CRAIG PANTANOWITZ | Minister Kubayi’s Israel claims demand evidence

Justice minister Mmamoloko Kubayi has crossed a line that should concern every South African, regardless of their views on Israel.

In her Sunday Times interview last week, Kubayi suggested South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) had made the country a target, implying Israel had some role in the anti-immigration marches of June 30. She offered no evidence, saying only that she could not discuss the matter publicly and would “be generic”.

That is not how democratic governments should make allegations of foreign interference. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If the government truly believes a foreign state has interfered in its domestic affairs, it has the constitutional and intelligence mechanisms to investigate and report its findings responsibly. What it should not do is seed suspicion through carefully worded insinuation while withholding the evidence to support it.

The consequences were immediate and escalated quickly. A hedged suggestion became a front-page headline asking whether Israel was behind the marches. Within days it shed even the question mark: street posters for the edition declared, “Minister sees Israeli hand in June 30”. What the minister had been careful not to state outright was now a certainty on every corner, and readers can be forgiven for assuming there must be substance to a claim they saw everywhere. Once planted, such a suspicion is almost impossible to uproot, whether or not any facts sustain it. That is why officials have a duty to speak with evidence rather than implication.

Ironically, the strongest rebuttal comes from the minister herself. Throughout the interview she described the demonstrations as driven by domestic politics. She acknowledged that political actors sought to capitalise on the protests ahead of November’s local elections, that organisers pursued their own ambitions, and that one march leader struggled to control events. Her own account points overwhelmingly to South African politics, South African grievances and South African actors. None of it requires a foreign conspiracy.

The real question, then, is not whether Israel was involved, but why it was introduced at all. This is becoming a pattern. Only weeks ago, international relations minister Ronald Lamola invoked unnamed “state and non-state actors” supposedly responding to the same ICJ case. Different portfolio and circumstances, the same implication, and still no evidence.

Blaming foreign interference offers a convenient escape, turning attention from Pretoria’s own decisions to an adversary abroad

This is about more than Israel. It is about accountability and about the people paying the price while the government looks abroad. The victims are real and close at hand: Nigerians, Malawians, Zimbabweans, Ethiopians and Mozambicans driven from their homes and businesses, some reportedly killed. Nigeria, Ghana and Mozambique have lodged formal protests with Pretoria over their nationals’ treatment. A foreign conspiracy theory offers them no protection.

South Africa’s ICJ case has become a defining feature of the ANC-led government’s foreign policy, presenting the country as a global champion of human rights. Yet at home the government wrestles with recurring xenophobic violence, failing municipalities, high unemployment and deep frustration over immigration. When migrants are attacked and foreign-owned shops looted, that claim to moral leadership comes under scrutiny. Blaming foreign interference offers a convenient escape, turning attention from Pretoria’s own decisions to an adversary abroad.

That narrative should be rejected. Israel did not create South Africa’s unemployment, its failing municipalities, its broken infrastructure or decades of ineffective immigration policy. Nor do South Africans need foreign encouragement to voice their frustrations. Whether or not one supports the June demonstrations, their causes developed within South Africa itself. Pretending otherwise solves nothing.

For the Jewish community there is a further concern. When senior leaders invoke Israel without evidence whenever a contentious issue arises, the line between legitimate criticism of a foreign government and suspicion of those associated with it begins to erode. Conspiracy theories involving the Jewish state rarely stay confined to foreign policy; their consequences reach communities far beyond the debate. That is why evidence matters.

None of this defends the ICJ case, which is deeply flawed: it presents a selective account of the conflict, ignores the atrocities Hamas committed on October 7 2023 and the continued captivity of hostages held for more than two years, and denies Israel’s right to defend its citizens against a terrorist organisation committed to its destruction. That argument belongs in the democratic arena and should be had robustly. But it should be based on facts.

If Kubayi has credible evidence that Israel interfered in South Africa’s domestic affairs, she should present it through the proper constitutional channels for independent examination. If she does not, the insinuation should be withdrawn.

South Africa’s challenges are immense and demand honest, evidence-based leadership. Blaming unnamed foreign actors may buy short-term convenience, but it fixes no municipality, creates no job and secures no border. Leadership begins with accepting responsibility. South Africans deserve evidence when extraordinary allegations are made and a government focused on solving the country’s problems rather than searching for someone to blame.

• Pantanowitz is national chair of the South African Zionist Federation