It comes as no surprise that the recent Brics online meeting chaired by President Cyril Ramaphosa issued a clear call for a lasting humanitarian ceasefire and the need to work towards a two-state solution in Palestine.
Compared to the racist stance often taken by the global north, Brics countries generally advocate a more progressive position that rightly views the conflict between Israel and Palestine as rooted in the oppressive dynamic between coloniser and colonised.
Worth adding to this discussion is the enduring solidarity between the ANC and the Palestinian liberation struggle, with ties dating back to the 1960s anti-apartheid movement. The shared experience of oppression under settler colonialism built deep bonds of solidarity between freedom fighters in South Africa and Palestine. Many key ANC figures, including Nelson Mandela, openly supported the Palestinian cause. This principled stance continues today under Ramaphosa's leadership.
However, it is also evident that not all countries in the Brics bloc are fully aligned. India's increasingly right-wing government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi has fostered disturbingly close ties with Israel's own ethno-nationalist regime. Modi's Hindu fascism mirrors Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s project in its reliance on religious identity as the basis for state power. This ideological symmetry explains India's burgeoning alliance with Netanyahu's Israel, built on military trade and shared Islamophobic sentiment. Of course, India's position also relates to its rivalry with China and Pakistan, in addition to ideological factors.
On the other end of the Brics spectrum sits Iran, a regional power with historic ties to Hamas and an arch-foe of Israeli expansionism. Iran's support for Palestinian groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad stems from both geopolitical positioning and religious affinity. This Shia power competes for influence with its Sunni rivals in the Gulf states, who have mostly accommodated Israeli ambitions. Iran's defiant stance against Zionism and embrace of armed resistance earns it credibility on the Arab street. Of course, its interest also lies in weakening a key US ally.
India's increasingly right-wing government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi has fostered disturbingly close ties with Israel's own ethno-nationalist regime
Political shifts in Argentina under the new far-right president-elect Javier Milei further complicate intra-Brics cohesion. Much like former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro, this extremist sees little value in ties with the global south and looks to Israel as an ally, factors that could see Argentina abandon its plans to join the bloc. Milei embraces the same free market orthodoxy that impoverished Argentina under past regimes. His affinity for Netanyahu is predictable given their shared commitment to unchecked capitalism. Russia and China may have to expand Brics's outreach to progressive Latin American states such as Mexico, Bolivia and Colombia if the bloc wants to retain some sort of anti-imperialist vision.
The unilateralism of American imperialism continues to drive the conflict in the Middle East. While the global balance of power shifts gradually, US support for Israel only strengthens China's position in the post-colonial world and diminishes any role the US might play in enabling normalisation between Israel and key Muslim powers such as Saudi Arabia.
American support for Israel has been unconditional, with more than $150bn (about R2.8-trillion) in aid, reliable diplomatic cover at the UN and the mobilisation of its media and civil society proxies around the world. But the limits of raw financial and military support without political vision and reciprocity are clear.
Israel thumbs its nose at Washington by openly sabotaging US interests through expanding illegal settlements during peace talks or hits on Iranian assets. And the utter failure of Jared Kushner's attempt to craft a wider Israel-Arab pact shows the geopolitical constraints faced by any US mediator. China's rise, combined with US blunders, allows Beijing to position itself as a more honest power broker.
While Brics issues compelling calls for peace and a just settlement, the road ahead remains unclear. Much depends on leadership change. Modi and Netanyahu enable each other's extremism, while leaders like Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva offer more universalist world views. Russia could play a decisive role if Putin finally loses patience with Israeli aerial attacks in Syria. The coming few years will indicate whether emergent powers can escape the hypocrisy of established ones and chart a viable path out of Western dominance of the global system.
But Brics unity alone may not suffice without mobilisation of popular forces. The long arc of liberation struggles from Algeria to South Africa suggest that enduring change requires mass organisation. The Arab Spring showed the power of non-violent protest, even in autocracies.
Palestinian freedom may hinge on the galvanisation of progressive forces globally — not negotiations between states. In South Africa the principled support for an end to the settler colonial oppression of Palestine by mass organisations such as Numsa, the largest trade union in Africa, and the rapidly growing shack dwellers’ movement Abahlali baseMjondolo is very encouraging.
In the end, Cold War logic simply replicates cycles of violence while avoiding root causes. Beyond states, real solidarity requires human connections between ordinary citizens across borders. Art, culture, trade, academia and sport all build bonds that pressure the powerful far more effectively than missiles or drones.
Brics diplomacy matters, but will never substitute for respective societies addressing their own particular complicity in oppression — be that religious and caste prejudice in India, ruthless oligarchy in Russia or the repression of minorities and dissidents in China.
We cannot forget that Russia, China and India are all repressive and authoritarian societies. South Africa has its own record of repressing labour and community struggles. Ultimately, it is only by embracing progressive dissent from below that states can meaningfully support a more just international order.
* Buccus is a political analyst
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.