When Politicians Play With Jihad, Innocent People Pay

Rhetoric alone does not commit violence, but it creates conditions where young people believe it is acceptable.

Photo by vignesh on Unsplash

Written By: Blessing Mathabela

“We are a peace-loving people, but we are permitted to engage in Jihad when necessary” - Dr Naledi Pandor.

These were the words of former International Relations Minister Dr Naledi Pandor, spoken at the Langa Masjid gala dinner in Cape Town on the 24^th of August 2025. Her speech began by emphasising Islam’s commitment to social justice, their moral mission, and the responsibility to advocate for the oppressed. At one point, she made a brief statement expressing support for justice for the oppressed, including Jews and Christians, but this was fleeting, almost tokenistic, overshadowed by the main message of the speech.

She then addressed Israel’s attack on Gaza on the 8th of October 2023, focusing on the aftermath rather than the immediate tragedies of 7 October, when thousands, including women and children, were massacred by Hamas. By framing her speech around selective events, she demonstrated the danger of the single story, a concept popularised by Nigerian author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. The single story occurs when complex situations are presented in a limited way, flattening experiences and silencing other perspectives. In this case, audiences were exposed to an incomplete reality: the suffering of Israeli civilians was sidelined, and the moral complexity of the conflict was reduced to fit her narrative. This selective framing risks shaping public understanding in a way that normalises violence or justifies one-sided responses.

The speech’s danger became clear when Dr Pandor paired the words “peace” with “jihad” in a single sentence. Jihad exists on a spectrum, with meanings that range from personal spiritual struggle to armed conflict. By invoking it in this context without nuance, she is intentionally promoting an extremist interpretation, rather than reflecting the broader, non-violent dimensions of the concept. To urge young Muslims to embrace it as necessary, immediately after talking about moral obligation, risks normalizing violence under the guise of social justice.

The consequences of extremist interpretations are tragically visible in recent events. On Monday, the 8^th of September 2025, two young men carried out a deadly shooting at a crowded bus stop at Ramot Junction in Jerusalem. Armed with improvised submachine guns, they killed six civilians and injured over a dozen others. Among the dead were Sarah “Sarita” Mendelson (60), a grandmother; Levi Yitzhak Pash (57), a former cardiologist; Rabbi Mordechai Steintzag (79); Yosef David (43), father of six; Yisrael Matzner (28), a young father; and Yaakov Pinto (25), a newlywed. Both terrorists; Mohammad Bassam Taha (21) and Muthanna Naji Amro (20) were killed at the scene.

While Dr Pandor is not directly responsible for this attack, her rhetoric reflects a pattern seen repeatedly: influential figures who promote extremist narratives can normalise violence, affecting both victims and those who commit the acts. Extremist interpretations of jihad can lead young people to believe violence is morally justified, often with fatal consequences. These young people truly believe this is their life mission, but it only creates dire consequences for those they leave behind. After the Jerusalem attack, Hamas praised the shooters as “freedom fighters,” framing the act ideologically, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other world leaders condemned it as a terrorist attack. Netanyahu warned that those involved in the attack would face severe consequences, showing how quickly violence provokes retaliation. The impact extends beyond the immediate victims: families are traumatised, communities are destabilised, and Israeli hostages in Gaza, along with ordinary Palestinians, are placed at greater risk as violence begets further retaliation.

Moreover, Dr Pandor’s mention of Jews and Christians in her speech was fleeting, almost performative. She claimed they must not be oppressed, yet immediately urged young Muslims to embrace jihad, the very same rhetoric that can lead to the oppression and targeting of Jews and Christians. This stark contradiction exposes a lack of genuine concern especially because Jews and Christians have long been victims of extremist violence across the continent and beyond. Leadership that mixes token acknowledgment with calls for violence is not only reckless, but also dangerous.

In contrast, Loay Al Shareef, an Arab Muslim peace activist who visited South Africa in last month , publicly addressed extremism and condemned Hamas, urging Muslims and Jews to be cautious of radical narratives that justify violence. He emphasised coexistence, dialogue, and peaceful advocacy, rejecting militant interpretations of jihad, and reminded communities that violence against innocent people harms everyone. His approach demonstrates that faith and moral responsibility can guide communities toward protection and understanding rather than justification for killing.

Rhetoric alone does not commit violence, but it creates conditions where young people believe it is acceptable. The Jerusalem shooting is a stark illustration: individuals exposed to narratives that mix moral obligation with militancy acted on what they perceived as justified action. So, leaders must speak with precision, especially when faith, politics, and intersect.

True peace requires acknowledging all suffering, not just what suits a political narrative. Dr Pandor’s selective framing, her brief mention of Jews and Christians, and her pairing of peace with militancy undermine reconciliation and understanding. Leadership demands honesty, accountability, and clarity, especially when discussing conflicts with immediate and lethal consequences. Nonetheless, we continue to call for peace in the Middle East, the release of hostages, and an end to violence in Israel and Palestine. Extremist rhetoric, even from influential figures, endangers innocent lives, perpetuates cycles of retaliation, and distorts moral responsibility. It is a reminder that the words of leaders matter; they can inspire hope, or they can cost lives.

Blessing Mathabela is a proud member of Africans for Peace, an organisation that brings African perspectives to global debates on peace and stability. As a final-year student at Wits University, she is deeply invested in creating equitable and inclusive spaces for marginalised voices. Blessing also serves as Vice President of the Wits Golden Key Chapter, using her platform to promote academic excellence while educating and advocating for social change, both on and off campus, to empower others.