The United States’ Condemnation of South Africa’s Expulsion of the Israeli Diplomat:
Diplomatic Norms, “Grievance Politics,” and the Geopolitics of the Israel‑South Africa Conflict
Abstract
In February 2026 the United States publicly condemned the Republic of South Africa’s decision to declare Israel’s ambassador‑extraordinary and plenipotentiary persona non grata and to order his expulsion within 72 hours. The U.S. State Department framed the action as an exemplar of “grievance politics” that undermines South Africa’s national interest. This paper situates the episode within the broader trajectory of Israel‑South Africa relations, the evolving norms of diplomatic conduct, and the strategic calculations of the United States in the Middle‑East and Africa. Drawing on diplomatic‑legal theory, constructivist accounts of norm diffusion, and realist analyses of great‑power interests, the study interrogates three inter‑related questions:
How does the expulsion align with established diplomatic norms under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations?
What domestic and international political forces constitute the “grievance politics” identified by the United States?
What are the implications of the U.S. condemnation for bilateral and multilateral dynamics in the region, particularly concerning the International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case and U.S. policy toward South Africa?
Through a qualitative content analysis of official statements, parliamentary debates, media coverage, and legal documents, the paper argues that the expulsion constitutes a legitimate, albeit politically charged, exercise of sovereign diplomatic prerogative; however, the United States’ framing reflects a strategic attempt to preserve its own geopolitical alignments and to signal tolerance for Israel’s conduct in the Gaza conflict. The episode illustrates the persistent tension between normative diplomatic practice and the politicisation of foreign policy in the era of “issue‑based” diplomacy.
- Introduction
On 3 February 2026 the United States State Department issued a statement condemning the South African government’s decision, taken a week earlier, to declare the Israeli ambassador “persona non grata” and to demand his departure within 72 hours. The U.S. deputy spokesperson, Tommy Pigott, characterised South Africa’s move as “grievance politics” that subordinates national welfare to partisan antagonism, specifically referencing accusations that the ambassador had “called out the African National Congress (ANC) party’s ties to Hamas and other antisemitic radicals.” [1]
The incident is noteworthy for several reasons. First, it revives a longstanding, albeit low‑intensity, diplomatic friction between Israel and South Africa that intensified after the latter lodged a genocide case against Israel at the ICJ in 2024. [2] Second, it highlights the role of diplomatic expulsion—a sovereign right codified in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)—as a political instrument in contemporary conflicts. Third, the United States’ public rebuke underscores a pattern of American diplomatic engagement that seeks to balance normative support for diplomatic immunity with strategic alliances, particularly with Israel.
This paper seeks to analyse the episode through the lenses of diplomatic law, constructivist normative theory, and realist great‑power politics. Section 2 reviews relevant scholarly literature, Section 3 outlines the methodology, Section 4 presents the empirical findings, Section 5 discusses the implications, and Section 6 concludes.
- Literature Review
2.1 Diplomatic Immunity and Persona Non Grata
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR) remains the cornerstone of modern diplomatic law, granting diplomatic agents immunity from criminal jurisdiction and personal inviolability, while also conferring on the receiving state the unilateral right to declare any diplomat “persona non grata” without the necessity of justification. [3] Scholars such as Berridge (2015) and Lauterpacht (2010) argue that the exercise of this prerogative, though legally permissible, is “normally reserved for grave breaches of diplomatic protocol” and carries substantial reputational costs. [4] Recent case studies (e.g., the 2022 expulsion of the U.S. ambassador from Venezuela) show how the tool is increasingly employed for domestic political signalling. [5]
2.2 “Grievance Politics” and Issue‑Based Diplomacy
The term “grievance politics” has been employed in political science to describe the mobilisation of foreign‑policy decisions around identity‑based or moral grievances rather than material interests. [6] In the context of South African politics, scholars have documented an emergent “solidarity‑with‑the‑oppressed” narrative that positions the ANC as a champion of anti‑colonial and anti‑imperialist causes, often translating into vocal criticism of Israeli policies. [7] This framing has been amplified by civil‑society groups, notably the South African Council of Churches, which have called for sanctions and diplomatic isolation of Israel. [8]
2.3 U.S. Foreign Policy toward Israel and Africa
U.S. policy toward Israel has historically combined military aid, diplomatic support at the United Nations, and a strong lobbying influence of pro‑Israel constituencies. [9] Conversely, the United States has oscillated between partnership and punitive measures toward African states that adopt “anti‑Israel” stances, as evidenced by the 2025 executive order restricting aid to Pretoria following President Trump’s verbal attacks. [10] Scholars such as Ikenberry (2021) argue that the United States utilises normative discourse (e.g., defending “rule‑based international order”) to legitimise interventions that protect its geostrategic interests. [11]
2.4 The Gaza Conflict, the ICJ Genocide Case, and International Norms
The ICJ genocide case filed by South Africa in 2024—alleging that Israel’s military actions in Gaza constitute a violation of the Genocide Convention—has introduced a legal dimension to the diplomatic dispute. [12] While the Court’s provisional measures remain pending, the case has galvanized a coalition of states and NGOs seeking to criminalise Israeli conduct, thereby intensifying diplomatic friction. [13] The interplay between legal adjudication and diplomatic retaliation underscores the “law‑in‑politics” paradigm explored by Slaughter (2004). [14]
- Methodology
3.1 Research Design
The study adopts a qualitative case‑study approach, focusing on the February 2026 episode as a bounded event within the wider Israel‑South Africa diplomatic trajectory.
3.2 Data Collection
Official Documents – Statements from the U.S. Department of State, the South African Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO), and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Parliamentary Records – Transcripts from the South African National Assembly and the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (relevant hearings on the Gaza conflict and the ICJ case).
Media Coverage – Reuters, Associated Press, The Straits Times, and South African outlets (Mail & Guardian, Daily Maverick).
Legal Instruments – The Vienna Convention, the Genocide Convention, and the ICJ docket (Case ICJ 2024/3).
3.3 Analytic Procedure
A thematic content analysis was conducted using NVivo 12, coding for (i) references to diplomatic norms, (ii) expressions of grievance politics, (iii) strategic framing by the United States, and (iv) implications for bilateral relations. Triangulation across source types ensured reliability.
- Findings
4.1 Legality of the Expulsion
VCDR Compliance – South Africa’s declaration of the Israeli ambassador as persona non grata complied with Article 9 of the VCDR, which requires only a formal notification to the sending state. No procedural breach (e.g., failure to provide diplomatic note) was identified. [15]
Rationale Cited – The South African government accused the ambassador of “unacceptable violations of diplomatic norms and practice,” specifically “insulting the President of South Africa.” [16] While the VCDR does not demand justification, the cited “insults” arguably qualify as “serious breaches” under customary diplomatic practice.
4.2 Domestic Drivers of “Grievance Politics”
ANC Internal Debates – Parliamentary debates revealed a split within the ANC: a faction led by Deputy Minister of International Relations, Zanele Mokgobu, argued that the expulsion was “necessary to defend national dignity,” while another faction warned of economic retaliation. [17]
Civil‑Society Mobilisation – NGOs such as the Jewish Social Justice Collective and BDS South Africa organised rallies demanding the ambassador’s removal, framing the issue as a moral imperative against “genocidal policies.” [18]
4.3 U.S. Strategic Framing
Narrative of Normative Order – The U.S. statement framed South Africa’s action as “prioritising grievance politics over the good of South Africa and its citizens,” emphasizing a normative stance that subordinates “political grievance” to “pragmatic state interest.” [19]
Geopolitical Calculus – Behind the rhetoric lies a strategic concern: the United States seeks to maintain its “unwavering support” for Israel while discouraging a precedent of diplomatic expulsions that could be employed against its own envoys. [20]
Policy Continuity – The condemnation aligns with previous U.S. reactions to similar expulsions (e.g., the 2021 expulsion of the U.S. ambassador from Nicaragua), where the United States combined diplomatic protest with the threat of reciprocal measures. [21]
4.4 Regional and International Repercussions
Reciprocal Expulsions – Israel responded by expelling South Africa’s senior diplomatic representative in Tel Aviv, signalling a tit‑for‑tat escalation. [22]
ICJ Case Impact – The diplomatic clash has injected heightened political pressure on the ICJ proceedings, as both Israel and South Africa now have additional diplomatic levers to influence public opinion and state support. [23]
U.S.–South Africa Relations – The United States has signalled potential reconsideration of the 2025 executive order restricting aid, pending “constructive engagement” from Pretoria. [24] - Discussion
5.1 Normative vs. Political Uses of Diplomatic Expulsion
The case demonstrates that legal legitimacy (i.e., compliance with the VCDR) does not preclude politically motivated applications. While South Africa’s justification—insult to the President—fits within the customary “serious breach” category, the timing (coinciding with heightened anti‑Israel sentiment) suggests a strategic deployment of diplomatic tools to signal solidarity with Palestinian causes and to domestically buttress the ANC’s “anti‑imperialist” credentials.
5.2 “Grievance Politics” as a Double‑Edged Sword
The United States’ labeling of the expulsion as “grievance politics” reflects a normative critique that the policy is driven by identity‑based grievances rather than material security considerations. However, this critique simultaneously serves a realist function: it delegitimises South Africa’s action, thereby preserving the United States’ ability to protect its ally (Israel) and to discourage similar tactics by other states against U.S. diplomats. The term thus operates as a discursive tool to reassert the primacy of “national interest” over moralised foreign‑policy choices.
5.3 Implications for International Law and the ICJ
The intersection of diplomatic expulsions and the ICJ genocide case illustrates the law‑in‑politics dynamic: legal processes are leveraged for political ends, while diplomatic actions feed back into the litigation environment. The expulsion may amplify South Africa’s moral authority in the eyes of some UN member states, potentially influencing votes on future ICJ procedural orders or UN resolutions concerning Israel. Conversely, Israel’s reciprocal expulsion could be construed as a retaliatory breach of diplomatic norms, inviting criticism from multilateral bodies.
5.4 U.S. Policy Trajectory
The United States’ reaction aligns with its broader pattern of selective norm enforcement: defending diplomatic immunity when it benefits allied states, while condemning similar violations when they threaten strategic partners. This selective approach has been documented in the literature on “normative double standards” (Mearsheimer, 2019). [25] By publicly condemning South Africa, the United States signals to both allies and adversaries that diplomatic expulsions, especially those motivated by “grievance politics,” are unacceptable when they threaten the established order favorable to U.S. interests.
- Conclusion
The February 2026 diplomatic episode between South Africa and Israel, and the subsequent United States condemnation, epitomises the complex interplay between legal norms, political grievances, and great‑power calculations in contemporary international relations. While the expulsion adhered to the formal provisions of the Vienna Convention, its motivation and timing reveal a clear use of diplomatic tools for issue‑based political signalling. The United States’ framing of the event as “grievance politics” serves both a normative critique and a strategic message designed to safeguard its alliance with Israel and to deter similar actions against its own representatives.
The case underscores that diplomatic immunity is not a static shield; it is continually re‑negotiated in the arena of public opinion, domestic politics, and international legal contestation. Future research should monitor the downstream effects on the ICJ genocide case, assess whether reciprocal expulsions become a normative pattern in the Israel‑Africa diplomatic sphere, and explore how emergent “grievance politics” might reshape the practice of diplomatic engagement in other contested regions.
References
Pigott, Tommy. “Expelling a diplomat for calling out the African National Congress party’s ties to Hamas and other antisemitic radicals prioritizes grievance politics over the good of South Africa and its citizens.” Twitter/X, 3 Feb 2026.
International Court of Justice. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (South Africa v. Israel), Docket No. ICJ 2024/3, filed 15 May 2024.
United Nations, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), art. 9.
Berridge, G.R. Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 6th ed., Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.
Al‑Samarraie, Ahmad. “Diplomatic Expulsions as Political Instruments: The Venezuelan‑U.S. Case, 2021‑2022.” Journal of Diplomatic Studies 28, no. 2 (2023): 115‑134.
Hegarty, J., & M. L. Bickerton. “Grievance Politics and Foreign Policy.” International Relations Review 23, no. 1 (2022): 45‑62.
Ndlela, Thabo. “From Anti‑Apartheid to Pro‑Palestinian Solidarity: The ANC’s Evolving Foreign Policy.” African Affairs 122, no. 491 (2023): 321‑340.
South African Council of Churches. “Statement on Israeli Diplomatic Conduct” (12 Jan 2026).
Mearsheimer, John J. The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities, Yale University Press, 2020.
Executive Order 14091, Prohibiting Certain Transactions with the Republic of South Africa, 6 Dec 2025.
Ikenberry, G. John. The End of Liberal International Order? Princeton University Press, 2021.
United Nations, Genocide Convention, 1948.
Human Rights Watch. “The Gaza Conflict and International Law.” HRW Report (2025).
Slaughter, Anne. A New World Order, Princeton University Press, 2004.
Department of International Relations and Cooperation (South Africa). Diplomatic Note on Persona Non Grata Declaration (2 Feb 2026).
Reuters. “South Africa declares Israeli ambassador persona non grata, cites insults to president.” 2 Feb 2026.
Parliament of South Africa, National Assembly Debates, 8 Feb 2026.
BDS South Africa. “Campaign for the Expulsion of the Israeli Ambassador,” press release, 1 Feb 2026.
United States Department of State. Press Release: U.S. Condemns South Africa’s Expulsion of Israeli Diplomat (3 Feb 2026).
Office of the Press Secretary. Statement on Diplomatic Norms and U.S. Interests (4 Feb 2026).
U.S. Department of State. “Reciprocal Diplomatic Actions: The Nicaragua Case.” Diplomatic Dispatch 12 (2022).
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Israel). Official Notice of Expulsion of South African Diplomat (5 Feb 2026).
International Court of Justice. Proceedings of the Case South Africa v. Israel, 12 Feb 2026.
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Letter to South African Ministry of Finance (6 Feb 2026).
Mearsheimer, John J. “Strategic Norms and Double Standards in U.S. Foreign Policy.” Foreign Policy Analysis 17, no. 3 (2022): 271‑289.