Multi-million rand anti-Israel junket sparks outrage

A contentious R95 million in tax payers’ money spent on a diplomatic trip targeting Israel has drawn widespread condemnation after it was revealed in Parliament’s Special Appropriations Bill last week.

The funds, retrospectively allocated, were used to finance what critics have dubbed an “anti-Israel junket” to Geneva, where South Africa is pursuing a case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The expenses, which included multiple airfares, luxury hotels, and fancy dining, have infuriated South Africans, many of whom are grappling with poverty, unemployment, and failing public services.

An Appropriations Bill is a legislative tool that allows the government to allocate public funds for specific purposes such as maintaining essential services or paying off debts. In this case, the Bill included retrospective authorisation for funds already spent, including the R95 million for attendees at the ICJ case.

Without the Bill’s approval, the government would be unable to account legally for these expenses, potentially causing financial and operational disruptions.

The Appropriations Bill bundled other critical expenditure, such as debt for SANRAL (the South African National Roads Agency) and e-tolls, making it difficult for political parties such as the Democratic Alliance (DA) and the Patriotic Alliance (PA) to vote against it without risking a national political and economic crisis.

The R95 million issue, which took up a mere one line in the lengthy Bill, has become a flashpoint for broader frustration with the government’s inability to prioritise the needs of its citizens over ideological foreign policies.

The DA and the PA, part of the government of national unity (GNU), came under fire for approving the Bill.

Critics argue that the DA enabled the misuse of public funds. In response, the DA explained that rejecting the Bill would have destabilised government operations and potentially jeopardised national unity.

“As a member of the GNU, the DA was compelled to participate in the single permissible amendment to the Appropriations Bill, as failing to do so could have destabilised critical government operations and potentially threatened the GNU’s stability,” said DA MPs Michael Bagraim, Glynnis Breytenbach, and Darren Bergman in a joint statement.

“The question before us wasn’t whether we support the court case, but rather whether we, as a country, should pay debt already incurred,” they said. “The aim of the Bill was to deal with the debt already incurred by the African National Congress [ANC], and not to allocate additional funds. Naturally, refusing to pay such debt would have serious consequences for our credit rating and economy.”

However, the DA maintained its opposition to the ICJ case, stressing, “At no point did we approve any additional funding for this case.” It added that some of its MPs left the House during the vote to express their disapproval of the R95 million allocation.

DA Chief Whip George Michalakis said this week that future expenditure on the government’s genocide case against Israel would have to be carefully weighed up against national priorities.

With a constrained fiscus, Michalakis said the R95 million spent so far on the ICJ case could have addressed many of the country’s pressing needs.

“If the trade-off has to be at home or abroad, I do think charity begins at home, and we would most certainly advocate for funds to be spent towards South Africa and growing our own economy than to fight a battle overseas,” he said.

The South African Zionist Federation (SAZF) strongly condemned the R95 million allocation, calling it “a disturbing misuse of public resources” all in service of a nefarious agenda to delegitimise Israel.

SAZF spokesperson Rolene Marks said, “While South Africa grapples with an unprecedented 41.9% expanded unemployment rate and severe domestic challenges, the government seems more interested in undermining Israel’s fundamental right to self-defence against Hamas, a recognised terrorist organisation responsible for the 7 October atrocities.”

Marks also highlighted the hypocrisy of the ANC government’s foreign policy, pointing out its ongoing ties to regimes like Syria’s former government under Bashar al-Assad. “This selective morality, condemning Israel while embracing regimes responsible for mass civilian casualties, reveals the profound hypocrisy behind the ICJ case,” she said.

The South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) criticised the lack of transparency surrounding the funding. “The deceptive linkage of this funding to the SANRAL bailout represents a devious political tactic designed to place political parties in a no-win situation: support the critical rescue of the rail network while endorsing the ICJ funding; or oppose the ICJ funding at the risk of further straining South Africa’s collapsing rail infrastructure,” it said.

The retrospective nature of the funding has also sparked concern. “This highlights a troubling lack of transparency in the government’s budgeting process,” the SAJBD noted. It commended opposition parties like ActionSA, Freedom Front Plus, and the African Christian Democratic Party for refusing to support what it called “an outrageous misuse of public funds”.

The controversy has struck a nerve in a country where basic services are collapsing and citizens face worsening socio-economic conditions. Political commentator Kenneth Mokgatlhe called the expenditure “nonsensical”, given South Africa’s pressing domestic challenges. “The country is battling to keep the taps running, faces crippling electricity cuts, and has an underfunded educational sector,” he said. “Diverting funds to fight another country’s battles while our own people suffer is a betrayal of South Africans.”

Mokgatlhe also criticised South Africa’s alignment with Iran-backed groups like Hamas, calling it a move that benefited no-one. “There’s no strategic value in dragging Israel into courts. This is political theatre at best, and it won’t bring peace to the Middle East,” he said.

Geopolitical experts like Terence Corrigan from the South African Institute of Race Relations noted that the DA and other GNU members such as the PA face an ideological impasse. “You’re dealing with a deeply held worldview that prioritises foreign political agendas over domestic crises,” said Corrigan. “To preserve the GNU, they may have had to hold their noses and acquiesce.”

The DA, however, emphasised its focus on holding the government accountable. “We will drive this issue going forward, especially given that Minister [of International Relations and Cooperation] Ronald Lamola previously assured Parliament that ‘not a cent of taxpayers’ money would be spent on this litigation,” it stated.

“This expenditure represents not just a financial misallocation, but a moral failure to recognise Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself against extremist threats,” Marks said. “South African citizens deserve to know why their government is spending their money to advance a foreign agenda that undermines regional stability and democratic values.”