On February 17, Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein of the Union of Orthodox Synagogues of South Africa posted a social media statement after returning from a meeting with senior political leaders in Israel. MAHMOOD SANGLAY offers a critique of Goldstein’s statement in light of developments during the genocide in Gaza.
Goldstein’s statement advocating for Israel’s deeper engagement with South Africa is grossly misguided and an outright endorsement of a genocidal settler-colonial apartheid state. His arguments, laced with fallacies and historical revisionism, seek to whitewash Israeli atrocities while fabricating a narrative that misrepresents South African public opinion and international law. More disturbing is his complete erasure of the Palestinian people, their suffering and Israel’s ongoing war crimes.
Goldstein claims that while Israel has ‘won the military war’ in the Middle East, South Africa continues to prosecute an ‘ideological war’ against Israel on the global stage. This statement is grotesque in its inversion of reality. What Goldstein calls a military victory is, in fact, an ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing and systemic violence against the Palestinian people. The illegal occupation of Palestinian territories, the routine bombing of Gaza, the expansion of apartheid settlements and the routine killings of civilians are not signs of victory but of a state built on brute force and oppression.
Goldstein’s framing of South Africa’s position as an ‘ideological war’ is equally disingenuous. South Africa, having overcome its own history of apartheid, has taken a principled stand against a modern iteration of the same crime. Its support for Palestinian rights is rooted in international law, human rights, and moral consistency. The United Nations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have all classified Israel’s policies as apartheid and have documented extensive war crimes. Goldstein’s refusal to acknowledge these realities underscores his complicity in defending a regime that mirrors the very oppression South Africa dismantled.
One of the most glaring omissions in Goldstein’s statement is Israel’s repeated violations of ceasefire agreements, a pattern that exposes its bad faith in peace negotiations. While Israel presents itself as a state committed to security, its actions consistently demonstrate an unwillingness to respect the conditions of truces. Previous ceasefires, often mediated by international bodies, have been shattered by Israel’s targeted assassinations, continued settlement expansions, and military incursions into Palestinian territories. These violations not only prolong the conflict but also exacerbate the humanitarian crisis faced by millions of Palestinians.
Israel’s refusal to adhere to ceasefire agreements is a deliberate strategy designed to maintain control over occupied territories while projecting an image of victimhood. The cyclical nature of these violations ensures that Palestinians remain under perpetual siege, with little room for meaningful diplomatic progress. Goldstein’s silence on these infractions further highlights his selective outrage—condemning Palestinian resistance while absolving Israel of its blatant disregard for international law.
Goldstein’s claim that the ‘vast majority’ of South Africans are conservative Christians who support Israel and oppose their government’s stance is a fabrication. South Africa is religiously and politically diverse, and its opposition to Israeli apartheid is not limited to its government. Civil society, trade unions, human rights groups and even Christian organisations have been vocal in their condemnation of Israel’s policies. The South African Council of Churches, for example, has consistently spoken out against Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, drawing direct comparisons to apartheid.
Furthermore, Goldstein’s attempt to weaponise religious identity to justify political support for Israel is cynical and deceitful. Many Christian leaders, including the late Archbishop Desmond Tutu, have been among the most outspoken critics of Israeli apartheid. The suggestion that Christian South Africans are ‘natural allies’ of Israel ignores this reality and seeks to manipulate religious identity for geopolitical ends.
Goldstein argues that the ANC’s loss of support in the 2024 elections and the Trump administration’s return to power have ‘shifted the balance of forces’ in favour of Israel building a stronger relationship with South Africa. This analysis is detached from both political reality and the moral trajectory of the global anti-apartheid movement.
South Africa’s stance on Palestine transcends party politics. While the ANC has historically championed Palestinian rights, this position is also supported by opposition parties, civil society organisations, and grassroots activists. The recent case brought by South Africa against Israel at the International Court of Justice for genocide in Gaza is evidence of a deep and enduring commitment to justice. This is not a policy that shifts with election cycles but one that is embedded in the country’s post-apartheid ethos.
Goldstein’s invocation of the Trump administration as a game-changer is similarly laughable. A blatant disregard for international law, open racism and unconditional support for Israeli aggression defined Trump’s foreign policy. Aligning South Africa with a far-right American administration that emboldens settler violence and dismantles Palestinian rights is not a strategy. It is an endorsement of oppression.
Perhaps the most damning aspect of Goldstein’s statement is his complete omission of Palestinian suffering. Not once does he acknowledge Israel’s war crimes. Not once does he mention the destruction of Palestinian homes, the bombing of hospitals and schools, the mass arrests of children or the economic strangulation of Gaza. Not once does he refer to the apartheid wall, the checkpoints or the daily indignities faced by Palestinians under occupation.
This deliberate erasure is not accidental. It is a tactic. Just as South Africa’s apartheid regime sought to erase Black South Africans from the national consciousness, Goldstein and other apologists for Israeli apartheid attempt to render Palestinians invisible. Their suffering is inconvenient to his narrative. Their humanity is expendable in his ideological crusade. But the world is no longer willing to accept this whitewashing.
In his critique of Goldstein in 2020, retired Constitutional Court Judge Edwin Cameron highlights that Goldstein’s approach lacks the necessary empathy and understanding required to address the Israel-Palestine conflict constructively. Cameron emphasises that Goldstein’s polarised stance not only alienates those seeking justice but also misses an opportunity to foster healing and light in a deeply fraught issue. By failing to engage with the nuanced realities on the ground, Goldstein’s narrative falls short of contributing to a viable solution.
Similarly, ANC member Mervyn Bennun, in March 2024, challenged Goldstein’s presumption to speak on behalf of all South Africans, particularly in his unwavering support for Israeli policies. Bennun asserts that Goldstein’s stance does not represent the diverse views within South Africa and criticises his removal of prayers for the South African government due to its position on Israel. This action, Bennun argues, exemplifies an arrogance and intolerance that undermines the democratic values South Africa upholds
Goldstein’s attempt to rehabilitate the image of an apartheid state will not erase the growing consensus: Israel is a settler-colonial entity engaging in genocide, and the global community has a moral and legal obligation to resist it.
