Israeli propaganda yet again poses as fact:
On 9 March 2025 Israel announced it will cut off electricity to the Gaza Strip. On 10 March, the United Nations Children’s Fund warned: “Severe water shortages in Gaza have reached critical levels, with only one in 10 people able to access safe drinking water.”
In response to the Israeli announcement, Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur for Gaza, has urged international action with the following message: “Genocide alert! Israel cutting off electricity supplies to Gaza means, among others, no functioning desalination stations, ergo: no clean water.
“Still no sanction/no arms embargo against Israel means, among others, aiding and assisting Israel in the commission of one of the most preventable genocides of our history.”
It is in this context that we, as members of South African Jews for a Free Palestine, note the article by Adi Cohen-Hazanof, the deputy chief of mission at the Israeli embassy in South Africa. In a piece published on 8 March she purports to “correct” what she terms a “misinformed” article by Sõzarn Barday on Israel’s usage of water as a weapon of war published in the Mail & Guardian on 25 February.
Cohen-Hazanov’s key assertion is that the Israel Defence Forces respects the principle of distinction — that it is committed to “minimising harm to uninvolved civilians”. Nothing could illustrate the absurdity of this claim better than the picture accompanying the piece. It is the kind of image of Gaza that we are now used to: a wasteland of ruins filled with the destroyed remnants of buildings. The entire region has been devastated — including residential buildings, schools, hospitals, mosques and all life-sustaining infrastructure.
Amnesty International’s report, concluding that Israel is committing genocide, documents this well. So does South Africa’s application to the International Court of Justice.
These and other documents also reveal the absurdity of Cohen-Hazanov’s more specific claim — that water is not being used as a weapon of war. She writes: “Evidence indicates that Israel maintains the World Health Organisation’s minimum daily water requirement for individuals in conflict zones, which is 15 litres …”
Please, we beg her to tell us, what evidence?
Human Rights Watch (HRW) puts it, more specifically at two to nine litres a day. Lack of water, according to the HRW report, has contributed to thousands of deaths. The conclusive research from the HRW is based on interviews with a range of actors: Palestinians in Gaza, workers at Gaza’s Coastal Municipalities Water Utility, healthcare professionals and people working with UN agencies and international aid organisations in Gaza.
While Cohen-Hazanov insists on presenting Israel as a benefactor, the HRW finds that during the time investigated, “Israeli authorities and forces undertook a wide range of deliberate actions to deprive Palestinians in Gaza of access to water and sanitation”. These actions in their summation “amounted to the crime against humanity of extermination as well as acts of genocide”.
On 6 March 2025, the UNs’ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights released a report by a panel of experts. In it, they express alarm at “Israel’s decision to suspend once again all goods and supplies, including life-saving humanitarian aid entering the Gaza Strip”. They mention the cruelty of this during Ramadan. They also denounce Israel’s unilateral decision to “break the Gaza ceasefire agreement and calls by ministers to re-open the ‘gates of hell’ in the besieged enclave”.
This statement also puts these actions into a larger context: “Creating unlivable conditions for the Palestinians under Israeli occupation appears to be Israel’s determination across the entire occupied Palestinian territory, from the decimated Gaza Strip to the West Bank.
“The annexation of territory by force is advancing at full speed in the West Bank, where refugee camps and cities are being bombed, depopulated and looted, and other areas are attacked by armed settlers with complicity of Israeli forces.”
These various findings have not been written by Hamas, or a body that could be regarded as an enemy of Israel, but independent institutions that are widely respected. It follows from this that Cohen-Hazanov’s article amounts to little more than cheap propaganda — what Israel itself refers to as Hasbara.
We denounce such attempts to mislead the public and to conceal ongoing atrocities. We join in a growing Jewish movement, globally, that calls for an end to ethnic cleansing and genocide in Palestine. Neither atrocities can be reconciled with foundational Jewish values such as justice and compassion.
The struggle continues for a free Palestine in our lifetime.
Merlynn Edelstein, who has an LLB and teaches English, is a member of South African Jews for a Free Palestine (SAJFP) and has published a volume of poetry called Bearing Witness: Beloved Maryam and Other Poems after the 2014 attack on Gaza.
Jared Sacks is a member of SAJFP and has a PhD from Columbia University in the City of New York.
Mervyn Bennun was an advocate till 1965 when he went into exile. He was a member of the Congress of Democrats and then joined the ANC. After graduating with an LLM, he lectured at Exeter University. He returned to South Africa in 2000, and resigned his ANC membership at the age of 86 in June 2022. He is a member of SAJFP.
SA’s arms exports to UAE, a state accused of violating Genocide Convention:
On 6 March 2025, Sudan initiated proceedings against the United Arab Emirates (UAE) before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for violations of the Genocide Convention.
Sudan accuses the UAE of supporting genocide in West Darfur by aiding the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group accused of committing atrocities in Sudan. While political motives probably drive this application by one of the parties to the conflict, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), it highlights the risk of arms transfers fuelling conflicts and contributing to human rights abuses.
As it remains to be seen whether the ICJ will adjudicate the matter due to a reservation by the UAE, such a case could have far-reaching consequences, not just for Sudan and the UAE but also for countries like South Africa, which has been exporting arms to the UAE.
Sudan v UAE: Can this case move forward?
Similar to South Africa’s case against Israel, Sudan is requesting the ICJ to issue provisional measures against the UAE for potential violations of the Genocide Convention. The application by Sudan claims that, at least since 2023, a genocide has been unfolding in its West Darfur region.
Sudan alleges that: “The United Arab Emirates fuels the rebellion and supports the militia [RSF] that has committed the crimes of genocide in West Darfur. The government of the United Arab Emirates has sent its own agents to the Republic of Sudan in order to lead the rebel RSF militia forces in carrying out the genocide. Much of the rebel RSF political communications and operations are managed in the United Arab Emirates … It has sent and continues to send large shipments of arms, munitions, and military equipment, including fighter drones, to the rebel RSF militia which are carrying out its genocide.”
While some of Sudan’s allegations align with reports by various civil society organisations working on the conflict in Sudan, the court might not even assess whether to grant any provisional measures.
The ICJ must first decide whether it has prima facie jurisdiction. The main obstacle derives from the UAE’s reservation to Article 9 of the Genocide Convention. Article 9 regulates that “disputes between the contracting parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a state for genocide … shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice”.
Under international law, states can, under certain circumstances, make reservations to treaties like the Genocide Convention.
While Sudan argues that such a reservation is against the purpose and objective of the Genocide Convention, it remains to be seen whether the court will find jurisdiction to make a decision in this matter. However, regardless of the legal hurdles in this matter, the question of third states contributing to violations of the Genocide Convention and the auxiliary responsibility of states such as South Africa that support such third states with weapons remains a live one.
Business as usual
South Africa’s role becomes relevant because of its arms exports to the UAE. In 2023 alone, South Africa sold nearly R88 million worth of arms to the UAE, including armoured combat vehicles, ammunition, light weapons, technology for bombs, rockets and drones, according to the National Conventional Arms Control Committee’s 2023 annual report presented in parliament. A key concern from these exports is whether such arms have ended up in the hands of the RSF.
While South African law requires arms buyers to sign “End-User Certificates” (EUC) to avoid the misuse or diversion of such arms, the implementation and control under the EUC regime has been weak to non-existent. Therefore, the scenario of South African arms ending up in a conflict like Sudan cannot be excluded.
The practice of exporting arms to countries that systematically violate human rights or violate international law has been a recurring theme of South Africa’s arms exports. Under South Africa’s law, exporting or issuing permits for such exports is prohibited. The case on arms exports from South Africa to Myanmar by the Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC) from last year further confirmed such a prohibition. In that matter, the high court in Pretoria set aside permits that facilitated arms exports to Myanmar and clarified that if United Nations mandate holders accuse a state that buys arms from South Africa of committing international crimes such as genocide, such permits must be cancelled or suspended.
South Africa’s credibility at risk
The humanitarian situation in Sudan is dire. Civil society organisations have reported on numerous occasions on violations of international law, human rights abuses and the commission of international crimes.
And yet, South Africa has not suspended or cancelled any permits to avoid the transfer of arms to countries that face strong allegations of arming and supporting one of the parties to the conflict in this matter.
Arms exports have a sobering effect that reveals a country’s true intentions and commitment to international law. This would not be the first time that South Africa has exported arms to a country that is accused of committing international crimes or grave human rights abuses. As the Myanmar case by SALC illustrated, South Africa exported arms throughout the genocide in Myanmar and even after the military coup in February 2021 until such eventually stopped in 2022.
This is further not the first time South Africa’s attention has been directed to potential violations of international law by the UAE. While UN mandate holders accused the UAE of being responsible for human rights violations and potentially international crimes in Yemen, South Africa exported its arms to its loyal customer, the UAE
South Africa’s credibility as a country that stands up for human rights and adherence to international law has certainly benefited from its most recent actions related to the Palestine situation. But focusing on one situation and closing the eyes from other situations like Yemen or Myanmar is detrimental and provides a feeding ground for arguments of hypocrisy and double standards.
If South Africa is truly serious about upholding international law and human rights, it must drastically change its practice of arms exports. There is no space for double standards. Economic gains or benefits cannot justify human suffering.
Dr Atilla Kisla is the international justice cluster lead at the Southern Africa Litigation Centre.
Budget: Blanket refusal to consider additional revenue sources limits policy options:
The recent debates about South Africa’s fiscal budget show there is no consensus on how to define and implement inclusive growth. This phrase is prevalent throughout different strategic policy documents and stakeholders use it regularly. Yet political and policy contestations, especially in the government, about budget policy choices highlight some fundamental divergences.
The market fundamentalist perspective proposes the following measures to attain inclusive growth: decreasing public sector wages, reducing state employee numbers, privatisation of essential public goods, a generic embargo on new taxes and lowering social expenditure. Proponents suggest these measures will place the country on a higher growth path and create jobs. But researched policy evidence counters the underlying economic arguments informing these propositions.
South Africa’s public service is not bloated if one considers the growing population that state employees service. There are 1.3 million workers servicing an estimated population of 63 million. This has significant effects on public goods areas such as health and education. Several accounts from healthcare workers and teachers in public institutions highlight the workplace problems associated with expanding population numbers. Hence, trade unions urge the government to hire more police personnel, nurses, teachers and community health workers. This proposition is aimed at alleviating the service delivery costs associated with staff shortages.
In addition, sweeping generalisations about public sector wages being overly high are not helpful. It is important to break down or disaggregate the wage costs among different categories of state employees to obtain a clear picture. The Institute for Economic Justice research illustrates that public sector wage costs at lower occupation levels have declined because of outsourcing or termination of these posts. This is crucial because these are frontline services that the population requires for meeting basic needs.
Another core proposition supported by market fundamentalist is decreasing the social wage, which the treasury estimates will amount to 60% of total non-interest spending over the next three years. The argument suggests that South Africa is spending too much on social wage expenditure, which is consumption based and not productive.
Fiscal policy research from the Southern Centre for Inequality Studies and NGOs involved in fiscal policy reforms advocacy refutes these claims. Per capita social spending in key areas such as health and education has declined over the years and this has negative effects on important human development outcomes.
Additionally, social wage expenditure is not unproductive or wasteful because it creates demand in the economy and supports infrastructure expansion in several ways. Studies on social grant transfers illustrate this point because beneficiaries spend the money on goods and services in the economy as well as micro-enterprise livelihood strategies. This expenditure can produce additional socio-economic outcomes if policymakers connect it with industrial policy interventions.
For example, my doctoral research findings on women-led food livelihood systems showed how social grant transfers play a crucial role in sustaining home and community gardens. The economic biases informing this wasteful expenditure argument overlook non-wage labour and work livelihood strategies. Our social wage expenditure should be connected with industrial policy imperatives such as creating localised agro-food systems. In simple terms: social grant expenditure should support diversifying the food system, agricultural and retail value chains in communities.
South Africa needs to explore other fiscal and financial policy instruments to augment the national budget. The blanket refusal to explore additional fiscal revenue sources has limited policy options. There is a general agreement that regressive taxation should be avoided. But this must not stop policymakers from exploring other possibilities such as corporate, financial transactions and resource rent taxes.
Studies by the Institute for Economic Justice and Southern Centre for Inequality Studies have provided policy recommendations on expanding the public fiscus using these progressive taxation instruments. These will benefit the poor and socio-economically marginalised citizens in our country. Dr Khwezi Mabasa is part-time sociology lecturer at University of Pretoria and the economic and social policy lead at the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung in South Africa.
Submit and get free exposure here: Showcase Your Business | Advertise Your Special Offers.
