By Dr. Halim Gençoğlu, Wits University – South Africa
The relationship between the United States and Israel has long been a contentious issue in global politics, with the U.S. being one of Israel’s strongest allies. However, the support provided by the U.S. to Israel, particularly under former President Donald Trump, has sparked widespread criticism, especially in the context of Israel’s policies and actions toward Palestinians. Trump’s explicit and unwavering support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, despite its controversial actions in the occupied Palestinian territories, has raised questions about the moral consistency of U.S. foreign policy. Meanwhile, Trump’s rhetoric on South Africa and alleged “injustice” toward the country further highlights the hypocrisy embedded in his stance on international human rights.
Trump’s diplomatic approach to Israel contrasts sharply established his criticism of other global issues, notably his stance on South Africa. While he condemned land reforms in South Africa, which were aimed at addressing racial inequality, Trump simultaneously ignored or even justified Israel’s systemic oppression of Palestinians, pointing to a significant inconsistency in his foreign policy. The article argues that Trump’s selective approach to justice and human rights-championing Israel’s actions while criticizing others for addressing their own historical injustices-reflects a deeper hypocrisy rooted in U.S. strategic alliances and political interests.
The article emphasizes the broader geopolitical implications of such double standards, showcasing how political alliances, like the U.S.-Israel relationship, often take precedence over human rights concerns in international diplomacy. In this context, Trump’s policy towards Israel and South Africa illustrates the prioritization of political expediency and strategic interests over consistency in supporting global justice.
Trump’s Endorsement of Netanyahu’s Aggressive Policies
Under Trump, the U.S.-Israel relationship reached unprecedented levels of closeness. Trump’s administration became a staunch advocate for Netanyahu, providing diplomatic, financial, and political support for policies that have been criticized internationally as violations of international law. One of the most symbolic actions of Trump’s support was the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in 2017, a move that was seen as disregarding long-standing international consensus and exacerbating tensions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Furthermore, Trump’s support for Netanyahu extended beyond symbolic gestures. His administration also provided significant military and economic aid to Israel, facilitated the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and supported Israel’s right to take military action in Gaza without facing substantial international repercussions. These actions not only fuelled Israeli actions that many view as violations of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, but also undermined U.S. credibility as an impartial mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Trump’s admiration for Netanyahu was particularly notable during periods of escalation in violence between Israel and Palestinian factions. While Palestinian civilians suffered from Israeli airstrikes and military operations, Trump’s administration often echoed Netanyahu’s narrative, dismissing Palestinian grievances and portraying Israel as acting in self-defence. This one-sided approach disregarded the disproportionate impact on Palestinian lives, effectively legitimizing Israel’s occupation and its violations of international human rights.
Trump’s Contradictory Stance on Global Justice
While Trump’s foreign policy consistently aligned with Netanyahu’s government, his stance on other global justice issues raised serious concerns about his consistency. One glaring example is Trump’s critique of South Africa, where he expressed concern about land expropriation policies aimed at addressing historical inequalities and racial injustice. Trump framed these efforts as a threat to property rights and human rights in South Africa, calling for international intervention in a matter that is deeply rooted in the country’s struggle with its apartheid past.
However, Trump’s vocal condemnation of South Africa’s land reform initiatives stands in stark contrast to his unconditional support for Netanyahu’s Israel. While Trump claimed to be a champion of justice for South Africans, his actions in the Middle East aligned with a government that has faced numerous allegations of committing war crimes, violating Palestinian rights, and continuing an illegal occupation. Trump’s rhetoric on South Africa, thus, seems disingenuous, considering his support for Israel’s actions in the Palestinian territories, which many critics view as comparable to apartheid policies in terms of segregation, dispossession, and systemic oppression.
Moreover, Trump’s criticism of South Africa ignores the broader context of international law and human rights. South Africa’s land reform policies, though controversial, are part of an ongoing attempt to address the racial and economic imbalances created by decades of apartheid. In contrast, Israel’s policies toward Palestinians, such as forced evictions, the construction of illegal settlements, and the expansion of the security wall, are seen by international bodies, including the United Nations, as illegal under international law.
The Hypocrisy of Supporting Netanyahu While Condemning Injustice Elsewhere
Trump’s double standards are evident when his administration’s support for Netanyahu is compared with his rhetoric on countries like South Africa. The hypocrisy lies not only in the contradiction between Trump’s condemnation of land reforms in South Africa and his support for policies in Israel that marginalize Palestinians but also in the broader context of global human rights. The United States, under Trump, chose to align itself with a government that many international organizations consider to be violating international human rights, while at the same time, Trump positioned himself as a defender of justice in other parts of the world. The U.S. has long had a special relationship with Israel, driven by both geopolitical interests in the Middle East and domestic political considerations. However, this special relationship should not come at the expense of international law and the basic principles of human rights. Trump’s support for Netanyahu and Israel’s actions, often at the expense of Palestinian rights, demonstrated a prioritization of political alliances over justice and peace.
There are other economic factors that push this issue in favor of the Israeli government. Last Sunday, Elon Musk complained to President Ramaphosa about EFF party leader Malema. Yes, Malema has been using racism as a political argument for almost twenty years, but Musk didn’t say a word while thousands of innocent people were being slaughtered in Palestine. Now, when the issue concerns white people in South Africa, he knows how to offer advice from America to Africa. Ramaphosa’s spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, responded to Elon Musk, saying, “We are not governed by a decree of executive orders. We have independent legal institutions that deal with such matters.” So, we all know that Trump has good relationship with Musk economic and political reasons.
Conclusion
Trump’s stance on Israel and South Africa reveals a deep hypocrisy in his foreign policy approach. His support for Netanyahu, despite Israel’s violations of international law and its oppressive policies toward Palestinians, stands in sharp contrast to his criticism of South Africa’s efforts to address historical injustices. This inconsistency reflects a broader problem in U.S. foreign policy, one that often places political and strategic interests ahead of human rights and justice. For true global justice to be achieved, nations, especially those like the United States, must adopt a consistent and principled approach to human rights that transcends political alliances and addresses the realities of oppression, no matter where they occur.
Bibliography
- Chomsky, Noam. Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy. Metropolitan Books, 2006.
- Pappe, Ilan. The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Oneworld Publications, 2006.
- Gordon, Neve. Israel’s Occupation. University of California Press, 2008.
- Finkelstein, Norman. The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering. Verso, 2000.
- Trump, Donald J. The Art of the Deal. Trump Organization, 1987.
- United Nations. Resolution 242 (1967) and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. United Nations Security Council, 1967.
- Gabbay, Zvi. Trump and the Middle East: Strategic Realignments and Future Prospects. Middle East Policy, vol. 26, no. 4, 2019, pp. 48-61.
- Hass, Amira. Drinking the Sea at Gaza: Days and Nights in a Land Under Siege. Henry Holt and Company, 2000.
- Cohen, Hillel. The U.S.-Israel Relationship: A Special Bond or Political Expediency? Israel Studies Review, vol. 23, no. 2, 2008, pp. 28-39.
- Sparks, Dave. South Africa’s Land Reform: An Injustice or a Necessary Step Toward Equity? South African Journal of Politics, vol. 35, no. 2, 2018, pp. 92-108.
- Piketty, Thomas. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2014.
- International Crisis Group. Israel/Palestine: A Conflict with No End in Sight. International Crisis Group, 2019.