By Howard Feldman
It’s better not to start what you can’t finish. If that isn’t a proverb, it should be. And it is worth considering as it applies to pretty much anything, because whereas there might exist a choice at some point, there often is a time when events and consequences take over … and control is lost.
Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour in December of 1941 is a good example.
Hamas’ attack of 7 October is another. With more than a 1 000 people (mostly civilians) killed by Hamas, with hostages taken and reports of mass rape, what followed was always going to be significant. It would be aggressive and would always result in the loss of innocent lives along with the destruction of Gaza.
War is brutal. And there is good reason that nations consider the consequences and repercussion before starting one.
In the same way, South Africa’s Minister of International Relations and Cooperation and her department should have considered what would likely follow their scathing accusation and launching of a case of genocide against Israel.
No one likes to be called genocidal. More so at a time of immense pain and at a time when the existential threat of a group like Hamas has not yet been fully contained and more so as they have denied the release of the hostages and have unashamedly and publicly committed to repeating the acts of 7 October over and over and over.
Israel is at war not only against Hamas, but also against Iran and their proxy Hezbollah, as well as the Houthis in Yemen (also sponsored by Iran). The Israeli government is under enormous internal pressure to provide answers to Israelis as to how 7 October could ever have been allowed to happen, and under pressure by the families and friends of the hostages to find a way to bring them home. To ask a nation fighting for their survival to turn their attention away and respond to an accusation in The Hague, is to rub more salt into the wound than that contained in the entire Dead Sea.
Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour was always going to draw the USA into the second world war. The consequence of Hamas’ attack and taking of hostages was always going to be a war in Gaza, much like the attack by South Africa on Israel on their credibility will always be countered with a reciprocal attack on credibility.
Pandor will have known that, which is why she and President Ramaphosa are launching a preemptive strike.
Standing on the steps outside during the State of the Nation address by President Ramaphosa, Pandor claimed that Israel intelligence and their “agents” are attacking her and her family on social media. She claims to have asked the police minister for more security and without details suggested that “this is how they behave”.
“I felt that [it would] be better if we had extra security. But what I’m more concerned about is my family, because in some of the social media messages my children are mentioned and so on, but this is par for the course. The Israeli agents, the intelligence services, [this] is how they behave, and they seek to intimidate you, so we must not be intimidated. There is a cause that is under way.”
Ironically in doing this, she was displaying how she and the ANC behave.
Pandor’s claims come after Ramaphosa spoke of a possible pushback against South Africa which may focus on its domestic politics and its electoral outcomes to bring about a “regime change”. In essence, he was accusing Israel, a sovereign state, in advance, of interfering with the election that was still to be announced, thereby placing Israel in the impossible position of disproving something that it has not yet done.
The minister’s accusation is beneath her. Vague and without substance, it would be surprising if the consequence of her actions would result in “agents” taking to social media to intimidate her. Social media is often an awful place, and anyone with a stomach to go through some of the messages I receive on X, as a supporter of Israel, could say the same thing.
No. I believe that the response that the minister fears – or is anticipating – is much greater. I believe that just as Israel’s credibility has been attacked by the ANC, the counter is likely to be the strategy. Things like Dirco’s relationship with Hamas, connection to Iran and personal agendas are more likely to surface than name calling on social media.