US-SA Feud: Israel, lobby power and BRICS are the real reasons

IN my view, the meeting between President Cyril Ramaphosa and President Donald Trump was “more than meets the eye”. To the ordinary observer, it appeared straightforward, but closer scrutiny reveals intricacies and complexities better left unspoken, lest we risk opening Pandora’s box.

There are unrevealed details, a different perspective that even seasoned political commentators avoid addressing. Some philosophers play an intellectual version of Russian roulette. So I am prepared to risk shooting myself in the head by exploring the Israeli factor and the pro-Israel lobby’s role in the deterioration of US-South Africa relations. My aim is not consensus but controversy.

Like Ian Mitroff and his colleagues argue in *Assumptional Analysis: A Methodology for Strategic Problem Solving*, our culture unconsciously trains us for compromise — even the avoidance of conflict. This risks reaching consensus “too soon and for the wrong reasons”, such as an inability to tolerate disagreement. Their “assumptional analysis” technique is a tool for strategic problem-solving, one that embraces conflict rather than sidestepping it. It begins by identifying stakeholders, dissecting their assumptions, and negotiating solutions without shying from controversy.

Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman, citing philosopher Cornelius Castoriadis, warns: “The problem with our civilisation is that it has stopped questioning itself. No society which forgets the art of asking questions can count on finding answers to the problems that beset it—certainly not before it is too late.” We must ask these difficult questions, for emotions often blind us to the bigger picture.

The much-anticipated discussions between Trump and Ramaphosa, including their media briefing, revolved around several key points:

• Meeting Context: Trump’s questions seemed tailored to favour pro-Israel lobby perspectives, revealing a clear bias.
• South Africa-Israel Tensions: South Africa’s decision to take Israel to the ICJ over Gaza genocide allegations triggered a fierce reaction from Trump.
• Trump’s Comments: He weaponised the term “genocide” to describe white farmer killings in South Africa — a deliberate, exaggerated provocation.
• Israeli Sensitivity: The word “genocide” carries immense weight for Jews, given the Holocaust’s trauma. Israel’s outrage was predictable.
• Criticism of Trump: Many saw his rhetoric as a political stunt, deflecting from South Africa’s legitimate grievances against Israel.

It is my view that Trump’s questions — both publicly and behind closed doors — were influenced by the pro-Israel lobby within his administration. They were framed with vengeance in mind, designed to humiliate South Africa for its ICJ case. Notably, Trump fixated on “genocide” when criticising South Africa’s handling of farm murders.

For Jews, this term is psychologically debilitating, evoking the 6 million lives lost in the Holocaust. Yet, if “genocide” applies to historical Jewish suffering, how can Israel deny its relevance to Gaza, where over 70 000 Palestinians have been killed since October 2025?

Trump sought to exaggerate farmer killings into a systemic “genocide”. The reality is starkly different. Yes, there are killings on farms — but to call this a genocide is a blatant distortion. His rhetoric was a retaliatory move by Israel, using Trump as its mouthpiece.

Without delving into conspiracy, the pro-Israel faction has long been accused of shielding Israel from accountability. It has influenced US policy for decades, ensuring the US’s reluctance to criticise Israel’s violence against Palestinians, its human rights abuses, or its threats against Iran. Media outlets are increasingly exposing the lobby’s corrupt practices.

For years, this issue was ignored in political discourse. But no longer. The collapse of the Oslo Accords and the Second Intifada brought it to the forefront. Figures like Jimmy Carter (*Peace Not Apartheid*) and scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (*The Israel Lobby*) have challenged the lobby’s dominance. Their works sparked global debate, praised by some as a wake-up call, dismissed by others as misleading.

What went unmentioned in the Trump-Ramaphosa press conference was the elephant in the room: Israel. South Africa is the only nation to openly condemn Israel’s actions in Gaza and pursue legal action. This principled stance has cost it dearly — US aid was cut, and diplomatic relations soured. Israel’s fury stems from South Africa’s use of the word “genocide”, a term that opens old wounds for Jews. The irony is palpable: a state born from genocide now inflicts similar horrors.

Another thorn in America’s side is South Africa’s BRICS membership. China and Russia, particularly China, are vying for global influence, challenging US hegemony. South Africa is caught in a Catch-22: Russia and China supported the anti-apartheid struggle, but the US remains its largest trade partner. This delicate balancing act fuels Washington’s frustration.

Critics underestimate Ramaphosa’s handling of Trump. As Goethe said: “Things that matter most must never be at the mercy of things that matter least.” Ramaphosa prioritised mending ties over pointless confrontation. With 8 million unemployed, South Africa cannot afford empty gestures. Henry Ford’s words ring true: “Obstacles are what you see when you take your eyes off the goal.” Ramaphosa kept his focus — stabilising relations with a critical trade partner.

Some expected him to square up against Trump, but that would have been folly. Ramaphosa’s imperturbable demeanour and strategic restraint made him the right leader for the moment. He flew in, mopped up the mess caused by misinformation, and flew out — without yielding to provocation. Had he indulged in foolish bravado, the cost would have been immense.

Amid a global deficit of integrity and leadership, Ramaphosa’s approach deserves recognition. He is far from a “used cartridge”; he remains a potent force. While imperfect, his handling of Trump demonstrated presidential gravitas and surprising *chutzpah*. He represented South Africa with eloquence and resolve.

For now, we must resist the temptation to judge harshly. As the saying goes: “How many among us have occupied the presidency?” Credit must be given where it is due. Ramaphosa navigated a diplomatic minefield with skill. That is the mark of a leader.

* Dr Vusi Shongwe works in the Department of Sport, Arts, and Culture in KwaZulu-Natal and writes in his personal capacity.

** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, Independent Media or IOL.