For a minister who seems confident when it comes to anything Israel related, Minister Naledi Pandor is less assured when it regards other international matters. Like Iran or Russia. Or Isis. Or Hamas. When questioned about pesky details of human rights concerns related to these players, she seems a tad uncertain. To say the least.
No different to when she was addressing the apprehensions about her rumoured ties to Iran and Hamas. On 6 February she stated: “You know that they say that I take orders from Iran and that I am a supporter of ISIS. I don’t even know what ISIS stands for.”
Really? Where the answer might be an acceptable for others, as the Minister of the International Cooperation this is less than adequate. And if this was an attempt at flippancy, then the minister should be assured that there is nothing funny about Isis and their activities: especially if there are concerns around their presence as well as their financing in South Africa.
In addition, not one South African has been prosecuted for having joined and fought for Isis. And yet, with some glee, the same minister seemed to delight in warning that South Africans who have served in the Israeli Defence Force, would be “arrested” on their return to South Africa. As an aside, she seemed to forget that the decision to do so, rests with the NPA and not her department. But that is for another day.
The minister is currently in the United States where she continues her focused campaign against the Jewish state. Her inconsistent approach has not been missed by commentators around the world.
When challenged on the inconsistency in terms of Russia and Iran, she once again became less assured. More specially: When asked if Iran was an “authoritarian state”, she answered that she was “not aware” if it was authoritarian and that she “didn’t have that definition in her own logbook”. Considering her visit to Iran soon after the 7 October attacks on Israel, it does seem a wasted opportunity that she didn’t brush up on those definitions whilst she was there.
For clarity, whether it was entered into her elusive “log” book or not, Iran is a theocracy, where an unelected Guardian Council decides who may stand for elections based on their loyalty to the Islamic regime.
Feigned naivety might work successfully for others in lesser political positions, but when it comes to Pandor, it is perceived as deliberate obfuscation. Which makes us wonder: What it is that the minister has to hide in this regard?
The South African position is no less confusing when it comes to Russia. On 20 March 2024 the X account of South Africa’s president Cyril Ramaphosa tweeted, “PRESIDENT RAMAPHOSA CONGRATULATES PRESIDENT PUTIN ON HIS RE-ELECTION His Excellency President
has, on behalf of the Government and people of South Africa, congratulated the President of the Russian Federation, His Excellency Vladimir Putin, for his re-election to the position of President of the Russian Federation. This was apparently tweeted without a shred of irony and seemingly without awareness that the Russian “election” was not quite of a standard that would be hoped for. We unfortunately can’t ask Navalny for his view.
But Russia, like Iran, like Cuba, like criminals, like Omar Al Bashir, like Hamas appear to get a free pass when it comes to the ANC. Minister Naledi Pandor has made many of these comments when visiting various community gatherings. The sum total of her interaction with the Jewish leadership of the community (the SA Jewish Board of Deputies), was refusing to greet or shake their hands at the Presidential meeting. Despite assurances at the Presidential meeting that she would help South Africans in Israel following the immediate closure of the embassy in Israel on 17 November, a system has still not been put in place.
As the daily morning talk show host on the Jewish community radio station ChaiFm, I have invited DIRCO to engage with us a number of times. Unfortunately, they have either refused to do so, or ignored our messages. And yet the minister seems to take many an opportunity to visit other communities where she knows her position will be better received.
That said, I continue to invite the minister to a conversation with me. A conversation that (on my side) will be respectful, fair and real. It will be one where she will be heard, where she will be challenged, but where the listeners will be left to make up their own mind on the discussion.
It is reasonable to say that the South African Jewish community has little expectation of the ANC. The party’s reaction to 7 October made it painfully clear that any pretence of concern or care was just that: pretence. But most of the community still has an expectation of consistency and fair handedness, and does not expect the government to continue a campaign that places them at risk for increased isolation, antisemitism and of targeting.
If current trends are to be seen as a prediction of the future, the ANC can expect to be held publicly to account, to be called out and demanded to answer to what is perceived as their hypocritical and dangerous stance. It is a dubious international approach that not only endangers the Jewish community, but all of South Africa.
