Last week, Mogoeng Mogoeng, the chief justice of South Africa’s Constitutional Court and the head of its judicial system, participated in an online seminar with the country’s chief rabbi. A devout Christian, Mogoeng expressed his love for Israelis and Palestinians alike, and went on to criticize South Africa’s pro-Palestinian policies, arguing that the country could instead adopt a more neutral stance and use its experiences to help bring peace. Yet these seemingly inoffensive words earned the official condemnation of the ruling party, the African National Congress (ANC). The editors of the Jerusalem Post write:

The South African BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) Coalition and #Africa4Palestine submitted a complaint with South Africa’s Judicial Service Commission against the chief justice, calling for his censure over “comments that are in contradiction with South African foreign policy and the spirit of our constitution.”

Regrettably, South Africa’s ANC government has in recent years become increasingly hostile to Israel, downgrading diplomatic relations following violence on the Israeli-Gaza border and recalling its ambassador from Tel Aviv in 2018.

In a country in which some 80 percent of the 45 million population are estimated to be Christian, it would behoove the South African government to pay attention to the wise words of Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein during the webinar. “At the end of the day, if we are going to overcome racism, what we need to do is reach out to one another and see the similarities and to realize that we are all human beings created in God’s image,” Goldstein said.

We urge South Africa to back the moderate statements made by Justice Mogoeng, restore diplomatic relations with Israel, and engage in a positive dialogue with both Israel and the Palestinians.

Ron Ben-Yishai, reporting from a visit to IDF forces in the Gaza Strip, analyzes the state of the fighting, and “the persistent challenge of eradicating an entrenched enemy in a complex urban terrain.”

Hamas, sensing the war’s end, is mounting a final effort to inflict casualties. The IDF now controls 65 percent of Gaza’s territory operationally, with observation, fire dominance, and relative freedom of movement, alongside systematic tunnel destruction. . . . Major P, a reserve company commander, says, “It’s frustrating to hear at home that we’re stagnating. The public doesn’t get that if we stop, Hamas will recover.”

Senior IDF officers cite two reasons for the slow progress: meticulous care to protect hostages, requiring cautious movement and constant intelligence gathering, and avoiding heavy losses, with 22 soldiers killed since June.

Two-and-a-half of Hamas’s five brigades have been dismantled, yet a new hostage deal and IDF withdrawal could allow Hamas to regroup. . . . Hamas is at its lowest military and governing point since its founding, reduced to a fragmented guerrilla force. Yet, without complete disarmament and infrastructure destruction, it could resurge as a threat in years.

At the same time, Ben-Yishai observes, not everything hangs on the IDF:

According to the Southern Command chief Major General Yaron Finkelman, the IDF is close to completing its objectives. In classical military terms, “defeat” means the enemy surrenders—but with a jihadist organization, the benchmark is its ability to operate against Israel.

Despite [the IDF’s] battlefield successes, the broader strategic outcome—especially regarding the hostages—now hinges on decisions from the political leadership. “We’ve done our part,” said a senior officer. “We’ve reached a crossroads where the government must decide where it wants to go—both on the hostage issue and on Gaza’s future.”