[Sphinx]

South Africa recalls ambassador over Israeli raid of Gaza flotilla

Johannesburg —

South Africa recalled its ambassador to Israel on Thursday in the latest of a mounting cascade of iplomatic rebukes to Israel over its killing of nine pro-Palestinian activists aboard a ship seeking to bring humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip.

Israel's Gaza flotilla raid in international waters Monday has damaged Israel's international standing. Britain sharply criticized the raid, close Middle Eastern ally Turkey threatened to cut ties if Israel doesn't mend its ways, and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called for an immediate end to Israel's blockade of Gaza, which he said "punishes innocent civilians." Turkey and Ecuador have also recalled their ambassadors.

South Africa has now joined that chorus. An official at the Ministry for International Affairs said that South Africa would call back Ambassador Ishmael Coovadia “for consultations,” a statement of protest just one step short of a full breakdown in diplomatic relations.

“As of today, Ebrahim Ebrahim indicated the government has decided to recall its ambassador for consultations,” said Mahlatse Mminele, spokesman for the Ministry of International Affairs. "It is the strongest possible form of protest.”

South Africa also delivered a stern demarche to Israeli Ambassador Dov Sergev-Steinberg. A demarche is the diplomatic equivalent of calling a student to the principal’s office, and a statement by South Africa’s Ministry of International Relations said that South Africa expressed outrage over what it called Israel’s “unjustified military action and resultant loss of life inflicted by Israel on a flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian relief supplies to Gaza.”
Strong global criticism

Criticism from the United States, Israel's closest friend, has been muted so far, but condemnation has poured in from members of the United Nation's Security Council, the 27 nations of the European Union, and the UN itself. The UN Human Rights Council has called for an international investigation of the incident.

“I am shocked by reports of killing of people in boats carrying supply to Gaza,” Secretary General Ban said. “I heard the ships were in international waters. That is very bad.”

Given its long struggle against apartheid, the African National Congress (ANC) that now rules South Africa would appear a natural advocate for human rights and oppressed peoples. But political scientist Steven Friedman says the past 15 years of ANC government have favored pragmatism over idealism. South Africa’s strong support for the military junta in Burma (Myanmar) is emblematic of this general penchant for non-confrontation.

“You’d think that the parallels between the South African situation and the Palestinian situation would convince the South African government to take a strong stand on the issue, and it does go through the motions,” says Mr. Friedman, who is director of the Center for Democracy and Governance at the University of Johannesburg. Instead, he says, “there is a concerted effort to be on the side of everybody and hope that it benefits us as well.”

South African radio journalist Gadijah Davids was among the 682 protesters aboard the six ships of the flotilla, all of whom have since been deported.

Interesting.

[Ombrageux]

South Africa - Mandela especially - has a compelling moral duty to stress the Israeli project for Palestinian Bantustans.

[Kaspar]

Somewhere in the article it states that the ANC has favored pragmatism over idealism in terms of how they carry out their foreign policy. I fail to see how this decision isn't pragmatic.

I would like to point out however that South Africans don't generally favour Palestine over Israel.

I saw this interesting poll a while ago. Somewhere it asks South Africans if they side with the Palestinians or Israelis, 29 percent said Israelis while 19 percent said Palestinians. I also found it interesting that African nations in the poll generally favored the Israelis over the Palestinians. I think I remember Nets saying sometimes ago that it's unfortunate that Israel has not been able to maintain good relations with Africa, apparently this isn't really the case.

In a way, however, I think we could say that many African governments largely favored Palestine. I think it's important to note that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict coincided with the independence movements of many African nations, so that the African ruling elite, which came straight out of the ranks of liberation leaders, felt obligated to support the Palestinians regardless of what national sentiment for the issue might have been at the time.

Of course, then again it's important to note that Africa is deeply religious continent, and Christians have historically been more supportive of Israel than Muslims.

I guess that ends my sort of off-topic rant.

Oh, and this is the link to the poll I was referring to earlier: http://pewglobal.org/files/pdf/256topline.pdf

[Nets]

COSATU is very anti-Israel (as are most non-North American labor unions), and no doubt this has a large effect on ANC policy.

I think I remember Nets saying sometimes ago that it's unfortunate that Israel has not been able to maintain good relations with Africa, apparently this isn't really the case.

In a way, however, I think we could say that many African governments largely favored Palestine. I think it's important to note that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict coincided with the independence movements of many African nations, so that the African ruling elite, which came straight out of the ranks of liberation leaders, felt obligated to support the Palestinians regardless of what national sentiment for the issue might have been at the time.

On the other hand, I know many early African leaders in the 40s and 50s were inspired by Israel, coming out of the British mandate successfully. I don't think opinions changed until post '67. Additionally, I suspect that a lot of pro- or anti-Israeli policy in different countries are hold overs from cold war allegiances.

Israel still has very good relations with Tanzania, Kenya, and Ethiopia and they have close security cooperation, being threatened by the same ideological enemies.

[Dave]

Kaspar, please explain why you feel this decision is pragmatic. South Africa and history have a long history of military-industrial cooperation, and Israel has much to offer South Africa in terms of technology and trade today. The only benefit I can see is if Persian Gulf states are insisting on a harder line against Israel for preferential access to their markets.

Would the apartheid state would have engaged in such political amateurism? They even maintained diplomatic relations with states sponsoring terrorism against them.

States which allow ideology to determine their external relations rather than strategy are senile.

[Typhoon]

States which allow ideology to determine their external relations rather than strategy are senile.

Withdrawing support for Isreali at this time is a pretty sound policy at the moment (especially if you want to attract the support of Isreals many detractors) since the Isreali support base has crumbled in recent years.

[Dave]

I'll grant you this--Israel has effectively become the new Serbia. However, despite mounting international criticism it is not yet facing diplomatic consequences from advanced nations. The question is then two-fold:

1) Will criticism of Israel continue to mount, leading to diplomatic actions against the state?
2) If so, at what point in time is it appropriate to join the bandwagon?

I could be wrong as I don't really follow the news, but it certainly seems premature to engage in such behavior.

Part of my stance here also reflects my loathing of human rights doctrines in general, which colors my viewpoint.

[Typhoon]

1) Will criticism of Israel continue to mount, leading to diplomatic actions against the state?

I would say that depends entirely on the actions of Isreal, though if it continues the way it has recently I would be inclined to say yes certainly.

2) If so, at what point in time is it appropriate to join the bandwagon?

Depends on what your after but I would say that being critical of Isreal is a pretty low risk way of gaining support internationally. Its likely to please a lot of people around the world, Isreal itself is pretty much inconsequencial outside the middle east and its unlikely to earn much of a rebuke from other western nations who are not going to allow relations and trade to be disrupted by embassy closures and what not. To actually attack Isreal or fund the fighters who do would be a risky option which would certainly attack condemnation but jumping on the critical bandwagon would not.

[Dave]

I would say that depends entirely on the actions of Isreal, though if it continues the way it has recently I would be inclined to say yes certainly.

I would tend to agree with this view. Since the Second Intifada liberalism has been effectively dead in Israel, and it now seems to be an emerging racialist state. The West, despite an increasingly vocal far right resistance, seems to be continuing its descent into madness. If the West were to regain sanity or lose global prominence, then basic geopolitical realities would still weigh against Israel given the energy reserves of the Persian Gulf states.

Speaking against this view is the prominence of Zionists, including those of the Jabotisky racial nationalist type, in the Western ruling class (esp. the United States). Recently actual Israeli citizens, such as Haim Saban and Rahm Emmanuel, have been acquiring quite a bit of power in the United States.

Depends on what your after but I would say that being critical of Isreal is a pretty low risk way of gaining support internationally. Its likely to please a lot of people around the world, Isreal itself is pretty much inconsequencial outside the middle east and its unlikely to earn much of a rebuke from other western nations who are not going to allow relations and trade to be disrupted by embassy closures and what not. To actually attack Isreal or fund the fighters who do would be a risky option which would certainly attack condemnation but jumping on the critical bandwagon would not.

This seems logical, and Israel in turn is unlikely to pick a fight over an embassy closure.

[LehmanB]

Withdrawing support for Isreali at this time is a pretty sound policy at the moment (especially if you want to attract the support of Isreals many detractors) since the Isreali support base has crumbled in recent years.

Its the old trick for gaining popularity. Yet it won't gain any better relations with Arab governments who are been motivated by interests. I think beside the next ellection' thinking, there is no national interest for that.

Since the Second Intifada liberalism has been effectively dead in Israel, and it now seems to be an emerging racialist state.

This is a very false statement. Despite its activist government, liberalism and internal debate are strong as usual. The media is quite leftists, as well as the suprime court and half of the parlament. From a daily experience, too many Israelis are still liberal and not that nationalists.

If the West were to regain sanity or lose global prominence, then basic geopolitical realities would still weigh against Israel given the energy reserves of the Persian Gulf states.

The energy resources are indeed a reason, and the west gets them regardless to its support or dissupport for Israel.

Countries, generally, has an interest to maintain good relations with everyone. Even if its a small state as Israel. Whatever Israel will do, it is very far from Kossovo example, unless it would face a serious total war, so resonable humanists and governments has no reason to act against Israel. Unless- the Arab league will succeed to convince also western governments to join their hostility policy against Israel. Yet while the Arab league has dramatic influence of Africa, it has very little influence on the west, who will get supply of oil as long as the American war ships will remain in the Hormoz.

[Ombrageux]

Kosovo is not militarily occupying anyone nor are Kosovar Albanians settling in Serb-majority areas by force. The ethnic Serbs in Kosovo - mainly in the north - enjoy full autonomy from Pristina. There has also been talk of giving these Serb-majority northern areas to Serbia. The problems posed by the two countries - while sharing a vicious ethnic component - are entirely different.

[LehmanB]

What have motivated the west to act there is a massive violent ethnic cleansing. The rest of the political \ independency status there was not a (humanistic) reason to open a war or to interfere Serbia too much.