On May 21, President Donald Trump confronted visiting South African President Cyril Ramaphosa with evidence that his country is committing genocide against white farmers. Ramaphosa vigorously denied this. He said that even though some of these farmers have suffered violence, killing, and the threat of discrimination, none of that rises anything close to the level of genocide.

Much of what Ramaphosa said at the White House is nearly identical to claims made by Israel to refute the genocide and apartheid charges brought against it by South Africa. Here are three examples:

1. Julius Malema is leader of a left-wing South African party that won about 10 percent of the vote in the 2024 election. Trump showed a video that included Malema chanting a song understood to be calling for violence against white people — creating an environment of racism and hate that could easily lead to physical harm. Ramaphosa responded that while Malema enjoys freedom of speech, he is not part of the government — and that the government in fact opposes the violence and racism that Malema advocates.

However, in South Africa’s initial filing against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, much of South Africa’s proof that Israel has genocidal intent is based on quotes from a few individual Israelis.

For example, on page 144 of their initial filing, they quote Minister Ben-Gvir as saying that destroying Hamas should include those who celebrate Hamas atrocities and pass out candy. The brief then goes on to quote other less well known government ministers, people serving in the IDF as reservists, and even media personalities saying things that South Africa believes indicate Israel has genocidal intent.

Israel has responded numerous times saying that Ben-Gvir and other ministers quoted are not in the war cabinet and have no role in shaping war policy, and the other people are private citizens who do not represent the government. Israel has said those people have freedom of speech, just the same as Julius Malema, but since they do not give orders to the military, their statements have no bearing on what is happening in Gaza. Nevertheless, South Africa used those quotes in its legal filing, happy to pick up statements of any Israeli that suited their purpose.

2. In his meeting with Trump, Ramaphosa pointed to his country’s white Minister of Agriculture, along with two well-known white South African golfers, as evidence that there cannot be genocide. Ramaphosa told Trump that if there really was genocide against white people going on in South Africa, these prominent white South African citizens wouldn’t have been willing to accompany him to Washington — or be serving in his government or thriving in society.

But how many times has Israel pointed out that it is a diverse society, with Arab political parties represented in the Knesset and with Arab leaders serving in various prominent positions both in government and the private sector, as evidence against genocide and any alleged apartheid? Arab citizens have full civil rights, and are completely equal before the law.

South Africa and others who make this accusation always brush this aside, saying these are exceptions or only a small number of people, and claiming that a few Arabs in sports or government doesn’t mean anything for all the rest. But if pointing to a white minister and some white champion golfers is proof there is no genocide in South Africa, pointing out that there are Arab Knesset members and there was an Arab swimmer on Israel’s 2024 Olympic team ought to be proof for Israel too. There’s much more proof on Israel’s side of course, but this just shows the absurdity of South Africa’s claims.

3. Ramaphosa acknowledged that white farmers have suffered violence, but pointed out that there is violence against black people too. Media fact-checkers added that even when white farmers are killed, race may not be the motive. It could easily just be robbers exploiting the fact that farmers live in isolated locations far from the police to get away with theft and murder. As long as the primary motive isn’t race, regardless of the harm done, it shouldn’t be called genocide.

However, in South Africa’s subsequent March filing asking the ICJ to impose additional provisional measures against Israel, it tells the ICJ to focus only on the result of Israel’s actions, regardless of Israel’s intent. South Africa states explicitly in section 12 that the fact (in its view) that Gaza residents were facing starvation is enough to find Israel in violation of the Genocide Convention, regardless of Israel’s reasons for restricting aid. So by this logic, if a wave of killings motivated by property theft forces South Africa’s white farmers to abandon their vulnerable farms and flee their land, that should be genocide too.

To be clear, my purpose here is not to argue whether South Africa (or Israel) are actually guilty of genocide. It’s only to show that if the roles were reversed, and South Africa found itself facing the same genocide allegations it brought against Israel, it would denounce the process as biased, legally unsound, and part of an international smear campaign — just as Israel has done.

Whether we’re talking about Gaza or white farmers in South Africa, facts and logic are shoved aside, and provoking or preventing outrage becomes the only goal.

Shlomo Levin is the author of The Human Rights Haggadah, which highlights modern human rights issues in this classic Jewish text, and he has a human rights blog. Find him at https://hrhaggadah.substack.com/.

The post Ramaphosa at the White House: South Africa’s Double Standard on Genocide first appeared on Algemeiner.com.