SA Calls for Travel Restrictions on Israelis, Arms Embargo on Israel

South Africa has fired another salvo at Israel, calling for people travelling on Israeli passports or who have travelled from Tel Aviv to face “potential secondary screening at ports of entry under domestic warcrimes inadmissibility rules”.

This was one of the resolutions that came out of a meeting on Wednesday of The Hague Group, which was co-chaired by South Africa and Colombia.

According to a statement, co-signed by Alvin Botes, the deputy minister of international relations and cooperation of South Africa, and his Colombian counterpart, Mauricio Jaramillo, 40 countries met in The Hague in The Netherlands to discuss Israel’s actions in Palestine. According to the group’s statement, this was the biggest gathering since its founding in January 2025.

Delegates at the meeting criticised what they described as an acceleration in Israeli settlement activity and military operations in the West Bank, arguing that this was de facto annexation of the West Bank.

The Hague Group statement proposed three measures to punish Israel for its actions.

These are:

“Ensure accountability: No safe haven for perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. Implement a disclosure requirement regarding service in the Israeli military subjecting travellers with Israeli travel documents or arriving from an origin of Tel Aviv airport to potential secondary screening at ports of entry under domestic war-crimes inadmissibility rules, and/or adjusted visa policies, as applicable; in compliance with the obligation to ensure accountability for the most serious crimes under international law through robust, impartial, and independent investigations and prosecutions at national or international levels, and ensure justice for all victims and the prevention of future crimes.

“Enforce non-recognition of illegal settlements. Refuse to recognise settlements as legally valid, and prohibit the import of settlement goods and prevent domestic companies from operating in settlements, ensuring that no national, company, or entity under participating states’ jurisdiction lends recognition or material support to Israel’s unlawful presence.

“Cut complicity: No arms or material support. Prevent the transfer, transit, or carriage of arms, munitions, military fuel, and dual-use items to Israel – including through export restrictions, port controls, and flag-state responsibilities – in full compliance with international law. Conduct urgent reviews of public procurement and contracts to ensure that no public institution or public funds sustain Israel’s unlawful occupation.”

Effectively The Hague Group is calling for an arms embargo on Israel as well as making it more difficult for people on Israeli passports to travel.

The statement concluded with a warning to governments weighing their response, stating that history would judge whether states chose "compliance over complicity".

South Africa’s role in this could further inflame tensions between Pretoria and Washington DC, at a time when relations between the two are the most strained they have been in decades.

Meanwhile, earlier this week Paraguay declared an “intervention” in the genocide case in the International Court of Justice brought by South Africa against Israel.

In its declaration Paraguay takes a firm stance on the interpretation of the Genocide Convention, advocating for a narrow and strict reading of the definition of genocide. Paraguay stresses that genocide, as defined under Article II of the Convention, must be considered the "most serious of all crimes" and should only apply in exceptional cases supported by clear and indisputable evidence. The country emphasises three key points: first, that genocide should not be expanded to include other grave violations, such as war crimes or breaches of humanitarian law; second, that the high threshold for proving the "specific intent" to destroy a group – whether in whole or in part – must remain rigorous; and third, that the evidentiary bar for establishing genocide should remain extraordinarily high to preserve the integrity of the convention.

While Paraguay has framed its position as a neutral legal interpretation, it effectively argues against applying the genocide label to Israel's actions in Gaza, aligning more with defences that call for caution in the use of this term.