Follow us on social

South Africa minister: Countries have to 'boycott' Israel's war

South Africa minister: Countries have to 'boycott' Israel's war

In a Washington appearance Tuesday, Ronald Lamola recalled how the world community ended apartheid in 1990

Reporting | Africa

In his first official visit to Washington since his appointment in June, Ronald Lamola, South Africa's Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, was quite frank about global obligations regarding Gaza.

“We are clear in our condemnation of what we believe is genocide that is happening,” he said of the Israel war in the Gaza Strip and the case that South Africa has brought to the International Court of Justice. The court in January agreed there were "plausible" grounds for South Africa to make a case that what is happening in Gaza is genocide. The ICJ has not made a final ruling on the question of genocide under the 1948 Genocide Convention (of which Israel is not a member).

As for South Africa's other case, on the impact of Israel’s illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, Lamola likened his own country’s history with apartheid to what Palestinians are enduring in the territories.

“(It’s) similar to what we had gone through as a country,” he said at the event hosted by the Quincy Institute at the National Press Club Tuesday morning. “We have a moral obligation, more than any other country in the world, to stand up and say what Israel is doing is unlawful… having lived the experience of what Palestinians are currently experiencing.”

He was responding to a question asked by interviewer and MSNBC host Joy Reid, who noted that a world-wide campaign of boycott and divestment had led to the collapse of the apartheid government in South Africa in 1990. Should the world be doing the same for Palestinians, she asked, acknowledging that this is a radioactive issue in Washington and in many states, which have tried to ban BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movements against Israel for years.

Lamola didn’t hesitate. “There is no reason that there should not be action taken by member states to put the necessary pressure on the state of Israel,” to stop fueling its military operations (which South Africa believes is a genocide) against Palestinians in Gaza, he said, and that includes an arms embargo. Right now Israel has no “disincentive” to end the war, he added. He did not say anything about the war crimes charges against Hamas leaders or the group's obligations to release the hostages taken during its Oct. 7 attack on Israel, which began the war 11 months ago.

Since January the ICJ has issued several orders to Israel, including opening up Gaza to humanitarian aid, to stop its illegal occupation, and to not invade Rafah. The court has no enforcement powers and depends on member states to put on the pressure. The U.S., which is a member, has chosen to rebuke the court for its rulings. Meanwhile, accounts by journalists who have been allowed to see Rafah have said the place is now decimated.

Lamola said more countries are "pushing for change" and "beginning to say something is wrong." South Africa already had strong support for its cases from the Global South. As of June more than 10 countries have officially joined or broadcast intention to join the genocide case, including Turkey, Egypt, and Spain. In February, some 52 countries spoke in favor of South Africa’s case against Israel’s occupation policies.

For its part, Israel has said the questions put to the court are biased and false and that the rulings undermine the delicate peace process. The U.S. government has largely supported Israel’s responses to the ICJ since the beginning of the year.

"We have been clear that Israel's program of government support for settlements is both inconsistent with international law and obstructs the cause of peace," a State Department spokesperson said after the ruling on occupation in June. "However, we are concerned that the breadth of the court's opinion will complicate efforts to resolve the conflict," the spokesperson added.

Lamola said South Africa supports not only the broader peace process, but current talks in Doha for a ceasefire.

He has similar thoughts on the Ukraine conflict too. When asked by Reid what South Africa’s response to Russia’s refusal to return lands taken from Ukraine in that war, Lamola said South Africa (which has pursued a more neutral stance than the West) supports diplomacy, not further war. South Africa supports Ukraine’s rights to "territorial integrity and independence,” but “we don’t see how you can resolve the conflict without engaging both parties," he said. "This is our view. Russia must be brought to the table, to engage with these issues and to find a resolution. The same with Palestine."



F


Ronald Lamola, South Africa Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, with Joy Reid, National Press Club, Washington, 9/17/24. (Khody Akhavi/Quincy Institute)

Reporting | Africa
Rand Paul Donald Trump
Top photo credit: Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Shutterstock/Mark Reinstein) and President Trump (White House/Molly Riley)

Rand Paul to Trump: Don't 'abandon' MAGA over Maduro regime change

Washington Politics

Sen. Rand Paul said on Friday that “all hell could break loose” within Donald Trump’s MAGA coalition if the president involves the U.S. further in Ukraine, and added that his supporters who voted for him after 20 years of regime change wars would "feel abandoned" if he went to war and tried to topple Nicolas Maduro, too.

President Trump has been getting criticism from some of his supporters for vowing to release the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and then reneging on that promise. Paul said that the Epstein heat Trump is getting from MAGA will be nothing compared to if he refuses to live up to his “America First” foreign policy promises.

keep readingShow less
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.