SA is again at a crossroad in its foreign policy.
After the Israel-Australia fallout calls are growing for Pretoria to cut ties with Israel, close its embassy, expel diplomats and block visas. Supporters argue this would show solidarity with Palestinians and honour our struggle-era legacy.
But experience elsewhere, especially in Australia, shows these moves come with costs. Far from hurting Israel, they hit the country making the gesture.
Australia’s recognition of a Palestinian state was meant as symbolism. Instead, it triggered revoked visas, paralysed consular operations in Ramallah, accusations of betrayal, economic strain and Jewish communities caught in the middle.
Unlike Australia, a wealthy nation with powerful allies, SA is far more vulnerable. Cutting ties would damage our political standing, economy and social cohesion — while leaving Israel largely unaffected. Diplomacy is not about grandstanding; it is about engagement.
The symbolism trap
SA maintains embassies in China, Russia and the US — countries whose policies we often reject — because diplomacy is about communication, not approval. Cutting ties with Israel would not end the Gaza conflict, create a Palestinian state or ease civilian suffering. It would only sideline us and harm our own interests.
Australia’s recognition of Palestine was symbolic, but the fallout was real: stranded diplomats, broken dialogue and unsettled communities. SA should not repeat that mistake. If we want to help Palestinians, we must push for dialogue, because Israel and its 9.9-million people are not going anywhere.
The latest crisis came in Ramallah, where Australian diplomats suddenly lost visas after Canberra’s unilateral recognition of Palestine. Critics called Israel’s move rash, but it was an assertion of sovereignty. Recognising Palestine while Hamas fires rockets and Iran stirs instability undermined Israel while still expecting full privileges on its territory. That contradiction was unsustainable.
Foreign minister Gideon Sa’ar linked the visa revocations to both the recognition decision and Canberra’s refusal to host Israeli officials. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused his counterpart, Anthony Albanese, of betrayal — a harsh rebuke, but rooted in the reality that recognition without peace emboldens extremists.
Australia now finds its diplomats sidelined, its influence reduced, and its citizens in the West Bank more exposed. This was not Israeli overreach but the natural result of a reckless choice. For SA the lesson is clear: symbolic foreign policy may feel good in the moment, but it can backfire swiftly and leave ordinary people to bear the brunt.
Why SA should pay attention
Pretoria is drifting towards Australia’s path. Harsh rhetoric against Israel has grown and parliament has debated cutting ties. The “apartheid Israel” narrative resonates domestically, drawing on our history of struggle. But while this symbolism plays well to certain audiences, the costs must be weighed honestly: lost political influence, economic setbacks and deeper social divisions.
SA has long claimed the role of mediator, but that requires access and leverage. Cutting ties means losing both:
- No diplomatic channels. Closing embassies ends direct communication. How would Pretoria raise concerns or protect South Africans in Israel and the West Bank? Statements from afar would be symbolic but ineffective.
- Weakened global role. At the UN, AU and Brics SA would look less like a mediator and more like a hostile actor. We would shrink our own diplomatic relevance.
- Strained allies. Israel’s close ties with the US and EU (SA’s biggest trade partners) mean a hostile stance could strain these relationships too. With the African Growth & Opportunity Act already under scrutiny, another complication would be reckless.
Australia can absorb such strain. We cannot.
Economic costs — jeopardising key sectors
The risks extend across agriculture, health, technology and investment.
- Agriculture. Israel leads in irrigation, desalination and drought management. SA farmers already use Israeli tech in Limpopo and the Northern Cape. Cutting ties would hit food security in a country already struggling with hunger and climate shocks.
- Medicine. Israeli hospitals and universities are leaders in cancer treatment and digital health. SA’s health system, overstretched after Covid-19 and facing rising disease burdens, has benefited from such co-operation. Breaking ties would close those doors.
- Technology. Tel Aviv is a global start-up hub. Partnerships with Israeli firms in fintech, AI and cybersecurity have helped SA entrepreneurs build capacity. Ending ties would stunt innovation in a sector we desperately need for jobs.
- Investment. Severing relations signals instability. Investors value predictability. A rupture with Israel would suggest volatility, deterring foreign capital at a time when our economy already battles load-shedding, unemployment, and low growth.
Australia’s wealth cushions such shocks. For us, the impact could be devastating.
Social costs — dividing communities at home
SA’s social fabric is already fragile. Cutting ties risks inflaming tensions.
- Marginalising Jews. Our Jewish community is small but deeply woven into SA’s story. Severing ties risks casting them as outsiders and fuelling anti-Semitism, as has been seen in Australia.
- Pilgrimage restrictions: Thousands of South Africans — Muslims, Christians and Jews — visit Israel annually. Severing ties would complicate these pilgrimages, frustrating ordinary people who save for years to reach the Holy Land.
- Imported conflict. Our country is already divided by race, class and politics. Adding the Middle East conflict into domestic debates risks inflaming tensions and distracting from urgent issues like poverty and inequality.
The calculation is simple: What would we gain by severing ties? Symbolic solidarity with Palestinians and applause from some activist groups. What would we lose? Diplomacy, trade, technology, investment, religious freedom, and social cohesion. The balance is overwhelmingly negative and would create more harm than good to the country.
More constructive path
Rather than burning bridges, SA should maintain diplomatic engagement, and keep embassies open while raising human rights concerns; support humanitarian relief by providing aid to Palestinian civilians through NGOs and UN agencies; champion dialogue by pushing for negotiations instead of isolation; and offer mediation, using our history of settlement and reconciliation to encourage dialogue.
This approach protects our interests while showing genuine solidarity with Palestinians. Australia’s recognition of Palestine was meant to project moral clarity, but it led to diplomatic paralysis, strained communities and diminished influence. Symbolic gestures make headlines, but they rarely solve conflicts.
SA must ask: do we want to repeat that mistake? We lack Australia’s alliances and economic cushion. Every misstep costs us jobs, investment and credibility. Real strength lies in keeping doors open. Engagement preserves leverage; severance destroys it. We can support Palestinians without sacrificing our own interests.
Australia’s experience shows that symbolic gestures burn bright but leave long shadows. If SA wants to shape peace rather than signal virtue, restraint and dialogue must guide us, because once the bridge is burnt there may be no way back.
• Chauke, a community and student activist at Wits University, was a member of the Wits SRC in 2021-23.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.