Why was Naledi Pandor’s US visa revoked? Examining claims of Zionist lobby influence

Naledi Pandor’s sudden US visa cancellation has raised concerns about political pressure from Zionist lobby groups following sustained attacks on her pro-Palestine stance.

By IQBAL JASSAT

A series of articles targeting former Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Naledi Pandor, written by Lawrence Nowosenetz — formerly associated with the SA Jewish Board of Deputies — appear to form part of a broader Zionist hasbara campaign with specific political goals.

In his recent piece published in Times of Israel, titled ‘Naledi Pandor – The South African Jihadi Emissary’, Nowosenetz’s intent to tarnish Pandor is unmistakable.

Presented as an open letter to the US government, he labels Pandor a ‘malign activist’ and accuses her of supporting what he calls ‘Islamist radical ideology’.

He further claims that Pandor’s remarks mirror those of Hamas, which he describes as a ‘terror organization’ — a designation shaped by Israel’s political narratives, echoed by right-wing US think tanks and adopted by the Trump administration.

In an attempt to support his portrayal of Pandor as a ‘jihadist’, Nowosenetz points to photographs of her in conversation with senior Hamas figures Dr Bassem Naim and Emad Saber at a conference in Sandton, Johannesburg.

He goes on to argue, in a leap of Zionist-infused interpretation, that the event ‘echoed the ideological tenor’ of the 2001 UN World Conference against Racism held in Durban.

Despite Hamas not being banned or proscribed in South Africa, Nowosenetz claims that Pandor’s engagement ‘demonstrates continued and overt contact with proscribed terror actors inside South Africa’s borders’.

After a list of allegations, he concludes that Pandor’s expressions of solidarity with Hamas make her a ‘potential security threat to the West and particularly within the USA’. He warns US authorities that her supposed statements on ‘jihad’ and ‘armed struggle’, ‘combined with a scheduled, high-visibility public appearance in the USA, raise a credible prospect of mobilising hardline and radical activity’.

As is often the case with Zionist hasbara efforts, disingenuousness is par for the course. Yet such claims deserve scrutiny to uncover their underlying political purpose.

Nowosenetz ends his article by declaring: ‘The US administration surely cannot allow her to spew her dangerous and inciting narrative on US soil.’

Soon after such lobbying, the US abruptly revoked Pandor’s multiple-entry visitor visa without providing reasons. Pandor, now chairing the Nelson Mandela Foundation, confirmed she received an email from the US Consulate in Cape Town informing her of the cancellation.

While, as Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni remarked, it ‘may not change the price of bread’, questions remain as to whether the campaign against Pandor influenced the Trump administration’s decision.

Pandor told journalists she had “no idea” why the US took the step, though she acknowledged awareness of pressure campaigns aimed at excluding her.

Nowosenetz has openly advocated for her exclusion. His former association with the SA Jewish Board of Deputies adds another layer of intrigue.

Following South Africa’s successful hosting of the G20 event — despite attempts by the US to undermine it — the Trump administration suffered a significant setback. Israel, with Benjamin Netanyahu at the helm and sharing Trump’s hostility towards South Africa’s principled solidarity with the Palestinian struggle, has been left increasingly isolated.