As president of the BRICs bloc (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) in 2023, should the ANC government  not exercise moral responsibility and apply foreign policy consistently?

By Rowan Polovin National Chairman, South African Zionist Federation 

(First published in Business Day)

Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Naledi Pandor, is fundamentally concerned with one international issue over all others, what she calls “the ongoing flagrant abuse of the human rights of Palestinians” which, in her view places “a moral responsibility on South Africa to act.”

It is remarkable that Pandor is able to command such exclusive action from the ANC government over a territory smaller than our beloved Kruger National Park, whilst remaining deafeningly silent to the cries of Ukrainians last year and numerous other serious human rights issues in Africa and around the world. Moreover, she blames Israel for the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians, and absolves all responsibility and agency from Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. 

The Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO), and the South African public, should hold Minister Pandor accountable for her statement. Indeed our government certainly does have a moral responsibility to act decisively to assist global communities when it comes to the protection of human rights. Especially when they are being abused at a rate that only South Africans could begin to comprehend. 

The United Nations has confirmed that 170 deaths were recorded as a result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 2022. While the loss of innocent lives on any side of a conflict is tragic, the vast majority of those casualties were Palestinian militants. By contrast, according to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, over 6 900 people were killed as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. It is estimated that 408 of these fatalities were children.

 
This is utterly devastating, and we are no strangers to this level of violence in South Africa, where over 7000 citizens were murdered in just the second quarter of the 2022/23 financial year. Tragically, over 550 of those deaths were children, according to the national crime statistics report as released by Minister of Police, Bheki Cele, last year.  

But, of course, it is easier for the government to deflect attention someplace else. 

South Africa’s foreign policy appears to be singularly limited to Israel-bashing. This position prevents our country from playing any meaningful role in finding a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  The ANC government’s obsession with Israel also precludes us from benefiting from the changing landscape of the Middle East and Africa. The Abraham Accords, where peace and normalisation has been achieved between Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, as well as Morocco and Sudan here in Africa, has effectively ended the Arab-Israeli conflict. 

More countries in the Middle East and Africa could follow suit in 2023. The Negev Forum working group recently concluded groundbreaking meetings between these countries, focusing on food security, water technology, clean energy, tourism, health care, education, coexistence and regional security. Does South Africa want to be left out in the cold, and lose out on the advantages of these strategic partnerships?

Back home, our foreign policy decisions are irrational. Last week, ANC International Relations Committee Chair, Lindiwe Zulu, confirmed that the ANC had resolved to simply not take sides in the Russia-Ukraine war. She added that it would also be supporting China in its dispute with Taiwan. But the ANC went further. Its January 8th anniversary statement of this year calls on Western governments to end sanctions on global human rights abusers such as Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe and Venezuela. The ANC has a remarkable willingness to be on the wrong side of history just so long as it retains its Cold War friends.

The ANC could be positioned to act as mediators between warring factions, people and states, given its own experience of great pain and suffering at the hands of a political authority that abused South African human rights in ways we are only beginning to come to terms with today. The collective trauma suffered by millions of South Africans should have left us at war with one another for decades – and yet, under the leadership of President Nelson Mandela, the ANC was able to do something fundamentally extraordinary. It shifted people’s perceptions of one another, in a way that enabled us to see beyond any illusion, that we are all South Africans and that this territory is home to everyone residing within its borders. Different religions, traditions and languages were not barriers to our social cohesion – but rather a celebration of our diverse, yet collectively shared humanity.  

South Africa’s political leadership changed the trajectory of the conflict present in our country. And as such, our country is in a strong position to assist other states with doing the same. But when Minister Pandor turns a blind eye to almost all international human rights violations to discriminate over Israel, one cannot help but wonder what has happened to the ANC and its international credibility. 

If the abuse of human rights is the starting point for Pretoria’s commitment to assist foreign states with local causes, where is the South African initiative on Ukraine or many other conflicts closer to home? Will we stand by idly while Russia continues to put hundreds of Ukrainian children in early graves? Why have we not seized the opportunity to become world leaders in changing perceptions and illusions that alienate human beings from one another? 

Our country should seek to apply its foreign policies with uniformity, and show a degree of courage and leadership at the same time. South Africa holds the Presidency of BRICS in 2023 – will we use this position of leadership to hold Russia and others to account? Or will the ANC government continue to pick and choose its moral responsibilities based on its nostalgic political relevance of yesteryear?

About the writer:

Rowan Polovin National Chairman, South African Zionist Federation 

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).

By Adv. Craig Snoyman

This week, with a whimper, ended  probably  the longest-running  hate-speech case in South African legal history. Following a Constitutional Court order,  an apology was published on the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) website in which “Mr Masuku and Cosatu hereby tender their unconditional apology to the Jewish community and regret the harm caused.”

The unionist and his union were obliged to give an  unconditional apology  to the Jewish community.  The  apology had to receive at least the same publicity as Masuku’s initial offending statement. As the hate-speech was published on a weblog that no longer exists it was sent to the SAJBD, which then released it on its website. Some of us missed the judgment that was handed down. Most of us missed the apology. All of us had heard about the issue.

Masuku’s apology  is the culmination of a 13-year debacle that started  during Operation Protective Edge, in January 2009. His trade union organization, Cosatu, led a march to the offices of the SAJBD and the South African Zionist Federation (SAZF)  in support of “the Palestinians”. During this “mostly peaceful” march there were swastikas in evidence and an Israeli flag was burned.

Masuku then posted, on a  now-defunct weblog, that:

 “[A]s we struggle to liberate Palestine from the racists, fascists and Zionists who belong to the era of their Friend Hitler!  We must not apologise, every Zionist must be made to drink the bitter medicine they are feeding our brothers and sisters in Palestine.  We must target them, expose them and do all that is needed to subject them to perpetual suffering until they withdraw from the land of others and stop their savage attacks on human dignity.”   

Now where have we heard something similar about ‘perpetual suffering’?

Maybe the utterance that the Jews and their  successive generations will bear a communal guilt in perpetuity for the killing of Christ perhaps?

The following month Masuku addressed a Palestinian student’s group meeting at the University of the Witwatersrant (Wits}.  During his speech, he stated that he was making a distinction between Jews and Zionists. Three aspects of his speech drew attention.  First, he said that Cosatu had members at Wits and they can make sure that for “that side” it would be hell. He also continued by stating that South African parents who choose to send their children to be part of the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) must not blame them when something happens to them with immediate effect.  The third aspect of his speech was that Cosatu supported the Palestinian cause and would do everything to ensure – whether at Wits or Orange Grove – that those who did not support equality and dignity should face the consequences even if it meant  “something  that may necessarily cause what is regarded as harm.”

Masuku’s utterances provoked an outcry with parties very vocally taking sides. The SAJBD  referred the initial blog statement and these  three portions of his speech to the South African Human Rights Commission seeking that the matter  be pursued as ‘hate speech’ in the courts.  The issue required to be determined by the  court, as set out in its most basic terms  was:

Did Masuku’s statements amount to hate speech in terms of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act? (sometimes called by its acronym PEPUDA,  but usually  referred to as the Equality Act).  Or are his statements constitutionally protected as freedom of speech? The equality and dignity as set out in the provisions of Section 8(3) of the Equality Act on the one side were  balanced against freedom of expression as set out in  Section 16 of the Constitution. Not for the first time were the South African courts called upon to interpret  poorly drafted laws with  unclear sections. Using the Act and the Constitution the Court had to decide the intention of Masuku.

Just as an aside, in a series of further  hostile communications with the blog,  Masuku also stated that “no pro-Israel Jews should ever consider South Africa to be their home (sic)“.  His further rabble-rousing statements were not  raised or dealt with in the courts, but one  – or should I say, “the reasonable person” – can get an idea of his mindset as he published his poison. Perhaps this ancillary little ditty was not deemed necessary to be included as part of the hate speech. However, in hindsight, this small voice believes that it would have been significant.

With the process through the South African courts grinding exceedingly fine, the  matter slowly wended its way through the Equality Court, the Supreme Court of Appeal and eventually the Constitutional Court. Finally, some twelve years after commencement, a final judgment was handed down in February this year.

The court of first instance,  the Equality Court, the Commission was of the view that the statements were offensive and unpalatable to society; that they were of an extreme nature in that they advocated that the Jewish community should be despised, scorned, ridiculed and thus subjected to ill-treatment because of their religious affiliation. It found that a prima facie case of hate speech had been established.

While Section 21 of the Equality Act provides for numerous different sanctions, the Court imposed an apology on Masuku, holding that “an order for an unconditional apology is by no means lenient, and should not be viewed in the light of the proverbial slap on the wrist”.

It would represent a recognition of “the fact that the statements are found to be hurtful and hate speech”, and would constitute “a notable move towards compensating the target groups, in this case, the Jewish community”.

Masuku appealed  to the Supreme Court of Appeal. There he argued that  the Equality Court was wrong and that  just because most people who  ‘would most likely support’ Zionism, were most likely to be  offended were Jewish, did not mean that the statements were directed at them. Rather the statements were  directed at the State of Israel and his statements  could not be  transformed  into ones based on religion or ethnicity. In coming  to its judgment, the SCA seemingly placed great reliance on  the opinion of numerous academics that the “convoluted” Section  10  of the Equity Act expanded the definition of hate speech  and  was unconstitutional. The Appeal Court decided the case solely on the basis of Section 16 of the constitution  and ignored the Equality Act entirely. The Equality Court decision was entirely overturned.

There was much celebration in BDS circles when the appeal Court decision was handed down.  One of the most notable quotes from BDS South Africa used its now “acceptable”  political expression. It  compared the SAJBD and its Zionist agents to Shylock in Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice”  – an intentional slur as  Shylock presents with its many false traits of “the Jew” that are universally recognised as antisemitic stereotypes.  The SAJBD had been denied its ‘pound of flesh’, they proclaimed. There could be little confusion  as to whether their reference was to Jews or Zionists. But they  were safe in their new-found freedom to defame.

The Constitutional Court,  in its customary eloquent manner then proceeded to give the Supreme Court of Appeal (and the Chief Justice of the Appeal Court, who was an assenting judge in the decision) a scathing  tongue-lashing and lambasted the  SCA judgment. It scolded that court for not applying the Equity Act at all.  It held that the Equity act had been  enacted to give life and extend context to the Constitution by the principle of subsidiarity.

The Constitutional Court picked its way carefully through a minefield and set out a clear course to follow in the future.  The statements should be judged objectively applying “the reasonable person’s” view. Applying this standard, the Court held that the statement in the blog constituted hate-speech, but nothing in Masuku’s speech made to the Palestine students fell within the definition of hate-speech.  It re-instated the order of apology.

This  decision, with much to  commend it,  still  shielded those who make harmful statements. It was abundantly clear that Masuku sought to incite harm and violence.  While the Court made clear its abhorrence of the statements made at Wits University, it  correctly held that the statements did not constitute hate-speech which protects only against race, ethnicity, gender or religion.  However, by acknowledging  the extreme nature of  Masuku’s  incitement, it was ideally placed to make an order in terms of  Section. 21(2)(n) of the Equality Act,  that  institution of criminal proceedings in terms of the common law or relevant legislation should have been ordered against  Masuku. The statements constituted criminal  conduct.  But in fairness,  it does not seem that it was asked to do so.

Jews who regard themselves as Zionists can hardly be expected to feel protected as a result of this judgment. The potentially devastating effects of the type of speech remain. The first statement  did not identify Jews by name, but it was viewed as hate-speech. In his  Wits speech is seems that because he said he was distinguishing between Jews and Zionists, there was no hate speech – although the speech was clearly more threatening.  Simply because Zionism is not regarded as race/ ethnicity/ gender/ religion and is excluded from the definition of hate-speech, it does not render that person safe or the atmosphere any less fraught. How is the reasonable person to decide whether I wear a Jewish kippa or a Zionist hat? In all these statements there were only referrals to Zionists. Jews, or even pro-Israel Jews, were never mentioned. Sometimes,  contextual circumstances and perception of the “reasonable man” do not intersect.

Can the reasonable South African objectively identify whether I am a Jewish Zionist? Certainly the opposing experts who testified in the court proceedings could not agree or make a clear contextual  distinction. So if I am confronted with a Masuku-like statement” –  I wish to repeat to you so that it is clear that if you send your son to the Israeli Defence Force then don’t blame us if something happens to you with immediate effect”  –  am I going to be objectively viewed as a Jew or a Zionist?  In either event, it must be regarded as a serious threat.  If I’m identified  as a Jew, then it is both hate speech and a criminal offence. However, if as  a Zionist, then it is only a criminal offence. The nature and gravity of  such an offence  will  likely result in  our over-worked National Prosecuting Authority declining to  pursue the matter criminally.   Clearly,  identifiable context is everything, especially  when the person making  the statement has also just said that these pro-Israeli Jews have no place in South Africa, (a judenrein South Africa?) 

The novelist, Upton Sinclair wrote:

 “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”  

The BDS spin doctors are spinning, and these experts are being paid according to their paygrade. Since the judgment, we have heard the spin:  Bongani Masuku remains a non-racist.  Cosatu still remains supporters of the oppressed Palestinians. BDS will continue to rely on the illustrious “human rights” organisations which hold that Israel is an apartheid state. There must still be a concerted effort to root out the kids signing up for the Israeli Defence Force. Sure, there is a  ‘Court ordered Apology’ on record,  but the judgment should still be seen as a win.  The publicity against apartheid Israel following Masuku’s statements was substantial, while his  apology wasn’t even really an apology. His apology was only  for “any harm caused” but he didn’t apologise  for what he said, or for the threat of immediate harm against those living in Orange Grove. He didn’t have to because the court held that that was part of the three out of four statements which were not hate-speech. Victory!

Masuku’s apology merely follows the pattern of his defence in these court cases. The Zionists deserve what they have coming to them and his freedom of speech should not be restricted.  His liberation credentials remain intact. His apology is hardly the apology that the Equity court had in mind! He must be well aware of it.  There was no compensation or remorse in his apology. The judgment against him must now viewed by reasonable people as  far less than a slap on the wrist, as far less than the pound of flesh. His sanction is more like a chewed-up piece of  nail that has been spat out by a laughing villain – and about as visible. He received millions of paragraphs of publicity flowing from what he said, but his remorse is reflected in a one sentence apology about causing harm and addressed to a substitute  of the source where he initially issued his hate-speech. That same press which expended all that ink, saved some by ignoring the apology.

But made no mistake,  the SAJBD can celebrate what is really a spectacular and very rare win, in overturning a unanimous full bench decision made by what was once  our highest court in the land. Pure nachas and major boasting rights.

Next time, and unfortunately there will be a next time, they must go for the jugular. The Masuku ilk should not get off so lightly.

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).

A Light Unto his Nation – a Dark Side to Jews

By David E. Kaplan

The recent passing of Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa  presents a conundrum  – how could someone deservedly so loved and respected, referred to as “a moral compass” and the “conscience of the nation” be an antisemite?

It would seem unthinkable!

Tutu is only another in a long lineup of outstanding personalities who having contributed superlatively to making the world a better place but nevertheless expose this “other side”, this “dark side” – of antisemitism.

So how should Jews come to terms and relate to the legacies of legends?

To this day, Israelis  have a problem with the “genius” German composer Richard Wagner, who while revolutionising the course of music in the 19^th century, remains controversial in the Jewish state not only because of his virulent antisemitism but the suggested impact of that hatred. Hitler’s favourite composer, the Fuhrer found Wagner’s music and world view – his antisemitism –  inspirational, begging the question:

What role did Wagner play in the cultural evolution towards the genocidal ‘Final solution’?

Jews are left with the question:

Can we separate the man from his art?

What of the Impressionists, Pierre-Auguste Renoir and Edward Degas, who were both vocal about their antisemitism and at the time of the Dreyfus affair, were proud to stand and be counted in the anti-Dreyfus camp? Less nuanced than Renoir, Degas’ hatred was so deep-rooted that that he once threw a model out of his studio, screaming at her that she was Jewish – she was in fact Protestant!  During the Dreyfus affair, Degas ended relationships with Jewish friends, including Ludovich Halevy, who had been like family to him.

The works of Renoir and Degas are wondrous; their impact on pushing the boundaries of late 19^th century French art incomparable.

Should Jews boycott appreciating their art?

Platform of Popularity

Is there a more iconic American motor car than the Ford and yet its fonder was a notorious antisemite. Has it stopped anyone from buying a Ford vehicle?

Sitting around a campfire in 1919, a friend of Henry Ford records him addressing their group of fellow campers raging that:

 “all evil to Jews or to the Jewish capitalists…The Jews caused the war, the Jews caused the outbreak of thieving and robbery all over the country, the Jews caused the inefficiency of the navy…”

In other words, the Jews are responsible for all the country’s ills.

That same year, Ford began publishing a series of articles that claimed of “a vast Jewish conspiracy” that “was infecting America”. The famed industrialist would then then go on to bound the articles into four volumes titled “The International Jew” and distributed half a million copies. As passionate a car-maker, he was as passionate in his hate for Jews.

As one of the most famous men in America, Henry Ford legitimised ideas that otherwise may have been given little authority.

Archbishop Tutu joins this list of impressive influencers in the impact they can have in creating negative mindsets against Jews. The reverence Tutu justly deserved in his struggle against Apartheid and his subsequent role in facilitating national reconciliation through his adept chairmanship of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee, provided him a platform and a protection when it came to his vocal attacks on Jews.

This is what made him dangerous in life and no less today in death. In paying tribute to the celebrated esteemed icon, eulogies in the media and online, spared no effort to exploit this ‘heavenly’ masqueraded opportunity to convey the Archbishop’s animus towards the ‘collective Jew’ –  Jewish state of Israel.

Cognisant of the danger of a Tutu protected by his international acclaim and popularity, Jay Nordlinger – a senior editor of National Review and author of a ‘Peace, They Say: A History of the Nobel Peace Prize’ – wrote in 2014: 

“The most harmful of them [Nobel Laureates] is Desmond Tutu: because he is a South African hero who  for decades  has peddled the lie that Israel is an “apartheid state”. Coming from him, it is more harmful than from (the countless) others.”

The accusation of being an antisemite did nor seem to bother the Archbishop. Whenever so questioned, Tutu would flippantly respond with his two preferred stock answers:

• “Tough luck” 

or

• “My dentist’s name is Dr. Cohen”

There is however one major difference between the mindset of a Wagner, Renoir, Degas and Ford and that of Archbishop Tutu – the intervening  Shoah!

It is doubtful that the nineteenth and early twenty century antisemites could have foreseen the Holocaust or predicted the impact of their animus in contributing to what was to follow. Tutu, on the other hand, had the benefit of hindsight and still could be so insensitive that on a visit in 1989 to Israel’s Holocaust memorial  – Yad Vashem – to say that the Nazis ought to be forgiven for their crimes to the Jewish people. Two thirds of European Jewry were wiped out in a methodic mass murder and at the memorial to their memory all the Archbishop could say was:

“We pray for those who made it happen, forgive them and help us to forgive them, and help us so that we, in our turn, will not make others suffer.”

This, he said, was his “message” to the Israeli children and grandchildren of the murdered!

Where were the archbishop’s  prayers for the  six million victims, including 1.5 million murdered children?

Tutu’s behaviour baffled no less a fellow Nobel Peace Laurette, Elie Wiesel who said:

 “For anyone in Jerusalem, at Yad Vashem, to speak about forgiveness would be, in my view, a disturbing lack of sensitivity toward the Jewish victims and their survivors. I hope that was not the intention of Bishop Tutu.”

Clearly it was “the intention” otherwise how else do you explain Tutu saying that “The gas chambers made for a neater death” than Apartheid’s resettlement policies?

And for those who rush to ‘explain’ Tutu’s fulminations against Jews as ‘a perfectly understandable’ default position of viewing all perceived problems in the world through a South African lens, how do you excuse Tutu declaring back in 1984,that:

 “The Jews thought they had a monopoly on G-d” or his other insensitive observations:

• “Jews … think they have cornered the market on suffering”
• that Jews are “quick to yell ‘antisemitism”
•  that Jews display “an arrogance of power – because Jews have such a strong lobby in the United States.”

Tutu draws close to the antisemitic thinking of  Henry Ford when he expressed in April 2002 that:

“People are scared in [America] to say wrong is wrong, because the Jewish lobby is powerful, very powerful. Well, so what? Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin were all powerful, but, in the end, they bit the dust.”

Tutu did not talk here of an Israeli but a “Jewish” lobby and longingly predicts that in the end, the implied devious and “powerful, very powerful, ” Jewish power brokers will be crushed like their kindred spirits – Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. In the age-old tradition of antisemitic diatribe, what a despicable construct from the Archbishop designed to sow suspicion and foster hatred of Jews. All the worse in that the ‘voice’ behind this venom enjoyed the ‘moral’ authority of the South African Anglican church.

Whichever way one tries to decipher these disturbing words, Tutu comes out “in his own words” an antisemite.

Beneath the beloved veneer of South Africa’s archbishop resided an unabashed enemy of the Jews and there lies the conundrum:

When famous personages, who contribute to mankind are acclaimed by an appreciative populace and then use their platform of popularity to turn on the Jews, are they to be revered or reviled?

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).