Failure to recognise that Zionism and Judaism are as intricately linked as Islam is with the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

By Ben Levitas

In South Africa today it is anathema to hold sentiments sympathetic to Zionism or supportive of Israel. Use by government officials of pejorative adjectives like “Apartheid”, “Racist”, “Colonialist”, “Genocidal” have been normalized when referring to the State of Israel. The pernicious foundations for this odious attitude started with the inauguration of the ANC’s accession to power. Twenty-five years ago, Dr Neo Mnumzana, representing South Africa at the United Nations, said;

“Jews in South Africa come in many different political colours. There are those who belong to the Zionist movement and represent the same reality which is concretised in the state of Israel, and we disapprove of those members of the Jewish community who have these Zionist affiliations.”

Since then, the rhetoric has increased in tone and frequency. According to Professor Milton Shain, a leading scholar on anti-Semitism:

 “What was once considered unacceptable is now acceptable.”

Jewish schools have been criticized and targeted for closure because they are deemed to promote Zionist values. These threats against Jewish schools and institutions came close to realization when ISIS members Brandon-Lee Thulsie and his twin brother Tony-Lee, planned to blow them up. 

Some examples of similar threats made by leaders of PAGAD (People against Gangsterism and Drugs) during a so-called “peace march” in November 2023 were as follows:

• “The Zionists in this country mustn’t think they can walk freely in this country”
• “When we are going to unleash the Hezbollah, the party of Allah, they must run and they must hide under every stone they can find. The Koran is our constitution, jihad is our means”

Pagad leader Abdul Salaam Ebrahim then roused the crowd, saying it was time to “decentralise” the war and “get involved”.“We must go to their businesses. We must make sure that we target them the way they have killed our people. It doesn’t make sense for someone to leave this country and do his service in Zionist occupied Palestine and then we allow him to come back. We must make sure that we do the same things they are doing to us. If we are serious, then we must fight however we find them. We must boycott them, we must go to their homes, to their schools. We need to be serious if we say we’ll give our lives, our blood, and our souls. We must ask ourselves, are we ready to do it?”

MENACING MOUTHS

This descent into what was unacceptable language has also come from ANC Ministers and leaders, such as Fatima Hajaig who in her role as Deputy Foreign Minister referred to “Jewish money power” – a typical anti-Semitic trope. Tony Ehrenreich, leader of COSATU (a member of the tri-partite alliance) referred to Jews as owning most of the property in Cape Town, while also threatening Jewish owned businesses and encouraging Jews with Zionist leanings to leave South Africa. 

In 2022 Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng uttered a very benign remark in which he said that South Africa was “depriving itself” of an opportunity to be a “game changer” in the Israel/Palestine conflict due to its pro-Palestinian stance. An outcry of anger aimed at the Chief Justice ensued. He was severely criticized and censured and ordered to apologize for misconduct for “criticizing and proposing changes to the official policy of the South African government towards Israel.” The vehemence of the reaction made it impossible for him to return to his post and led to his early retirement.

In contrast there was a well-worn path of other Justices, such as Judge Seraj Desai, unapologetically aligning themselves with a pro-Palestinian viewpoint. When the SAZF (South African Zionist Federation) tried to hold Judge Desai to account, he not only refused to apologise, but doubled down on his pro-Palestinian sentiments.

MATCHING McCarthyism

The scaremongering of the governing ANC party aimed at undermining the very existence of Israel is reminiscent of the spreading of fear during the notorious McCarthy era in the US, a woeful period in American history of witch-hunting resulting in political repression. The targets then were Communists, the targets of the ANC are Zionists, but make no mistake the targets now are Jews! Still fresh in our minds is the recent stripping of David Teeger of the captaincy of the Under 19 Cricket team for expressing his admiration at a private event for Israeli soldiers in the recent Gaza war. The CSA (Cricket South Africa) statement – “Cricket South Africa has decided that David should be relieved of his captaincy for the (World cup) tournament” – went on to justify its stance that: 

“This is in the best interests of all the players…..and David himself”. 

The weak-kneed collapse by CSA to threats of the BDS movement indicate a lack of backbone to stand up to antisemitic intimidation.

In the view of law professor Ziyad Motala, anyone with Zionist sympathies should be disqualified from occupying any position representing the state. According to him:

 “Teeger’s speech was not mere offensive speech. Instead, it was speech in support of Zionism, a political ideology of racism.” 

He used the same rationale to disqualify David Unterhalter from being considered for appointment to the Constitutional Court or the Supreme Court of Appeal. This was a subtler manifestation of antisemitism when the JSC (Judicial Service Commission) repeatedly rejected Unterhalter as a candidate for one of four vacant positions, despite him being eminently qualified and endorsed by Lawson Naidoo, Executive Secretary of the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution (CASAC).

He was questioned – more akin to ‘interrogation’ – for his past membership of the SAJBOD (South African Jewish Board of Deputies), which was founded in 1912 to represent and protecting Jewish interests and with a particular focus today in combatting the growing menace of anti-Semitism. In contrast to the SAZF (South African Zionist Federation), the SAJBOD representing Jews of all persuasions, does not have any specific Zionist role. The EFF party leader Julius Malema, who sits on the selection board of the JSC has opposed Unterhalter’s selection based on his vehemently anti-Israel bias and has threatened to support and supply Hamas with weapons. He has also threatened to not only shut down Jewish businesses but all businesses that deal or import any goods from Israel.

Leading government’s charge against the Jewish state is its foreign minister, Naledi Pandor. She has gone beyond threats to cut off all business and diplomatic links with Israel or companies dealing with Israel. She has now championed herself as of the leaders of the international campaign against Israel by taking Israel to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, falsely accusing it of committing genocide against Palestinians but really aiming at delegitimizing Israel and preventing it from defending itself from terrorist attacks. She has cut all diplomatic links with Israel and taken the vitriol against Israel to another level. All visits to Israel and any contacts with Israeli leaders by any civil servant have effectively been banned. The ANC imposed on its members and on the Civil Service a hermitically sealed echo-chamber of anti-Israel views that all must conform with.

Recently in February, 2024 Member of Parliament, Ahmed Manzoor Shaik Emam of the National Freedom Party said in Parliament:

“But let me give a loud and clear message to the Democratic Alliance: If you think that the people of this country are going to allow you to take this beautiful country, the city of Cape Town of ours, and hand it over to the Zionists, the city of Cape Town will be a bloodbath, I can assure you [of] that.”

Continuing:

“We will not allow you to take this and sell it, sell your principles, your ethics, and values, like you have just pawned the land in the Western Cape to the United States and others. We will not allow you to make this a Jewish state!” 

SOUNDS OF SILENCE

The ANC government has been completely silent about all these hateful and hurtful threats. It is in denial that antisemitism exists. The Minster of Justice asserts that antisemitism “doesn’t exist at all.”

It is time to state unequivocally that these incendiary and inflammatory attacks on Zionism, go beyond the pale and are hurtful to Jews and make the continuation of Jewish life in South Africa untenable. It is also time to state unequivocally that Zionism and Judaism are as intricately linked as Islam is with the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Jews believe that “out of Zion come the law of the Torah”. Zion is mentioned on 2,000-year-old coins found recently in archaeological digs in the City of David. Jews pray in the “Amidah” – the silent prayer, facing Jerusalem for the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the return of “the Davidic” throne in Jerusalem. Zion is the hill in Jerusalem where the grave of King David is believed to be located, making it and Jerusalem synonymous. 

It is time to call the witch-hunt in South Africa against Zionism what it is really is – a witch-hunt against Jews and the continuity of a sustainable Jewish presence in South Africa.

About the writer:

A former Chairperson of the Cape Branch of the South African Zionist Federation, Ben Levitas includes among his alma maters, the University of the Witwatersrand, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the University of Pretoria and the London School of Economics.

While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves.  LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO)

Lacking legal foundation and exploiting the law on genocide, why is South Africa doing the legal bidding of homicidal Hamas?

By Craig Snoyman

I was always a little sceptical about South Africa’s application against Israel in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Possibly because Colonel Richard Kemp, the former British commander in Afghanistan, and Major John Spencer, an urban war specialist at Westpoint Military Academy- two internationally respected military experts – had ridiculed the idea of a genocide and possibly or probably – because I am Jewish and grew up with the words “Destroy the memory of Amalek, do not forget” which always sounded a little counterintuitive. For me, South Africa’s application to the International Court of Justice had the hallmarks of an ulterior motive. 

Many people in South Africa watched the ICJ hearing at The Hague. I was shocked when South Africa attempted to explain Netanyahu’s interpretation of Amalek. For secular Jews like myself, Amalek has always represented the eternal enemy that rises against the Jews in every generation. However, the story of the prophet Samuel instructing King Saul to go to war, was unknown to most of us who have only read the five books of Moses. It added an unfamiliar perspective. Another surprise was my old law professor’s explanation – Prof. John Dugard – of the dispute between South Africa and Israel which teetered on misrepresentation. Was there even a genuine dispute? The description of the situation in Gaza was tragic but sadly similar to what occurs in all wars. However, in Gaza, the enemy was hiding behind civilians – men, women and children, young and old. If the Court could not enforce a ceasefire on Hamas, then it would be unreasonable to so order Israel which was acting in defence following a massacre of its citizens – mostly civilians and who were set on freeing its hostages. South Africa’s demand for an immediate ceasefire was doomed from the start.

The court ruled that there was a valid dispute but refused to grant the immediate ceasefire. It handed down various precautionary measures. I was left with the impression that any warring country could be subjected to charges in terms of the Genocide Convention as there is always the lingering doubt that just maybe there might be a “plausibility of genocide”. South Africa hailed the judgement as a great victory but Israel continued its war of defence with Hamas.

The Director General of DIRCO (Department of International Relations and Co-operation) justified how “the ICJ had effectively ordered Israel to immediate cease-fire” and then referred the matter back to the ICJ, within 3 weeks of the judgment being handed down. South Africa applied to the court for further urgent precautionary orders preventing Israel from continuing its unprecedented military action in Rafah. Second time round, the South African expectation – or blind hope – was surely to achieve a more substantive result than initially handed down.

South Africa’s claim requested that the Court consider exercising its power under Article 75(1) of the Rules of Court that provides:

  “The Court may at any time decide to examine proprio motu whether the circumstances of the case require the indication of provisional measures which ought to be taken or complied with by any or all the parties.”  

The term “proprio motu” is not commonly used, but is defined as “an official act taken without a formal request from another party” – in other words, on one’s own initiative.

South Africa reminded the Court that it had “full discretion to exercise this power without any hearing or submissions by parties, and should do so.”

VAGUE AT THE HAIGUE

Israel described South Africa’s new request as “unfounded in fact and law” and “morally repugnant.” Israel pointed out that Article 75(1) of the Rules of Court allowed the court to issue provisional measures of its own accord, but not at the request of a party. It stated that factually, there had been no change in the situation in Gaza on the ground since the ICJ hearing and the alleged “unprecedented military offensive in Rafah” had not happened.

South Africa came to the Court with two aims. The first was to arrogantly remind the court that it was failing to do its job and therefore was incumbent of the bench to take more decisive action. The second was that the court should henceforth so proceed without Israel even being afforded a right to respond. As any experienced courtroom practitioner should know, judges hardly appreciate being told by counsel that they are not doing their job. Also, it would be extraordinary for a court to impose extremely onerous conditions on a party without hearing what that party has to say. Not only did South Africa attempt to bully the court, but attempted to exclude Israel from the process. These was not a sound basis for a successful application!

So why did South Africa institute this application? With Israel’s assault on Rifah looming, the most logical explanation was its attempt to undermine Israel’s military progress – in other words to obtain a complete cessation of hostilities – the permanent ceasefire that it had initially sought from the court. Another plausible and possibly additional explanation could be that the Court would oblige Israel to submit regular reports as originally demanded and that South Africa would then claim non-compliance with each report and publicise this non-compliance bringing further international opprobrium on Israel. In other words, using the court of law to impact on the court of public opinion.

The ICJ responded remarkably quickly and gave short shrift to the South African application. It stated that there were already emergency measures in place throughout Gaza, which included Rafah and there was no reason to vary the original order.

The South African government spun this application as a win. It stated that the Court “acknowledged that Israel’s planned incursions in Rafah would render what is already a humanitarian disaster even more perilous.” No longer was it alleged that Israel had already invaded Rafah – the very grounds that South Africa relied upon to justify both extreme urgency and the prevention of Israel’s right to be heard. The spin that “Any decision by Israel to engage in military activities against Palestinians in the current circumstances is a violation of the order of the International Court of Justice” was contrary to the express ruling of the Court, which emphasised “that the State of Israel remains bound to fully comply with its obligations under the Genocide Convention and the Order…” 

The Court accepted that Israel was acting in terms of the order. South Africa persists in spinning the myth that Israel is not.

Is South Africa – as accused by Israel – the “handmaiden of Hamas”? Had South Africa demonstrated “an intention to abuse the Genocide Convention?” South Africa’s courting of Hamas, both at home and abroad, suggests this accusation has merit. The statement by South Africa’s foreign minister, Naledi Pandor that all the advocates donated their professional services rings hollow, particularly concerning the two King’s Counsel who have no allegiance to South Africa. 

Was South Africa bought and paid for to render services for Hamas? 

The application was prima facie dishonest and irrational. The allegations made by South Africa were untrue, and easily disprovable. Its demand for the exclusion of Israel’s input was duplicitous. Once again, its aim appeared to have the Court unilaterally further tie the hands of Israel in its war against Hamas.  

South Africa has tarred Israel internationally as a “genocide nation”. The ICJ will investigate and eventually confirm the view of Major Spencer that “For Israel’s part, it’s taken more care to prevent civilian deaths than any other army in human history”?  

How is South Africa going to cleanse itself of the blood libel that it has propagated? Does it even care?

About the writer:
Craig Snoyman is a practising advocate in South Africa.

While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves.  LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).