Naledi Pandor blasts Israel’s proposed death penalty law as apartheid-style justice

Former minister draws sharp parallels with South Africa’s past

Former South African international relations minister Dr. Naledi Pandor has strongly condemned a controversial Israeli law that would make the death penalty the default punishment for certain Palestinians convicted of deadly attacks.

Her criticism was direct and deeply rooted in South Africa’s own history.

Pandor said the legislation echoes legal systems used during colonial rule and apartheid, when black South Africans faced mandatory death sentences under discriminatory laws with little room for judicial discretion.

For many South Africans, that comparison carries enormous emotional and political weight.

What the new Israeli law proposes

According to reports, Israel’s parliament approved legislation that would make capital punishment the standard sentence for Palestinians convicted in military courts of attacks resulting in Israeli deaths.

The law reportedly passed after a divided vote in the Knesset, with support from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and strong backing from far-right figures including National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

The proposed measures include execution by hanging within a set time frame, with limited delays possible.

Critics argue the law specifically targets Palestinians and creates separate legal consequences based on identity and jurisdiction.

Why Pandor’s comments matter in South Africa

Pandor is not a fringe voice in this debate.

She served as South Africa’s Minister of International Relations and Cooperation and became globally recognised for helping lead Pretoria’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

That case argued that Israel’s military actions in Gaza breached obligations under the Genocide Convention.

Because of that role, her words still carry diplomatic and moral influence both locally and internationally.

The apartheid comparison explained

Pandor said mandatory sentencing based on race or identity recalls South Africa’s darkest legal traditions.

During colonial and apartheid eras, the justice system often operated differently depending on who stood before the court. Laws were frequently used to preserve power rather than equal justice.

Her broader point appears to be this: when punishment becomes selective and automatic, the rule of law is weakened.

That message resonates strongly in a country where legal inequality was once state policy.

International backlash grows

The legislation has also triggered criticism outside South Africa.

Human rights voices and international legal observers have questioned whether such a law aligns with democratic principles and international humanitarian standards.

Concerns raised include:

• Mandatory death sentences without full judicial discretion
• Different treatment based on nationality or ethnicity
• Use of military courts in politically charged cases
• Compliance with international law in occupied territories

These issues have intensified an already polarised global debate over Israel and Palestine.

Public reaction likely to be divided

South African reaction is expected to reflect existing views on the conflict.

Many citizens, especially within activist and student circles, are likely to support Pandor’s stance and see it as consistent with South Africa’s post-apartheid foreign policy.

Others may argue that Israel has security concerns and the right to respond firmly to attacks.

As with most Israel-Palestine headlines, emotion and ideology often shape public responses as much as legal arguments do.

Pretoria’s harder diplomatic line

South Africa has increasingly taken a vocal position on Palestinian rights in recent years.

From recalling diplomats to filing the ICJ case, Pretoria has framed its foreign policy through the lens of international law and anti-apartheid memory.

Pandor’s latest remarks suggest that stance remains influential even after her time in office.

A bigger question about justice

Beyond the politics, this debate raises a fundamental issue: can justice remain credible if it is designed for one group and not another?

That is the question at the centre of Pandor’s criticism.

And in South Africa where unequal law once shaped everyday life, it is a question many people understand immediately.