By Nkateko Muloiwa
On January 30, 2026, South Africa declared Israeli Chargé d'Affaires Ariel Seidman persona non grata and ordered him to leave the country within 72 hours.
The Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) cited "unacceptable violations of diplomatic norms," specifically pointing to insulting social media posts about President Cyril Ramaphosa and failure to notify authorities about visits by Israeli officials.
While South Africa's grievances may have merit, the decision to take this most severe diplomatic action raises serious questions about whether the response was proportionate, strategically sound, or even consistent with the country's explicit foreign policy principles.
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations grants states the right to declare diplomats persona non grata "at any time and without having to explain their decision.
This discretion, however, does not mean such decisions are immune from scrutiny or free from consequences.
South Africa's move, while legally permissible, may prove diplomatically shortsighted for several compelling reasons.
First, the alleged violations appear insufficient to warrant such drastic action.
South Africa cited social media posts attacking President Ramaphosa and administrative failures regarding notification of official visits.
Yet the government provided no specific examples of these posts or detailed evidence of the purported breaches.
In diplomatic practice, persona non grata declarations are typically reserved for serious transgressions, such as espionage, criminal activity, or fundamental breaches of diplomatic immunity. Social media criticism, while perhaps distasteful, hardly rises to this level.
Many democracies routinely tolerate far more aggressive public criticism from foreign diplomatic missions without resorting to expulsion.
This calls into question the proportionality of the measures. Standard diplomatic practice would suggest several intermediate steps before expulsion, such as summoning the diplomat for a stern conversation, issuing a formal diplomatic note (demarche), or requesting an apology.
These graduated responses preserve relationships while clearly communicating displeasure and outlining further actions if the diplomat's behaviour does not change.
A reality that South Africa was ‘regrettably’ denied by the US when Ambassador Rasool was fired.
Many in South Africa called those measures undemocratic and draconian.
Furthermore, by immediately escalating to expulsion, South Africa closed off opportunities for de-escalation and dialogue – an ironic stance for a country that positions itself as a champion of peaceful conflict resolution and multilateralism.
The timing and context of the decision further undermine its justification.
Relations between South Africa and Israel had deteriorated significantly since Pretoria filed genocide charges at the International Court of Justice in late 2023.
The expulsion appears less about specific diplomatic violations and more about ongoing political tensions over Gaza.
Using persona non grata as a tool to express broader policy disagreements – rather than to address genuine diplomatic misconduct – sets a dangerous precedent.
It transforms a specific legal mechanism into a general weapon of foreign policy, diminishing its credibility and effectiveness.
Moreover, South Africa's action invites charges of inconsistency that damage its moral authority. Pretoria applies its principles selectively, condemning some states vigorously while maintaining silence on others.
The government hosted, on January 4 2024, Sudanese RSF commander Mohamed Dagalo, despite accusations of human rights abuses, maintained cautious positions on Russian aggression in Ukraine, and showed reluctance to criticise human rights violations in Xinjiang.
If social media criticism and administrative oversights justify expelling an Israeli diplomat, why do far graver actions by other states elicit no comparable response?
This selective application of standards undermines South Africa's claim to principled foreign policy leadership and opens it to accusations of political theatre rather than genuine commitment to international norms.
The strategic consequences of the expulsion deserve serious consideration. Israel immediately reciprocated by declaring South Africa's senior diplomatic representative, Shaun Edward Byneveldt, persona non grata.
This tit-for-tat escalation leaves both countries with diminished diplomatic channels at precisely the moment when communication might prove most valuable.
With South Africa's ICJ case against Israel ongoing, maintaining some level of diplomatic engagement would seem prudent. Instead, both nations now operate with reduced capacity for dialogue, coordination, or eventual reconciliation.
Furthermore, South Africa's decision may have unintended regional and international repercussions.
The move has already drawn criticism from the United States, with the Trump administration viewing it as further evidence of what it perceives as South Africa's alignment with adversarial states.
At a time when South Africa faces economic challenges and needs strong international partnerships, unnecessarily antagonising allies of major powers carries real costs. Diplomatic capital, once spent, is not easily replenished.
There is also the matter of precedent. By establishing that social media criticism of a head of state constitutes grounds for expulsion, South Africa invites reciprocal treatment.
South African diplomats worldwide may now find themselves vulnerable to similar actions based on public statements that displease host governments.
This constrains diplomatic freedom of expression and could chill the robust exchanges that characterise healthy international discourse.
Perhaps most troubling is what this episode reveals about South Africa's broader foreign policy coherence.
Analysts have noted increasing fragmentation in Pretoria's international posture, with various government and party figures making contradictory statements that confuse international partners.
The Seidman expulsion, announced with minimal detail and appearing reactive rather than strategic, fits this pattern of ad hoc decision-making driven more by domestic political considerations than by careful diplomatic calculation.
South Africa had legitimate grievances.
Diplomatic missions should respect host countries and observe proper protocols.
But the path from grievance to expulsion should be deliberate, proportionate, and exhaustive of other remedies.
By choosing the nuclear option for what appear to be relatively minor infractions, South Africa may have scored a symbolic victory for domestic audiences while suffering a strategic defeat in the complex chess game of international relations.
Diplomacy thrives on communication, even – especially – between adversaries.
South Africa's decision to expel rather than engage represents a missed opportunity to demonstrate the restraint and wisdom that true diplomatic leadership requires.
In the long view of history, this may be remembered not as a principled stand, but as an impulsive error that diminished South Africa's influence precisely when it needed it most.
The information contained in the article posted represents the views and opinions of the author and does not necessarily represent the views or opinions of eNCA.com.