UN expert’s censure ends year of anti-Israel invective

The Health Professions Council of South Africa’s (HPCSA’s) ruling last month against controversial United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health, Dr Tlaleng Mofokeng, has sparked outrage among her supporters while at the same time exposing her apparent anti-Israel bias. 

The council found Mofokeng guilty of unprofessional conduct, and fined her R10 000 for “bringing the profession into disrepute” through abusive, racially charged, and profane language on social media. The decision followed a formal complaint by the South African Zionist Federation (SAZF) after she used the words “F** you Netanyahu” and “You white man. Evil scum. Voetsek.” in online exchanges while serving as a UN mandate holder. 

The incendiary social media posts that triggered the complaint date back to early January 2025. In response to news of a Gaza ceasefire postponement announced by Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, Mofokeng posted on X: “F** you Netanyahu.” A day later, she targeted human rights advocate Hillel Neuer of UN Watch, calling him “evil scum” and “you white man … voetsek”, after he called on the UN to address her conduct. The episode quickly drew international attention, and was widely reported in late January 2025, forming the basis of the complaint later pursued by the SAZF. 

According to the HPCSA’s official finding, Mofokeng was found to have violated Regulation 4(9) of the Health Professions Act through conduct unbecoming of a medical professional and contrary to the ethical standards of her profession. 

The SAZF hailed the ruling as an important affirmation of professional ethics and accountability. “The ruling has sent a clear message: South African professionals who use their platforms to spread hate, racial slurs, or incite hostility will face consequences. 

“Professional standing carries a duty to act with impartiality, ethics, and respect for all communities. Those who exploit their status to promote prejudice or hatred undermine not only their own credibility but also the institutions they represent,” it said. 

Mofokeng’s defenders, however, went on the offensive. A lengthy statement signed by activists and academics “as friends and colleagues of the UN mandate” condemned the decision as “spurious”, accusing the SAZF of “weaponising complaints procedures” and calling the finding an attack on free expression. The signatories insisted that the HPCSA had “no jurisdiction” over a UN official protected by diplomatic immunity, and alleged that “Zionist supporters … are using South African institutions to insulate Israel from accountability”. 

The Economic Freedom Fighters echoed that rhetoric, labelling the ruling “politically motivated” and denouncing the HPCSA for allowing itself to be “weaponised by the apartheid Zionist lobby”. The party claimed the sanction represented “a dangerous precedent for professional regulation in South Africa”, and warned against “Zionist infiltration” of national bodies. 

Amid the backlash, anti-Israel organisations including Healthcare Workers for Palestine and the Palestine Solidarity Alliance circulated social media posts insisting that the ruling was only “provisional”. 

The SAZF swiftly corrected the record, releasing the HPCSA’s letter dated 16 October 2025 to show that the outcome was final and the penalty already imposed. In a statement this week, the SAZF said, “The HPCSA process is stringent, deliberate, and guided by due process. The council informed the SAZF as far back as June that Dr Mofokeng’s legal representatives had been in communication with it, and that the council was waiting for her formal letter of explanation,” underscoring that this was a carefully considered matter, not one decided “on a whim”. 

It further urged the council to stand by its finding and “not succumb to organised political pressure being directed at its ethics committee”. 

The SAZF described the ruling as vindication of Neuer’s concerns about bias and misconduct by a senior UN official. 

Mofokeng, who once described Israel as “Israhell” and insisted that “Hamas aren’t terrorists”, has long been a lightning rod for controversy. Her online tirades against Israel and Jewish critics, many of them riddled with expletives and racial invective, have repeatedly raised questions about the UN’s capacity for impartiality. Her close alignment with fellow controversial UN rapporteur Francesca Albanese, herself sanctioned by the United States for antisemitic and inflammatory remarks and facing defamation proceedings, has further fuelled criticism that the UN human rights apparatus is compromised by entrenched bias. 

While Mofokeng has built her public persona as a women’s rights advocate and outspoken campaigner against gender-based violence, frequently commenting on sexual violence in war zones and the rights of women in conflict, she has remained conspicuously silent on the documented cases of rape and sexual abuse inflicted on Israeli women during the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023. Her refusal to acknowledge or condemn these atrocities has deepened perceptions of selective outrage and ideological hypocrisy. 

For the Jewish community, the HPCSA’s ruling marks a welcome moment of institutional accountability. But it has also provoked an avalanche of hostility from political factions that see any censure of Mofokeng as a Zionist plot. 

Mofokeng has 30 days to appeal the finding. The SAZF says it will monitor the process closely. The case was never about silencing political views, it said, rather it’s about the duty of professionals, particularly those representing South Africa and the UN, to uphold decency and restraint. 

For many in the Jewish community, the question now is whether the UN itself will take note or continue to turn a blind eye to conduct that undermines its own credibility. 

At the time of going to print, Mofokeng hadn’t responded to a detailed list of questions. The HPCSA, too, has declined to comment further about the repercussions of the ruling on her career or confirm whether she has lodged an appeal.