On January 7 an X account with the handle @Sentletse published a post calling for my expulsion from the EFF. The post went viral in no time. The accusation was not corruption. It was not organisational indiscipline. It was not betrayal. The offence, apparently, was thinking.
More specifically, the offence was a piece I wrote for Business Day, in which I argued that the ANC has not aligned itself with Palestine but with Hamas, and that Israel’s innovation-driven development model offers lessons South Africa would be reckless to ignore (“The ANC didn’t choose Palestine — it chose Hamas”, January 6).
The X post relied on deliberately inflammatory language — “Zionist-sponsored tours”, “genocidal Israel”, “propaganda”, “fools” — rather than any engagement with the substance of my writing.
There was no reference to evidence and no effort to address the arguments themselves. The demand was not for debate, but for cancellation and expulsion. That is intimidation, not activism, and it is hardly new behaviour for this X account.
What makes this episode especially disturbing is not the personal insult — public life comes with criticism — but the growing comfort with silencing dissent through ideological pile-ons, often driven by social media accounts that replace argument with outrage.
@Sentletse is not an anonymous troll account. It is verified, visible and influential. And that record matters. Over time, the account has repeatedly crossed the line from criticism of Israeli state policy into conspiratorial thinking and collective blame.
Criticism of Israel, even sharp criticism, is legitimate and necessary in any democracy. But when critique collapses into conspiracy, when a state is turned into a symbolic villain blamed for global disorder, and when mere association becomes grounds for expulsion or silencing, politics gives way to dogma.
Posts attributed to the account include claims that Israel and the US “export terror”, suggestions that foreign nationals are being “smuggled” into South Africa as part of destabilisation plots, and blunt slogans like “F**k Israel” accompanied by images of armed fighters. These are not reasoned positions. They are designed to inflame, provoke fear and manufacture moral panic, not to advance understanding.
There is a distinction that must be maintained. Criticism of Israel, even sharp criticism, is legitimate and necessary in any democracy. But when critique collapses into conspiracy, when a state is turned into a symbolic villain blamed for global disorder, and when mere association becomes grounds for expulsion or silencing, politics gives way to dogma.
That is the context in which my writing was targeted. Not because it lacked coherence or honesty, but because it challenges an emerging orthodoxy that declares some questions off-limits, some conclusions compulsory, and some platforms illegitimate.
What accounts like @Sentletse attempt to do is short-circuit debate. They do not persuade; they discipline. They do not respond; they threaten. Reputational harm becomes the weapon of choice, not intellectual engagement.
The method is now familiar: isolate a thinker, flatten their work into caricature, attach a moral label (“Zionist”, “sell-out”, “imperialist”), and then demand institutional punishment. No reading required. No thinking encouraged. This is not revolutionary politics at all; it is an effort to enforce ideological conformity.
My writing record is public. I have written on student debt and the unfinished struggle for free, quality education. I have challenged the myth of an Afrikaner “exodus” and exposed the manipulation of refugee narratives in the US. I have written critically about power, hypocrisy, institutional decay and ethical failure.
I have also written consistently about peace. About the need for pragmatic solutions in the Middle East instead of endless war slogans; about the moral cost of replacing analysis with chants. None of this mattered. What mattered was that I refused to repeat approved lines.
It is revealing that Business Day was singled out as evidence of ideological contamination, as though publication in a mainstream newspaper is a reward reserved for elites rather than a forum open to anyone willing to argue publicly under their own name.
The message is unmistakable: some platforms are forbidden, some ideas unacceptable, and some debates closed. This is not democratic contestation but an attempt to narrow debate and decide which ideas are considered acceptable.
I have been a member of the EFF since 2016. For nearly a decade I have organised, debated, mobilised and defended the idea that economic freedom requires fearless thinking and radical honesty.
My critique of the ANC’s position on the Middle East is based on evidence, not animus.
The EFF emerged as a disruptive force — argumentative, uncomfortable and unapologetic in challenging orthodoxies. If that tradition is replaced by purity tests enforced through social media mobbing, the movement risks becoming precisely what it once set out to confront.
My critique of the ANC’s position on the Middle East is based on evidence, not animus. Over time the ANC has moved away from engagement with the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Fatah — historically recognised representatives of the Palestinian people — and toward the political elevation of Hamas. That shift is not solidarity. It is substitution.
Hamas is an organisation whose militarism, internal repression and failures of governance have consistently undermined prospects for peace. Acknowledging this is not betrayal. It is honesty. Anyone genuinely committed to Palestinian self-determination must be willing to say that endless war, civilian targeting and absolutist ideology deepen suffering rather than resolve it. Calling for peace is not treason. It is common sense.
My argument that Israel’s innovation ecosystem offers lessons for South Africa has been wilfully misrepresented. Recognising achievements in water security, agricultural technology, start-up development and education-industry partnerships does not negate Palestinian rights. It does not excuse anything. It does not erase injustice. It recognises ideas.
South Africa, burdened by state incapacity, failing infrastructure and mass youth unemployment, cannot afford intellectual isolation. Learning is not an endorsement. Analysis is not allegiance. A mature politician can hold moral clarity and intellectual curiosity at the same time. That complexity is precisely what ideological enforcers fear.
There is a simple difference between me and those demanding my silence: I put my name to my views. I state them openly. I accept rebuttal, disagreement and criticism. I do not hide behind slogans in a bio or the comfort of moral absolutism while calling for others to be expelled. Courage in politics is not volume. It is visibility.
South Africa is a constitutional democracy founded on freedom of expression, pluralism and the contestation of ideas. Any movement or institution that allows online mobs to decide who may think, write or speak is abandoning those foundations.
Those attacking me hope intimidation will succeed where argument has failed. They hope to frighten others into silence. They will not succeed. I will continue to write about what I research, observe and believe to be true. I will continue to challenge power — whether exercised by the ANC, liberation movements, governments or militant groups — when it chooses posture over people. And I will continue to insist that activism without intellectual honesty is not activism at all. It is noise.
Ideas cannot be expelled. They can only be debated, refined or defeated. Those who fear debate reveal far more about their insecurity than about the ideas they are trying to silence.
• Chauke is a community and student activist at Wits University, where he has served on the SRC.
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.