By Iqbal Jassat
The proposed acquisition by Israeli energy company Navitas Petroleum of a major stake in offshore oil and gas exploration off South Africa’s West Coast has exposed a contradiction that cannot be ignored.
South Africa has earned international recognition for taking Israel before the International Court of Justice on allegations of genocide in Gaza. It has consistently presented itself as a defender of international law, accountability and human rights.
Yet those principles appear increasingly difficult to reconcile with the prospect of granting strategic commercial opportunities to Israeli corporations operating in sectors of national importance.
Absent from much of the discussion is the broader question of policy consistency. If South Africa believes that Israel’s conduct warrants legal scrutiny before the world’s highest court, what framework governs commercial engagement with Israeli companies seeking access to South African natural resources?
The silence surrounding this question reflects an uncomfortable gap between diplomatic rhetoric and economic practice.
The issue extends beyond a single energy licence. Strategic sectors such as energy are never purely commercial. They carry geopolitical significance, influence national security and shape long term economic relationships. Decisions affecting these sectors should therefore be subject to the same ethical and legal standards that inform South Africa’s foreign policy.
The Green Connection has rightly called for transparency. Its request is not simply about one company or one exploration block. It seeks clarity on whether South Africa has developed a coherent policy governing commercial relations with Israeli entities while simultaneously pursuing legal action against the Israeli state.
Such a policy should already exist if foreign policy principles are to carry practical meaning.
This debate also unfolds against the backdrop of South Africa’s commitment to a Just Energy Transition. Expanding offshore fossil fuel exploration raises questions that reach well beyond geopolitics.
Coastal communities, marine ecosystems and long term environmental sustainability deserve consideration alongside commercial opportunity. These concerns cannot be separated from the political dimensions of the transaction.
The beneficiaries of ambiguity are rarely the public. Corporate interests, international investors and political decision makers all benefit when strategic decisions are made without transparent public scrutiny.
Democratic accountability demands that approvals involving critical national assets be accompanied by clear explanations of the principles guiding those decisions.
South Africa has consistently argued that international law must apply equally to all states. That principle carries obligations at home as well as abroad. Foreign policy credibility depends not only on speeches delivered before international tribunals, but on whether domestic decisions reflect the same commitment to justice and consistency.
The proposed Navitas transaction therefore represents more than an investment decision. It is a test of whether South Africa’s commitment to international law is a guiding principle or merely a diplomatic position.
Unless steps are taken to halt it, the glaring contradiction will point to South Africa’s dubious inconsistency, adding to the troubling question of coal supply.
Iqbal Jassat
Executive Member
Media Review Network