Tempers flared outside Pretoria’s Trade, Industry and Competition Department on August 22, 2025, as South Africa’s internal debate over its relationship with Israel reached a boiling point. The protest, orchestrated by the South African Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Coalition, drew together a coalition of trade unions—most notably the South African Federation of Trade Unions (SAFTU) and the National Union of Metalworkers of SA (Numsa)—to call for an immediate end to coal exports to Israel. Their demand: that the government sever all economic, diplomatic, and material ties with Israel, in light of the ongoing conflict in Gaza and South Africa’s own recent actions on the world stage.
At the heart of the protest was Zwelinzima Vavi, the outspoken SAFTU general secretary, who minced no words in his criticism of the government. According to Inside Politics, Vavi lambasted the Trade, Industry and Competition Department (DTIC) for what he described as hypocrisy. “To the government and the DTIC, can you stop being hypocrites. We saluted and we were happy that [the government] took Israel to International Criminal Court, yet you are still doing trade with Israel. You have not closed the Israeli embassy, you are allowing Glencore and other companies to ship coal to fuel the genocide,” Vavi declared, his voice echoing the frustration of many present.
These comments came just months after South Africa made international headlines by taking Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, alleging acts of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. On January 11, 2024, South Africa’s Justice Minister Ronald Lamola stood before the world, answering questions about the case and articulating the country’s moral and legal rationale. As reported by Anadolu via Getty Images, Lamola’s appearance underscored South Africa’s commitment to international justice, but it also exposed the diplomatic tightrope the government now walks—balancing global activism with the realities of its own economic interests.
The protest in Pretoria was not a spontaneous outburst. It was the latest chapter in an ongoing campaign, coordinated by the BDS Coalition, to pressure the South African government into aligning its economic policies with its diplomatic stance. The demonstrators’ memorandum was unambiguous: they demanded an end to all forms of engagement with Israel, including the closure of the Israeli embassy and a halt to the export of South African coal. Their reasoning was rooted in both history and principle. “It is in this spirit that we urge you to respect and uphold our constitution, international law, our moral responsibility and ethical duty to not only sanction, but to sever all forms of complicity – diplomatic, economic and material – in Israel’s system of occupation, apartheid and genocide,” said Roshan Daddo, BDS Coalition coordinator, as quoted by Inside Politics.
For many of the protesters, the issue was not just political, but deeply personal. They pointed to the support Palestine offered South Africa during its own struggle against apartheid, framing the current campaign as a matter of solidarity and historical debt. This sentiment was echoed by Numsa spokesperson Phakamile Majola, who told Inside Politics that the government’s decision to take Israel to the ICJ was “commendable.” Majola argued that this move had “elevated the gravity of the situation and the crimes being committed by Israel against Palestinians.” However, she insisted that words must be matched by deeds, urging the government to “go further” by imposing a coal embargo.
Majola’s concerns extended beyond geopolitics. She stressed the need for a careful, considered approach that would safeguard South African workers. “There must also be measures that are implemented to make sure that there are no jobs lost as a result of the embargo. Numsa adopted a resolution earlier this year that it would support any campaigns around the banning of coal to Israel,” Majola said. She added, “We would also like measures in place to ensure that jobs are not lost and that alternative markets are found so that there is no disruption in employment.”
The economic stakes are significant. South Africa’s coal industry is a major employer and a vital part of the national economy. Companies like Glencore, singled out by Vavi, have long played a central role in the country’s export sector. The protesters’ call for an embargo thus raises complex questions about how to balance moral imperatives with the need to protect livelihoods—a dilemma that has dogged governments the world over.
The government’s response, so far, has been cautious. Department spokesperson Bongani Lukhele confirmed to Inside Politics that Minister Parks Tau would respond to the memorandum of demands in due course, but offered no further details. This measured approach reflects the broader diplomatic challenges facing South Africa. As highlighted in an article published on August 21, 2025, the country’s stance on Israel has sparked both praise and criticism internationally, with some lauding its moral leadership and others questioning the consistency and effectiveness of its policies.
Indeed, the diplomatic dysfunction alluded to in recent coverage is not lost on observers. South Africa’s bold move at the ICJ was hailed by many as a principled stand, but critics argue that continued economic ties with Israel undermine the government’s credibility. The tension between rhetoric and reality has become a focal point for activists, unions, and political opponents alike. Some, like Vavi, see the government’s position as untenable: how can South Africa champion justice abroad while maintaining business as usual at home?
Yet, the issue is hardly black and white. The unions themselves are acutely aware of the potential fallout from a sudden embargo. The call for alternative markets and job protections reflects a recognition that economic disruption could have unintended consequences for the very workers the unions represent. It’s a delicate balancing act—one that requires both vision and pragmatism.
For now, the ball is in the government’s court. The protesters have made their demands clear, and the world is watching to see how South Africa will reconcile its lofty ideals with the practicalities of governance. Will the government heed the call to sever all ties with Israel, despite the economic costs? Or will it seek a middle path, one that maintains engagement while pushing for change through diplomatic channels?
As the debate continues, one thing is certain: the question of coal exports to Israel has become a litmus test for South Africa’s commitment to its own values. The outcome will not only shape the country’s foreign policy, but also its standing as a moral leader on the global stage.
With unions, activists, and government officials all weighing in, the coming weeks are likely to see further debate, negotiation, and perhaps even confrontation. For ordinary South Africans, the issue is no longer an abstract question of international law, but a real and pressing concern—one that touches on history, identity, and the everyday struggle to make ends meet.
As South Africa grapples with these challenges, its choices will resonate far beyond its borders, offering lessons for countries everywhere about the complexities of principle, power, and the pursuit of justice in an interconnected world.
