in Ukraine, the repression of Russian-speaking populations in the east, or the years of NATO encroachment along Russia's borders. These factors are foundational, not peripheral, to understanding the trajectory of the war. Their omission renders the legal claims superficial—divorced from the material dynamics that shape the conflict. In practice, legal discourse becomes instrumentalised. Its invocation has less to do with principle than with narrative management. Misappropriation of South African Memory The ambassador also attempts to draw a parallel between Russia's citizenship policies and the apartheid-era creation of Bantustan citizenship in South Africa. This manoeuvre is emotionally calculated. It activates a deep well of Black historical trauma to fabricate an imagined solidarity between Ukrainian nationalism and African anti-colonial resistance. Such a comparison is politically incoherent. The architecture of the apartheid Bantustan system was built to forcibly erase African citizenship, enforce territorial fragmentation, and uphold white supremacy through administrative disenfranchisement. No such system operates in eastern Ukraine. To deploy this metaphor in the service of a NATO-aligned nationalist state is a profound distortion of Black South African memory. The reference does not clarify—it manipulates. It instrumentalises racial pain to secure moral capital for a state firmly embedded in the Western military and financial bloc. Daily Maverick enables this appropriation by providing a platform devoid of counter-analysis. The publication facilitates diplomatic theatre while denying space to voices grounded in multipolar perspectives, historical analysis, or anti-imperialist frameworks. The South African reader is shepherded toward a fixed moral interpretation: Russia is the villain, and Ukraine represents a parallel to their own liberation history. This curated moral arc collapses under scrutiny. The Zelenskyy regime has banned opposition parties, shut down media organisations, criminalised dissent, and instituted forced conscription. Reports from Ukraine reveal citizens being abducted from public spaces, hospitals, and workplaces. These are not isolated incidents but systemic practices in a state under internal siege. The article makes no mention of these authoritarian measures. There is no reflection on the closure of political space, the criminalisation of peace advocacy, or the role of Western donors in sustaining a government that cannot claim democratic legitimacy through free and fair public contestation. Civil society in Ukraine has been hollowed out under the pretext of war. International law, in this context, is selectively applied. States aligned with Western interests are immunised from scrutiny, while geopolitical opponents are subjected to universal moral codes retrofitted to match political objectives. Manufactured Consent and the Limits of Maverick Dissent The ambassador continues by appealing to the notion of a 'rules-based international order'. This phrase—like 'democratic values' or 'responsible actors'—has long been rendered void by the very powers who invoke it. States that preside over illegal wars, sanctions regimes, and coup operations still claim to uphold global rules. Ukraine operates within that system of protection. It is treated as a partner by virtue of its strategic position, not its internal democratic practices. The double standard is institutionalised. The architecture of international law becomes a tool for maintaining hierarchy, not justice. Daily Maverick has taken on the tone of advocacy while relinquishing its journalistic duty to interrogate power. Its editorial choices favour performance over critical engagement. The platform increasingly replicates the worldview of the donor class, aligning with Euro-American interpretations of global conflict and offering no substantial challenge to the ideological premises embedded within them. South Africans are not obliged to adopt these narratives. The war in Ukraine cannot be reduced to simplistic binaries or emotive allegories. It must be understood in relation to NATO's expansionist project, the geopolitical repositioning of post-Soviet space, and the erosion of non-aligned internationalism. The rhetoric of human rights and legality is deployed in this context not as a means to achieve justice, but to consolidate allegiance. Ukraine has become a conduit for that project. And media outlets across the Global South are being pulled into the orbit of soft power operations disguised as journalism. This moment demands lucidity. Russia's actions emerge from a long history of encirclement and diplomatic betrayal. The war itself is a symptom of an unresolved struggle over sovereignty, balance of power, and the future of global order. South Africa's own history contains lessons here—about neutrality, non-alignment, and resistance to imperial scripts. The refusal to take sides in a conflict shaped by Western designs is not cowardice. It is memory made strategic. It is a principled refusal to be drafted into someone else's war. Daily Maverick has chosen to participate in this performance of alignment. It elevates moral spectacle over political insight. South Africans deserve better. They deserve access to analysis rooted in their histories, their positionalities, and their lived understanding of global power. Liberation movements were never built on the repetition of dominant narratives. They emerged from the courage to reject them. That same courage remains necessary—perhaps more than ever. Gillian Schutte analyses how Daily Maverick's portrayal of the Ukraine conflict aligns with Western narratives, while neglecting the complexities of the situation and the commodification of Black suffering. Image: IOL
