The United States has criticised South Africa’s foreign policy following Pretoria’s decision to declare Israel’s chargé d’affaires, Ariel Seidman, persona non grata.
The criticism came from the US State Department’s Principal Deputy Spokesperson, Tommy Pigott, who posted on X reacting to the Department of International Relations and Cooperation’s (DIRCO) move to expel the Israeli diplomat.
Posed direct challenge
DIRCO said the decision was taken after what it described as “unacceptable violations of diplomatic norms and practice”, arguing that Seidman’s conduct posed a direct challenge to South Africa’s sovereignty and undermined established diplomatic protocols.
However, Pigott accused South Africa of making poor foreign policy choices, suggesting that the expulsion reflected a preference for what he termed “grievance politics” over the interests of South Africans.
In pointed remarks, the US official implied that Seidman’s expulsion was linked to his criticism of alleged ties between the African National Congress (ANC) and Hamas, as well as other groups he described as antisemitic radicals.
Not politically motivated
DIRCO has maintained that the decision was not politically motivated, but rather a response to what it characterised as sustained actions that eroded trust and violated the norms required for constructive bilateral relations.
The diplomatic fallout has since escalated. Israel responded by expelling South Africa’s representative to Palestine, who was based in Ramallah in the occupied West Bank.
South Africa and Israel’s relations have been strained in recent months, particularly after Pretoria instituted proceedings against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing the Israeli government of committing genocide in Gaza – an allegation Israel strongly denies.
The latest developments further deepen tensions between South Africa, Israel and key Western allies, raising questions about the broader diplomatic consequences of Pretoria’s stance on the Gaza conflict.
