No doubt South Africa stands solidly with th Palestinian people.

The ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, particularly the war in Gaza involving Hamas, has divided global opinion. 

While Western powers—especially the United States and many European Union (EU) states—have largely offered political, military, and diplomatic backing to Israel, South Africa has taken a starkly different position.

Pretoria has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of Israel’s actions, siding with the Palestinians on nearly every international platform, including the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations, and regional diplomatic initiatives.

This divergence is not random—it is shaped by South Africa’s historical experience of apartheid, its domestic political landscape, pan-African solidarity, and its skepticism of Western foreign policy agendas. To understand why South Africa opposes Israel and European support for Israel in the war with Hamas and Palestinians, we must explore the historical, moral, geopolitical, and economic dimensions of its position.

1. Historical Memory of Apartheid

The most important lens through which South Africa views the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is its own experience under apartheid rule (1948–1994). The white minority government in South Africa enforced systemic racial segregation, denied citizenship and rights to the Black majority, and used military and police repression to maintain dominance.

Many South Africans, especially within the ruling African National Congress (ANC), see parallels between apartheid South Africa and Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. Issues such as separate legal systems for Israelis and Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, restricted movement through checkpoints and the separation wall, settlement expansions, and the blockade of Gaza are interpreted as “apartheid-like” structures of domination.

This comparison is not only rhetorical. In 2009, a UN fact-finding mission led by South African judge Richard Goldstone highlighted possible war crimes in Gaza. In 2021, prominent South African jurists, including former ANC leaders, directly described Israel as an “apartheid state.” The resonance is powerful: South Africa believes it has a moral obligation to stand with the Palestinians in the same way the world once stood with Black South Africans during their liberation struggle.

2. Solidarity Between Liberation Movements

The ANC has deep ties with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and other Palestinian movements dating back to the Cold War. Both the ANC and Palestinian groups received political, financial, and sometimes military support from countries in the Soviet bloc and the broader “Global South.”

During the apartheid years, Israel cooperated militarily and economically with South Africa’s white-minority regime, including weapons trade and intelligence sharing. This history remains fresh in ANC memory and fuels resentment. To Pretoria, Israel was complicit in propping up apartheid South Africa, while Palestinians expressed solidarity with the ANC.

Thus, for South Africa’s political leadership, supporting Palestine is both historical payback and solidarity with a fellow liberation struggle.

3. Pan-African and Global South Solidarity

South Africa also frames its stance as part of a broader Global South solidarity movement. Across much of Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia, Israel is often viewed as an extension of Western power in the Middle East.

By opposing Israel, South Africa positions itself as a moral voice of the Global South, challenging what it sees as Western double standards. For example, Western governments condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as aggression but largely defend Israel’s bombardment of Gaza as “self-defense.” South Africa highlights this inconsistency, arguing that powerful Western states selectively apply international law depending on their allies and interests.

This explains why South Africa spearheaded the ICJ genocide case against Israel in 2023–2024, accusing Israel of violating the Genocide Convention in Gaza. By doing so, South Africa not only defended Palestinians but also elevated itself as a champion of international justice for oppressed peoples globally.

4. European Support for Israel: A Source of Tension

European nations, including Germany, the UK, and France, have largely aligned with Israel, citing both historical responsibility (especially due to the Holocaust) and counterterrorism concerns regarding Hamas.

For South Africa, however, this European support is deeply problematic:

1. Colonial Legacies in Africa – South Africans view European governments as former colonizers whose sympathy for Israel mirrors the same colonial structures that once oppressed Africans. Supporting Israel, in Pretoria’s eyes, means legitimizing settler-colonial domination over Palestinians.

2. Hypocrisy of Human Rights Discourse – Europe presents itself as a defender of human rights and democracy but simultaneously funds or arms Israel despite accusations of human rights abuses. South Africa calls out this double standard, accusing Europe of selectively applying international law.

3. Failure to Address Palestinian Suffering – Pretoria argues that Europe refuses to acknowledge the root causes of the conflict: occupation, dispossession, and inequality. Instead, Europe frames the war purely as a fight against “terrorism,” ignoring the decades-long plight of Palestinians.

4. Moral Pressure from African Constituency – On the African continent, widespread public opinion is pro-Palestinian. South Africa uses this to criticize Europe’s alignment with Israel, presenting itself as the authentic African voice against neo-colonialism and Western dominance.

5. Domestic Political and Social Factors

South Africa’s position is also shaped by domestic politics and public opinion:

• The ANC’s Political Identity – As the ruling party, the ANC thrives on its liberation struggle legacy. Supporting Palestine reinforces its narrative as a party of justice and anti-colonialism, helping it retain legitimacy amid domestic crises like unemployment and corruption.

• Influence of Civil Society and Churches – South African churches, unions, and student groups are highly active in the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. These grassroots movements pressure the government to adopt strong anti-Israel stances.

• Moral Leadership in Africa – With Nigeria, Egypt, and other African giants often cautious in foreign policy, South Africa sees itself as the conscience of Africa, speaking boldly on global justice issues. Supporting Palestine enhances this leadership image.

6. International Legal Strategy

South Africa does not merely oppose Israel politically; it actively leverages international law. Pretoria has:

• Filed a case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza.

• Pushed for UN resolutions demanding a ceasefire and humanitarian aid access.

• Recalled its ambassador from Israel and downgraded diplomatic relations.

This legal strategy underscores South Africa’s belief that international institutions should hold powerful states accountable, even if Europe and the U.S. resist such moves. In this sense, South Africa uses the law both as a moral weapon and as a geopolitical equalizer against Western dominance.

7. Geopolitical Positioning in a Multipolar World

South Africa is a leading member of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), a bloc challenging Western hegemony. Aligning with Palestine (and by extension, with much of the Arab and Muslim world) helps South Africa strengthen ties with Middle Eastern states like Iran, Turkey, and Qatar, as well as China and Russia, who often back Palestinian positions at the UN.

By opposing Europe’s support for Israel, South Africa signals that it belongs to the emerging multipolar order, where the Global South asserts independence from Western narratives.

8. Humanitarian and Moral Concerns

Finally, South Africa grounds its stance in humanitarian arguments. The scale of civilian casualties in Gaza, widespread destruction, and the blockade’s humanitarian toll resonate deeply with South Africans who remember Sharpeville, Soweto, and other massacres under apartheid.

South Africa’s leaders argue that standing with Palestinians is not only political but a moral obligation to prevent genocide and ethnic cleansing. In their view, Europe’s failure to restrain Israel amounts to complicity in humanitarian crimes.

Conclusion: South Africa’s Defiance as a Global Message

South Africa’s opposition to Israel and to European support for Israel in the war with Hamas and Palestinians is not merely a foreign policy stance—it is an identity statement. Rooted in the memory of apartheid, shaped by liberation solidarity, and amplified by Global South alliances, Pretoria’s defiance positions it as a moral challenger to Western hypocrisy.

Where Europe invokes Israel’s right to security, South Africa insists on Palestinian dignity, justice, and self-determination. Where Europe justifies war as counterterrorism, South Africa interprets it as occupation and apartheid.

Ultimately, South Africa’s message to Europe and the wider world is clear: justice cannot be selective, human rights cannot be applied unevenly, and the oppressed deserve solidarity—not abandonment.

By standing with Palestine against Israel and its European supporters, South Africa sees itself not only as defending a people under siege but also as keeping alive the global legacy of anti-colonial struggle, international justice, and human dignity.