Diplomatic ceremonies normally transpire behind closed doors, wrapped in carefully chosen words and planned procedures. But on January 30, 2026, the choreography cracked. South Africa removed Israel’s representative, Ariel Seidman, and gave him three days to leave. DIRCO’s statement was unusually frank, but it wasn’t very lengthy. It accused Seidman of insulting South Africa’s president and breaking diplomatic protocol—not vague insinuations, but directly stated accusations.
The Israeli government soon retaliated in kind. Its foreign ministry designated Shaun Edward Byneveldt, South Africa’s representative to Palestine, persona non grata. He, too, was given 72 hours. Neither action was legally new, but the emotional force was clear.
For months, tensions had been growing. South Africa’s complaint against Israel at the International Court of Justice, alleging acts of genocide in Gaza, triggered international headlines. However, this diplomatic breach felt more symbolic than procedural. South Africa was making a statement about dignity, sovereignty, and narrative control rather than merely punishing a procedure error.
DIRCO stated various grounds for Seidman’s termination. Among them was the failure to notify Pretoria of scheduled Israeli official visits—an omission perceived not as a clerical slip but as an intentional circumvention. Additionally, the agency accused Seidman of utilizing official Israeli communication tools to undermine President Cyril Ramaphosa’s persona. These were not only unfriendly acts; they were treated as provocations.
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Topic | Diplomatic fallout: Israel and South Africa |
| Trigger Event | South Africa expelled Israeli diplomat Ariel Seidman |
| Reciprocal Action | Israel expelled SA envoy Shaun Edward Byneveldt |
| Official Reason (SA) | “Insulting attacks” on President Ramaphosa and protocol violations |
| Official Reason (Israel) | Retaliatory expulsion; claims SA’s action is “baseless” |
| Broader Context | ICJ genocide case filed by SA against Israel over Gaza war |
| Consequence | Intensified diplomatic tensions and global media attention |
| External Reference | https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/30/south-africa-expels-israeli-envoy |
Byneveldt, albeit nominally based in Ramallah, slipped into the crossfire. South Africa’s long-standing support for the Palestinian cause is reflected in his assignment. Israel’s decision to deport him revealed not simply a tit-for-tat reflex but a deliberate response. In blocking a diplomat from Ramallah, Israel increased its physical and administrative control over Palestinian mobility and access. It was, in essence, a power move disguised in reciprocity.
Reactions inside South Africa were strongly split. The ANC issued a supportive statement, describing the expulsion of Seidman as “firm but necessary.” The Economic Freedom Fighters went even further, advocating a full separation of diplomatic and economic ties with Israel. For many observers, this event represented a rhetorical crescendo in Pretoria’s developing foreign policy—one that pushes assertively into justice-oriented language and gestures.
What struck me, reading the text of DIRCO’s briefing, was how carefully limited it was. No inflammatory language. No dramatic posturing. Just properly phrased condemnation, backed by legal terms and procedure references. It reminded me that even symbolic actions are calculated with precision, particularly when the stakes are reputational.
The word “persona non grata” sounds ancient, but its utility has lasted for good reason. It works as both reproach and redefinition. You are no longer welcome here—not just as an individual, but as an official voice of your state. That carries weight, especially in diplomatic circles where access equals influence.
The timing in South Africa was especially noteworthy. Days after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) said it will hold hearings on Pretoria’s claims of genocide, the deportation took place. The juxtaposition felt purposeful. It indicated that South Africa intended to ground its foreign policy in principled action, even when that conduct draws blowback.
Meanwhile, Israel branded the measure as “outrageous and without justification.” It was viewed as more evidence in some Israeli political circles that South Africa is too closely aligned with hostile blocs. But such reading ignores a larger context: South Africa’s history is rooted in resistance politics, and its post-apartheid identity remains strongly wedded to liberation narratives. The Palestinian struggle resonates not as a policy stance, but as a moral echo.
This diplomatic impasse isn’t isolated. It fits into a bigger worldwide pattern where legal frameworks and moral discourse are being employed to confront entrenched power structures. Declaring a diplomat unwanted is one example of a seemingly procedural gesture that now carries ideological weight. And once they’re in motion, they’re impossible to walk back.
Israeli officials emphasized that their move was punitive, not escalatory. But retribution always reshapes the playing ground. It encourages both parties to examine not only how they participate, but what they’re willing to risk in the quest of policy purity.
In this case, the stakes aren’t warships or tariffs. They’re reputational, symbolic, and surprisingly potent. For South Africa, the message was clear: respect our institutions, our leadership, and our sovereign procedures. For Israel, the retort was just as emphatic: we will not be lectured, nor will we give political space without contest.
The coming weeks will determine whether the expulsion of these two diplomats remains a flashpoint or becomes a framework for reforming bilateral ties. In recent memory, such acts have either catalyzed greater disintegration or created the framework for reluctant comprehension. It’s rarely linear. More often, it is changed by tiny shifts—committee hearings, legal filings, backchannel negotiations.
But even in complexity, one thing is extraordinarily plain. The tone of participation has shifted. Acts intended to elicit introspection rather than merely uphold etiquette have significantly supplanted the language of soft diplomacy.
