South Africa’s ideological posturing leaves farmers high and dry

This week, South Africa voted against a United Nations resolution on “Agricultural Technology for Sustainable Development”. The decision defies logic, and undermines our own economic interests. While 129 nations, including most of Africa, voted in favour, South Africa joined just 29 states in opposing what developing countries urgently need: climate-smart farming; water-efficient irrigation; and agritech tools to build rural resilience. 

The resolution contained no political clauses; no reference to conflict; and no ideological language. It was a practical, developmental initiative aligned to South Africa’s stated policy objectives of empowering small farmers, women, youth, and rural communities. 

South Africa rejected it for one reason: Israel was the sponsor. 

At a time when the country faces a persistent water crisis, collapsing infrastructure, and rising food insecurity, rejecting a resolution designed to provide exactly the kinds of technologies we lack is indefensible. 

The irony is glaring. Only days before the vote, President Cyril Ramaphosa criticised the United States for skipping the G20 summit, declaring that “boycott politics never really work”. Yet when presented with an apolitical, humanitarian resolution offering concrete tools to fight hunger, drought, and rural poverty, South Africa chose the very boycott politics he condemned. 

We didn’t vote against a policy or economic programme, we voted against a country. In doing so, it’s South Africa’s more than two million small-scale black farmers who will pay the price. 

Nearly 60% of agrarian households live below the food poverty line. Their challenges are stark: 

• Lack of secure land tenure, which prevents access to credit and long-term investment; 

• Erratic rainfall and almost no irrigation infrastructure, leaving crops entirely dependent on weather patterns; 

• Collapsed extension services, meaning that farmers receive virtually no technical support; and 

• High post-harvest losses due to lack of cold storage, packaging facilities, and market access. 

These farmers don’t need symbolic gestures. They need irrigation, water management, climate resilience, and practical support – exactly what Israel’s resolution sought to advance. 

Israel’s agricultural innovation was built for small plots, arid climates, and resource-poor farmers. Drip irrigation, Israel’s flagship technology, can quadruple yields using a fraction of the water – ideal for farmers in the Northern Cape, Eastern Cape, and North West, where rainfall is unreliable and infrastructure dysfunctional. Solar-powered micro-irrigation, already deployed across East Africa, gives farmers independence from failing municipal water systems. Israeli wastewater recycling, drought-resistant crops, low-cost storage, and soil-rehabilitation techniques have transformed communities in Kenya, Rwanda, and Senegal, conditions strikingly similar to rural South Africa. 

The track record speaks for itself. Across Africa, Israeli cooperation has produced measurable results: 

• Through Mashav (Israel’s Agency for International Development Cooperation), Israel has trained more than 270 000 agricultural professionals from 132 countries in irrigation, water resource management, soil rehabilitation, and post-harvest handling; 

• In Turkana, Kenya, KKL-JNF’s (Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael-Jewish National Fund’s) Furrows in the Desert programme has turned barren land into more than 130 productive farms using Israeli water-harvesting, solar pumping, and desert-agriculture techniques; 

• In Rwanda, the Israeli Horticulture Center of Excellence has trained more than 3 000 Rwandan farmers, extension officers, and agripreneurs in Israeli techniques such as greenhouse farming, drip irrigation, fertigation, and high-yield seedling production; and 

• More recently, in Chad, the KKL-JNF is transferring knowledge of water management, forestry, and date-palm agriculture, directly relevant to South Africa’s arid provinces. 

Yet by rejecting this resolution, we turned our back on all of it. The consequences are more than symbolic. This vote deprived South Africa of partnerships that could stabilise food production, rehabilitate farmland, and bring urgently needed investment into rural communities. 

Most African nations saw the value, and voted in favour. South Africa instead chose isolation, and it did so while rural poverty rises, water infrastructure collapses, and climate threats intensify. 

South Africa’s vote against a purely developmental, humanitarian resolution isn’t principled diplomacy. It’s self-sabotage. It’s a betrayal of rural women, youth, and smallholder farmers who need real solutions, not ideological posturing. 

Israel’s innovations have helped African nations overcome drought, famine, and land degradation. They can help South Africa too, but if only our government is willing to put its people above its Middle East politics. 

• Michael Kransdorff is the chairperson of JNF South Africa.