Israelo-South African Diplomatic Saga: Some Lessons for Nigeria’s Bleak Future  

By Bola A. Akinterinwa

When the idea of globalization was first thrown open to the whole world, the objective was to link the world socio-economically, politico-culturally, and technologically-driven in such a way that free movement of people and goods, ideas, and resources could move more easily across international borders. Multilateralism was to be encouraged but not allowed to be to the detriment of nationalism. Put differently, globalization was meant to foster economic growth, opportunity, as well as promote trade, attract investment, and create job opportunities. Perhaps most interestingly, globalisation was not only meant to enable nation states to specialize in what they know and do best.

Today, globalization, which also involves the sharing of knowledge and technology, is no longer what it used to be. Its objective of inter-connectedness of resources, opportunities, knowledge, etc. are no longer seriously shared. There is nothing like transfer of technology. What there is now is the promotion of bilateralism to the detriment of multilateralism. The more developed countries want to forcefully dominate and exploit the less developed countries. It is against this background that globalization is being replaced by the forceful imposition of a new American order, defined by the twin policies of ‘America First’ and ‘Make America Great Again,’ (MAGA). The twin policies are basically aimed at protecting U.S. national interests, but without any due regard to international law. It is also against this background that the Israelo-South African diplomatic saga can also be explained and understood.

Israel has frequently engaged in genocidal acts under the pretext of self-defence and the United States of President Donald Trump has not only been acquiescing to them, but has also always been sustaining and encouraging Israel to do so. Western allies often do condemn the acts but hardly do anything concrete to stop such Israeli irrationalities.

Israelo-South African Diplomatic Saga

Diplomatic ties between South Africa and Israel have always been fraught with misunderstandings for two main reasons: South African disagreement with how Israel mistreats Palestinians and Israel’s relationship with the Bantustans in South Africa in the post-apartheid era. Right from the time of considerations for the establishment of the State of Israel in 1947, South Africa is on record to have been a supporter of Israel. South Africa voted in favour of the UN partitioning of Palestine to enable the creation of Israel. Expectedly, Israel condemned apartheid South Africa in the 1950s and 1960s.

As from 1967, Israel changed its attitude and began to strengthen ties with the Bantustans to the extent of military alliance and nuclear weapons collaboration. As Wikipedia has it, ‘up to 1986, Israel also had a vibrant economic relationship but was forced to sanction South Africa in 1987 as a consequence of American pressure.’ And perhaps more of concern was the deterioration of the ties as from 1994 when apartheid was finally neutralized and Nelson Mandela not only visited Israel but was also opposed to Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinians. South Africa’s concerns about the mistreatment of Palestinians partly explains the downgrading of South Africa’s embassy to the level of just a liaison office in 2019 and to South Africa’s genocidal allegations against Israel in 2023 at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The most recent irritant in the bilateral relationship is the declaration of Israeli Chargé d’Affaires in South Africa, Ariel Seidman, persona non grata, and the reciprocal declaration of South Africa’s Ambassador to Palestine, Shaun Edward Byneveldt, also as persona non grata.  South Africa’s allegations against Israel at the ICJ were and still are vehemently denied by Israel. Even though Israel has denied such genocidal accusations, the popular international view is that there had been several manifestations of killings of internationally-protected people and genocide by Israel. As the individual Israeli soldiers could not be arrested and prosecuted by the International Criminal Court, South Africa opted to refer the matter to the ICJ. It is only the International Criminal Court that has the legal mandate to prosecute individuals. The ICJ does not have such a mandate, but can give its opinion which can impact on the United Nations and its institutions. As Israel is not, stricto sensu, denying the possibility of genocide, but capitalizing on the need for Israel’s legitimate self-defence, the South African allegations may therefore not be quickly thrown into the garbage of history. Put differently, the ICJ could quickly rule on the need to stop the hostilities but judgment on allegations of genocide may take a longer time.

As argued by the South African High Court lawyer, Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, at the ICJ, the manifestation of Israel’s genocidal intent had been shown ‘from the way in which this military attack is being conducted. The intent to destroy Gaza has been nurtured at the highest level of state.’ More important, Adila Hassim, another South African lawyer, also posited that ‘every day there is mounting, irreparable loss of life, property, dignity and humanity for the Palestinian people. Nothing will stop the suffering, except an order from the court.’ In essence, the submission of South Africa was that the conduct of the Israeli war in Gaza was ‘intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group. In other words, it is clearly genocidal.

The viewpoint of Israel cannot but be different. As quoted by the BBC, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said ‘the hypocrisy of South Africa screams to the heavens.’ The Israeli President, Isaac Herzog, added that South African allegations were ‘atrocious and preposterous. We will be in the ICJ and we will present proudly our case of using self-defence… under humanitarian law.’ More significantly, Netanyahu said ‘today we saw an upside-down world. Israel is accused of genocide while it is fighting against genocide… Israel is fighting murderous terrorists who carried out crimes against humanity.’ As expected, the United States lent its support to Netanyahu by declaring that the Israelis ‘are defending themselves against a still viable threat.’ As such, mutual disregard for one another is already existential in the relationship.

In the current diplomatic saga, a statement issued by the South African Department of International Relations and Cooperation gave the rationale behind the declaration of Israel’s Chargé d’Affaires as persona non grata: it is a resultant from ‘a series of unacceptable violations of diplomatic norms and practices’ by Israel’s Seidman and the practices posed ‘a direct challenge to South Africa’s sovereignty. As noted by South Africa, the violations included ‘repeated use of official Israeli social media platforms to launch insulting attacks against President Cyril Ramaphosa and a deliberate failure to inform the Department of purported visits by senior Israeli officials.’

And true enough, there were the reports of the visit of an Israeli Foreign Ministry official, David Saranga, to several medical institutions and Walter Sisulu University in South Africa’s Eastern Cape Province without the normal prior notification and authorization. As Xinhua press has it, Saranga ‘met with around 50 local leaders to discuss cooperation in agriculture, health, and education.’

Without any jot of exaggeration, such visits to Africa without prior notification and permission of the South African government is truly ‘a gross abuse of diplomatic privilege and a fundamental breach of the Vienna convention,’ to borrow the words of the South African government. Israeli visits to South Africa without prior notification and express permission is incompatible with diplomatic tradition, and therefore reprehensible. In this regard, three issues of general interest are raised by the current diplomatic row between South Africa and Israel: They are the questions of legitimate self-defence, application of the principle of reciprocity, and the right of Israel to declare the South African ambassador persona non grata.

As regards the principle of self-defence, it is defined by many factors. First is the rule of innocence according to which the state claiming the right of self-defence must not be the initial aggressor. Second is the establishment of a reasonable belief that force is the only option left as a solution to a threat or actual attack. In this regard, there must really be an imminent threat. A danger must be impending and unavoidable. Third is the principle of proportionality, that is, the use of force must be commensurate with the level of threat. This principle is aimed at preventing excessive use of force. When these principles are reviewed against the background of Israel’s airstrikes in Gaza, it can be seen that the rule of proportionality has not been respected and that Israel can be rightly argued to be the initial aggressor as the October 7 Hamas saga was a reaction to the Israeli occupation and governance mistreatment. Besides, the extent to which Israel had complied with the obligations provided for under Article 51 of the UN Charter is, at best, arguable.

On reciprocity, psychologists see it as a golden rule according to which you treat others the same way you would like to be treated. It is about building loyalty in the business and marketing world. In international law and relations, it can be positive or negative. When it is positive, it often refers to economic benefits in terms of concessions, like cases of most-favoured nation clauses. When it is negative, it is about tit for tat. It is about reprisal requiring the use of force in reciprocating or about retorsion when force is not used.  In this regard, to what extent is Nigeria prepared for the emerging America new order, and the threats of Israelo-South African diplomatic row?

Chicanery, Corruption, and Promiscuity

At a distance, the diplomatic row between South Africa and Israel does not look like a big deal. A deeper look suggests the contrary. First from the perspective of BRICS, South Africa is a member of the BRICS by accession and still considered as an originating full member. Nigeria is neither an original nor a member by accession, but by partnership, in other words, Nigeria’s membership falls under the category of BRICS+. In the eyes of the United States who sees the BRICS as a threat, as a rival to the Breton Woods institutions, all the BRICS Member States are also threats in the eyes of Donald Trump. In this regard, Israel is the other side of the Donald Trump destabilization coin in contemporary international politics. This means that Nigeria cannot but be in the strategic calculations of Israel and the United States.

At the level of the African Union (AU), can the AU speak with one voice in its foreign policy attitude towards Israel in this particular case of diplomatic row? As shown above, the origin of the row is traceable to the South African allegations of genocide against Israel at the ICJ. Many countries have actually joined South Africa in the matter. They are Algeria, Bangladesh and Belgium. This means that these countries can see some wisdom in the case brought forward to the ICJ by South Africa. Will Nigeria dissociate herself from the AU’s position in the event it adopts a position that conflicts with Nigeria’s national interest?

From the angle of South Africa-United States relations, the relationship has been particularly frosty, especially because of the South African-initiated ICJ case against Israel. For example, The US had declared South African ambassador to the United States, Ebrahim Rasool, persona non grata. Ambassador Rasool was reappointed South African ambassador to Washington in January 2025 because of his US experience. However, about two months thereafter, that is, mid-March 2025, he was declared unwanted and given 72 hours to leave the country purportedly for criticizing U.S. policy and claiming that  the Trump administration was ‘mobilising a supremacism.’ In the eyes of the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, Ambassador Rasool is a ‘race-baiting politician who hates America.’

Additionally and without any whiff of doubt, President Trump has gone beyond the limits of foreign policy exaggeration by not only insulting the European allies of the United States, but also threatening to get the NATO dissolved, either in order to distract attention from the growing anti-Trump’s sentiments over the terroristic kidnapping of the Venezuela president, or in order to show the power of propaganda and braggadocio by wanting to claim Greenland by manu miitari. And perhaps most disturbingly, Donald Trump has described EU countries as ‘vessels who beg on their knees.’ Not only Germany, the United Kingdom, and France, but also Japan, have taken the bad end of the stick with the United States of Donald Trump. Sovereignty over the Greenland is the subject of dispute. It is strongly believed that the umbilical cord of solidarity between the United States and the Western allies had been cut or damaged beyond repairs. Donald Trump sees European countries as US provinces and these so-called provinces are now saying enough is enough of Donald Trump. What lessons can therefore be drawn from the triangular or quadrilateral connectivity between and among South Africa, Israel, and the United States, on the one hand, and the three of them, acting severally and the EU, on the other hand?

More than 50% of Europeans now see Donald Trump as an enemy based on different surveys. European governments are also showing much displeasure vis-à-vis Donald Trump. Articles 4 and 5 of the NATO treaty raise fresh concerns in their eyes. Article 5 stipulates that an attack on any Member Signatory to the NATO Charter is considered an attack on every other Member State, and therefore requiring a collective defence and response to the attack. An attack in this context implies any attack coming from non-signatories to the NATO treaty.

On the contrary, Article 4 provides that any member country may request consultations whenever they believe their territorial integrity, political independence, or security is threatened. In this regard, the article is often invoked in the event of terrorist threats by another country. It is ordinarily a request for consultation and does not commit other members to military integration automatically unlike Article 5 which so requires. Essentially Article 4 is to provide a forum for discussion of threats before they blossom into full-scale conflicts.

In this context of US interest in purchasing or acquiring by use of force Greenland, but to which Denmark-supported by the EU is also vehemently opposed, European signatories are considering that their sovereignty in various ramifications is under threat, not from Russia or China, but from another member state, the United States. Both the United States and the European signatories are politico-economic partners of Nigeria. What attitude should Nigeria adopt? Will the application of non-alignment principle be enough? Does Nigeria’s foreign policy require neutrality of purpose? South Africa, like the EU threatened countries has its own domestic challenges.

Expectedly, South Africa can take side with the Europeans in light of South Africa’s frosty ties with the United States of Donald Trump, who has accused the Pretoria authorities of maltreating white South Africans. But can Nigeria behave like South Africa? At the level of the struggle for UN Security Council permanent seat, it is expected that only two seats will be conceded to the whole of Africa. The United States wants Egypt to have one of the seats because the Arab countries do not constitute a region of the world by UN definition. The relationship between Egypt and Israel is needed to sustain US strategic calculations in the Middle East. If Egypt is cleverly given a seat as an African country, it is Nigeria and South Africa that are being told to contest for the one seat left. And most unfortunately in this regard, most European countries have pledged to support the candidature of any country proposed by the AU. This is the position of France and China in particular. But preferentially again, the United States, until of recent, prefers South Africa to Nigeria. Quo vadis Nigeria? If Nigeria is to be able to respond to the emerging global challenges, the questions of political chicanery, systemic corruption, and democratic promiscuity must first be addressed. In the way ‘Making America Great Again’ has been redefined as ‘Make America Go Away’ by protesters in various nooks and crannies, Nigeria should address its foregoing domestic challenges. For Now, indivisibility and indissolubility of Nigeria as provided for in the 1999 Constitution as amended has only been forcefully sustained, whereas national unity should be natural not by coercion.

Why Nigeria’s Future is Bleak

And which is specially recognized by Nigeria as a foreign policy objective. Perhaps more disturbingly, Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution as amended provides that Nigeria is indivisible and indissoluble. This indivisibility and indissolubility are enforced by manu militari. Consequently, unity is nothing more than a myth in Nigeria. It is against this background that we consider Nigeria future as bleak indeed, especially bearing in mind that the polity is fraught with political chicanery, institutional and systemic corruption, and galloping democratic promiscuity.