US legislators threaten ‘consequences’ if SA arrests citizens for serving in Israeli army

Six US Congress legislators have warned President Cyril Ramaphosa that if his government arrests dual South African-Israeli citizens for serving in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) “it will have consequences for the US-South Africa relationship”.

The legislators, from both the Republican and Democratic parties, have also asked Ramaphosa to explain “what steps are being taken to ensure that Jewish South Africans are protected against growing anti-Semitism, specifically as senior government officials are increasing their hostile anti-Semitic statements”.

The letter is dated 12 April and cites the announcement by International Relations and Cooperation Minister Naledi Pandor on 10 March at a Palestinian solidarity event that her government would arrest South Africans who served with the IDF.

“This is a grave miscarriage of justice that continues to perpetuate dangerous sentiments against Israeli citizens and the State of Israel’s right to exist,” the legislators wrote.

“Israel, like every other nation, has a right to defend itself against terrorism,” they continued, referring to the Hamas attack on Israel on 7 October, which provoked Israel’s attack on Gaza.

Read more in Daily Maverick: Middle East crisis news hub

The signatories are four Republicans — Joe Wilson, Maria Elvira Salazar, James Baird and Michael Waltz — and two Democrats, Jared Moskowitz and Josh Gottheimer.

Moskowitz recently co-sponsored a bill with Republican representative John James, calling on the US administration to conduct a comprehensive review of US relations with SA, including SA’s continued eligibility for the African Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa) which gives duty-free access to the US market for eligible sub-Saharan African countries.

Read more in Daily Maverick: Bill that calls for full review of US relations with SA crosses first hurdle in US Congress

In the 12 April letter, the six legislators warned Ramaphosa, “If you and your government arrest soldiers of our allies, it will have consequences for the US-SA relationship.”

They also asked Ramaphosa what steps his government had put in place to ensure dual South African-Israeli nationals who serve with the IDF “are not falsely charged with genocide and war crimes in the same manner as the false ICJ accusations levelled in January”.

This refers to the charge of genocide which SA brought against Israel at the International Court of Justice, which the six legislators called “unfounded”.

Read more in Daily Maverick: ICJ ruling in SA’s genocide case against Israel lauded as ‘historic’ and victory for human rights 

The legislators added that although Pandor’s warning of arrests applied to dual South African-Israeli citizens, they also raised the possibility of dual US-Israeli citizens who serve in the IDF being arrested while on vacation in South Africa.

They warned of “dire consequences” should this happen.

Lack of past prosecutions

Speaking at a Palestinian solidarity event in Laudium, Pretoria, in March, Pandor warned any South Africans who joined the IDF, “We are ready. When you come home, we are going to arrest you.”

She was probably threatening to invoke the Regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act which makes it an offence for any South African to serve in a foreign military without first getting approval from the SA government.

However that act has hardly ever been used and the government has been threatening to prosecute South Africans who serve in the IDF for several years without ever carrying out such threats, as far as could be established.

The South African Jewish Report noted for instance that the government had gone even further in December 2023 by also warning that naturalised South Africans could have their citizenship revoked for joining foreign armed forces engaged in wars the country didn’t agree with.

The paper also reported that in 2009, the Palestine Solidarity Alliance handed the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) a list of 73 South Africans of Jewish descent who had fought for the Israeli military in 2008 and 2009. It said the NPA had declined to prosecute.

“This was followed by a case brought against another South African citizen serving in the Israeli military in 2014. A docket was opened in the Western Cape, but no information could be found as to whether he was, in fact, prosecuted.”

Ramaphosa’s spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, said: “The President is currently in South Sudan and has not seen this letter. However, for the record, South Africa, as a sovereign, constitutional democracy, passed a law known as Regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act. Minister Pandor was referencing this law. She was not coming up with her own individual plan as it has been falsely asserted. The law remains in place, and indeed, it will be enforced against those found to have violated it.”

Agoa eligibility

Congressional sources told Daily Maverick that the new letter indicated that the US pressure on SA had not eased, despite US senators dropping legislation demanding an “out-of-cycle” review of SA’s Agoa eligibility.

On 11 April, Democrat Chris Coons and Republican Jim Risch, senior members of the Senate foreign relations committee, introduced the African Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa) Renewal and Improvement Act of 2024.

The main thrust was to extend Agoa for 16 years when it expires next year. But the Bill also dropped the demand from a previous version that the US administration should immediately review SA’s Agoa eligibility, mainly because the senators believed Pretoria’s positions on contentious foreign policy issues such as Russia’s war against Ukraine and Israel’s war against Hamas were harmful to US security and foreign interests.

The removal of the South Africa clause from the Bill has prompted widespread interpretation in SA that SA’s participation in Agoa is now secure.

US sources have pointed out that this is not necessarily so. They said the Coons/Risch Bill did not confirm SA’s eligibility but rather indicated that the instrument to address SA’s eligibility was not the reauthorisation of a continent-wide programme. SA’s eligibility should rather be considered through separate measures so as to not conflate a continent-wide programme with just one country.

The Bill introduced earlier in the House of Representatives by James and Moskowitz is one such alternative measure, though it has not yet been matched by the necessary Senate legislation. DM