I AM BLOCKED FROM VOTING IN SOUTH AFRICA’S NATIONAL ELECTION

If you can vote in Ramallah and not Tel Aviv, is the ruling ANC manipulating who of its nationals abroad can vote?

By Kenneth Moeng Mokgatlhe

It is so disappointing to me that I won’t be able to execute my national duty to vote for my desired government on 29 May. For the first time since I was eligible to vote in the 2009 general elections, the ANC government will make it impossible for South African citizens in Israel to cast their vote to bring about much-needed change in government. I was told a week ago by Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) officials that I should go to other missions outside Israel to vote, such as Ramallah, Aman or Cairo. Really? That is effectively telling me:

“You can’t vote!”

The illogical decision to shut down South Africa’s embassy in Tel Aviv is starting to impact negatively on South African citizens studying or working in or touring Israel. I could not reach out to anyone at the IEC when the online registration was giving me problems. Although I am pleased that I finally did manage to register to vote, it worries me that without an embassy, South Africans in Israel might be prevented from taking part in the upcoming elections.

**Selective Voters**. South Africans queuing up at Trafalgar Square to vote in South Africa’s 2014 election, a right now being denied to prospective voters in Israel.

The IEC and the SA government are duty-bound to ensure that all South African citizens in the diaspora can participate in the upcoming extraordinary elections, which will mark the 30^th anniversary of the first historic and inclusive elections in 1994 when a charismatic statesman, Nelson Mandela, led the ANC to its outright victory. I am writing this column from Israel where I’ll be based even during these important elections where I want to help escort the ANC out of our Union Building. Just as people lined up in the long queues to vote for the ANC in 1994, while in Israel I want to do the opposite by adding my name to those voting to uproot the ineptitudes and delinquents from public office.

Following a resolution taken by the ANC at its elective conference in 2017, the SA government decided to downgrade its embassy in Tel Aviv. They have since moved from a downgrade to an entire shutdown of the office. Paradoxically, while the embassy is closed, there remain some cultural and economic ties between the two countries.

**Closed for Business**. “It’s outrageous that South African citizens arrived at the South African embassy in Ramat Gan to find a notice stuck on the door saying, ‘This office will be closed until further notice’,” says South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) National Director Wendy Kahn.

I am a student at one of the universities in Israel where I was awarded a prestigious scholarship. This scholarship makes it possible to send between $200 to $250 to my family back in South Africa. Do we know the importance of remittances? For those who do not have an idea, remittances (money earned from foreign countries and sent to another country) are essential for every economy as it is a critical source of external finance for South Africa. This money plays a meaningful role in combating hunger and poverty, especially in African countries. I am an active economic player, not a burden like many who are dependent on the state for their daily survival.

Most African embassies are operating their embassies to help their citizens on issues that may arise while in Israel. As my country decided to pack their bags and leave us in the cold, it gets lonely when my colleagues from other African countries visit their embassies in Tel Aviv when mine is not there. What I normally do is just join them and learn about the cultural, social and political aspects of other countries because I cannot simply keep on complaining about the ANC’s hostility against Israel.

We are South Africans who went to various countries to look for greener pastures while retaining our full South African citizenship. It was through all the concerted efforts of our forefathers that we achieved suffrage. A right to vote is a pre-requisite of any democracy; we have a right to have a say on who should preside over our polity. It is therefore the responsibility of our government to work together with the IEC to ensure that we become part of the decision-making process.

**The Bold and the Beautiful**. Back in 2021, Miss South Africa Lalela Mswane, who defied the South African government that pressured her to boycott the contest because it was being held in Israel, told The Jerusalem Post that “If I had not come to Israel to compete in the Miss Universe pageant, I think I would have regretted it for the rest of my life.”

The ANC’s dislike of Israel has led the government to take the most moronic decisions in the past, such as attacking South African artists like Black Coffee (Nkosinathi Maphumulo) who had been booked to play in Israel, while ‘ordering’ Miss SA, Lalela Mswane not to participate in the Beauty Pageant held in Israel in 2021. Orlando Pirates was told it could not play with an Israel-based soccer team last year. David Teeger recently lost his captaincy in the South African Cricket Under 19 side for expressing, as a loyal Jew, his support for Israel.

**Defying the Dopes**. Despite pressure from BDS South Africa, Orlando Pirates – seen here celebrating winning the 2023 Nedbank Cup – refused in 2023 to heed calls to refrain from playing a friendly game against Israel’s Maccabi Tel Aviv. (Photo: Sydney Mahlangu, BackpagePix)

It is important to stress the importance of voting to all South Africans in the country and all those in the diaspora as it remains our only tool to affect positive change. We have to come to understand that there is no politician or political party that wields power as of right; it is we, the voters, who decide to whom to give this power. We have to elect competent, ethical, and incorruptible political leadership into public office. For all South Africans in the diaspora, especially in conflict-ridden areas like Israel, Sudan, and Ukraine, it should be made possible for everyone to participate in this upcoming historic election. There is a need for all citizens to participate in spearheading political change in our country.

About the writer:

Kenneth Moeng Mokgatlhe is a political writer and researcher based at Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel.

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).

JUDGING GENOCIDE

The ICJ’s decision on ‘South Africa v Israel’ clarified

By Emeritus Professor Raymond Wacks

Should Israel from Philistian yoke deliver;
Ask for this great Deliverer now, and find him
Eyeless in Gaza at the Mill with slaves,
Himself in bonds under Philistian yoke …

John Milton, Samson Agonistes

Three months have elapsed since South Africa, donning the mantle of conscientious accuser, applied to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) under the Genocide Convention to secure a ceasefire as a ‘provisional measure of protection’. On 26 January, the Court ordered Israel to observe a number of requirements to prevent acts of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, including the killing of Palestinians, causing serious bodily or mental harm to civilians, and ending the imposition of measures intended to prevent births. Israel was also directed to take immediate steps to permit the provision of humanitarian assistance to residents in Gaza. It was given a month to report on the steps it has taken to comply with this instruction. On 6 March, South Africa filed its third request for provisional measures.

Israel responded with a comprehensive repudiation of South Africa’s allegations which, it claimed, constituted ‘a familiar pattern of misrepresenting the reality; falsely attributing that purported reality to Israeli wrongdoing; and libellously assigning to Israel a malign intent that is simply not there.’ This new application to supplement or modify the provisional measures of 26 January, it averred, ‘hinges on a misrepresentation of reality and a sensationalist and obsessive attempt to accuse Israel of the most egregious crimes regardless of the law or the facts.’

**Campus Chaos**. The writer’s assertion that at most the ICJ judgment has achieved is to “inflame passions” and amplify “the level of antipathy” is all too evident at protests across US colleges such as here at City University of New York (CUNY) , where New York filmmaker Ami Horowitz was beaten, headbutted and punched by an angry mob of anti-Israel protesters on the uptown campus .

This conflict stubbornly admits of no middle ground. It continues to ignite a polarising ideological feud between forces, often malevolent, which hinders rational debate. The ICJ judgment has merely inflamed passions and amplified the level of rancour and antipathy. There seems little room for a detached assessment of the crisis, or a path towards a scrupulous deliberation on the facts. Demonstrations in cities and on university campuses in many countries vilify Israel as a genocidal apartheid state that pursues a colonial policy of persecution against Palestinians whose ‘freedom fighters’ are merely expressing their right of self-determination after 76 years of oppression.

At Columbia University, for example, demonstrators chanted:

We say justice, you say ‘how?’
Burn Tel Aviv to the ground,
Ya Hamas, we love you,
We support your rockets too!

In my earlier piece published here soon after the Court’s decision, I suggested that it would be ingenuous to imagine that an age-old flashpoint would be susceptible to simple solutions, especially following the barbarism and depravity of 7 October -murder, rape, torture, abduction, arson, and pillaging – and amid the apocalyptic scenes of medieval privation and devastation in Gaza. I also contended that the ruling may have been misconstrued. It now appears that this may indeed have been the case.

**Menacing Mob**. Though he never said a word about Israel nor identified himself as Jewish, filmmaker Horowitz at City University of New York (CUNY) was repeatedly told to “Get the f–k out of here.” His only ‘crime’ for this mob, which included an Iman, was that he had been waving an American flag!

In an interview on the BBC on 26 April, former President of the Court, Justice Joan Donoghue – who delivered the majority judgment – stated that what it actually decided was that ‘the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide’ and that ‘South Africa had a right to present that in the court.’

The Court, she explained, ‘did not decide, and this is something where I’m correcting something that’s often said in the media. It did not decide that the claim of genocide was plausible …The shorthand that often appears, which is that there’s a plausible case of genocide, isn’t what the court decided.’

In other words, the countless media reports hailing South Africa’s ‘victory’ against Israel, and the jubilation, especially in that country, may have been somewhat misplaced and premature. Her message might be understood as ‘curb your enthusiasm!’

Nothing I have since read dislodges my earlier misgivings about the manner in which the case was presented and conducted. First, the Court ought to have considered whether the Genocide Convention is, in fact, the appropriate legal basis for the litigation. As both the ad hoc Israeli judge, Aharon Barak, and Justice Julia Sebutinde of Uganda (recently elected Vice-President of the Court) point out in their dissenting judgments, the framework of international humanitarian law (IHL) affords a more congenial legal foundation upon which the application should have been mounted. In the words of Justice Sebutinde:

What distinguishes the crime of genocide from other grave violations of international
human rights law is the existence of the ‘intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such’. Accordingly, the acts complained of by South Africa … can only be capable of falling within the scope of the said Convention if a genocidal intent is present, otherwise such acts simply constitute grave violations of international humanitarian law and not genocide as such.

**Goodbye Columbia**. If South Africa’s application to the ICJ against Israel hoped to end violence, it has fueled it. Seen here are Hamas supporters at Columbia University, New York calling to “Burn Tel Aviv to the ground” while yelling at Jewish students to “Go back to Europe!”

IHL provides that harm to innocent civilians and civilian infrastructure should not be excessive as compared with the anticipated military advantage. The loss of innocent lives is not unlawful providing it complies with the rules and principles of this law. Similarly, the German judge, Georg Nolte, though he concurred with the majority, did not consider the test of genocide as having been met:

I am not persuaded that South Africa has plausibly shown that the military operation undertaken by Israel, as such, is being pursued with genocidal intent. The evidence provided by South Africa regarding the Israeli military operation differs fundamentally from that contained in the reports by the United Nations fact-finding mission on Myanmar’s so-called ‘clearance operation’ in 2016 and 2017 which led the Court to adopt its Order of 23 January 2020 in The Gambia v Myanmar.

It may be that the question of intent was not fully canvassed because, as Justice Donoghue has now made clear, the Court was considering only the extent to which there was a plausible risk that the Palestinians might suffer irreparable harm, or, whether their right to protection against such harm was plausible.

The Court uncritically concurred with the applicant’s assertion that various bellicose statements, uttered in the aftermath of the gruesome 7 October attacks, demonstrate the requisite intention by Israel to commit genocide. But is it unreasonable that, following the homicidal onslaught, which left at least 1,200 dead, many wounded, and some 250 taken hostage, certain Israeli political and military leaders would recklessly unleash clamorous calls to arms, promising vengeance and retaliation for the unspeakable suffering visited upon so many innocent citizens and foreigners?

To treat these spontaneous remarks – made in the heat of a national tragedy – as evidence of a state’s intention to commit genocide seems highly tendentious, particularly as they included comments uttered by individuals with no direct role in Israel’s military decision-making on the ground. They were, in any event, directed at the terrorists, not at the Palestinians or Gazans in general.

The decision, it seems to me, myopically minimised the defence pleaded by Israel. It is astonishing that the judges fail to acknowledge the critical fact that Israel is fighting an enemy that is demonstrably committed to the Jewish state’s annihilation. The 2017 revised (more ‘moderate’) Hamas Charter is explicit in its ambition to continue its resistance until Israel is obliterated:

Palestine symbolizes the resistance that shall continue until liberation is accomplished, until the return is fulfilled and until a fully sovereign state is established with Jerusalem as its capital … [Palestine] was seized by a racist, anti-human and colonial Zionist project …

This pronouncement requires little clarification.

Fourthly, the judges appeared to neglect the stark reality that Israel’s callous adversary conceals its fighters, weapons, and hostages in a vast subterranean city, and operates amongst civilians in schools, mosques, and hospitals. Imposing a ceasefire, as requested by South Africa, would, as many have pointed out, permit Hamas to regroup. Moreover, as Justice Sebutinde crucially recognises in her carefully reasoned dissent:

[The litigation] is complicated by the fact that in the context of an ongoing war with Hamas, which is not a party to these proceedings, it would be unrealistic to put limitations upon one of the belligerent parties but not the other. Israel would justifiably assert its right to defend itself from Hamas, which would most probably aggravate the situation in Gaza … It is difficult to envisage how one of the belligerent parties can be expected to unilaterally ‘prevent the destruction of evidence’ while leaving the other one free to carry on unabated.’

**Are the protesting students politically literate ?** This is what was unleashed on Israel on October 7, following Hamas’ charter whose introduction reads: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it”. (Photo: Mahmud Hams / AFP / Getty)

It is, fifthly, troubling that while the court explicitly abjures any finding of facts, it readily cites a plethora of evidence from various agencies of the United Nations whose neutrality is, at the very least, questionable. They include the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Under Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief, the World Health Organization (WHO), the UN Human Rights Council, and the Commissioner-General of (the recently discredited) UNRWA.

Finally, the judges fail to enquire whether South Africa’s application might be tainted by its cordiality towards Hamas. The country’s current government seems eager to be considered the conscience of the world. Its uncritical embrace of Hamas condemns it to ignominy from which it may never recover. A mere ten days after 7 October, South Africa’s foreign minister, Naledi Pandor, held a telephone call with the leader of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, to express the country’s ‘solidarity and support’ for the Palestinian people. This was followed by a delegation of three Hamas officials to Pretoria. She also visited Iran on 22 October 2023.

This affability with the Islamic Republic could, as Justice Sebutinde justly remarked, actually be put to constructive use:

It was brought to the attention of the Court that South Africa, and in particular certain organs of government, have enjoyed and continue to enjoy a cordial relationship with the leadership of Hamas. If that is the case, then one would encourage South Africa as a party to these proceedings and to the Genocide Convention, to use whatever influence they might wield, to try and persuade Hamas to immediately and unconditionally release the remaining hostages, as a good will gesture.

One shrinks from questioning the bona fides of the applicant’s case. But while it vehemently castigates Israel, its legal representatives barely mention the evil of Hamas and other Iranian proxies. Is it possible that the ANC’s longing to burnish its radical pro-Palestinian (and even pro-Iranian) credentials, blinds it to the suffering of the victims of these crimes? I sincerely hope I am wrong, and that its ostensible moral turpitude is imaginary – even if some have detected a whiff of antisemitism in the applicant’s case. Again, I want to be mistaken. It would be a bitter irony; many South African Jews were in the vanguard of the struggle against the injustice of apartheid. They were tortured, imprisoned, and vilified by the apartheid state. In his autobiography, Mandela reflects:

I have found [South African] Jews to be more broad-minded than most whites on issues of race and politics, perhaps because they themselves have historically been victims of prejudice.

He might have added that several had relatives who were victims of a genuine genocide at the hands of the Nazis.

It is likely to be years before the Court delivers its judgment on the merits. Defining genocide is not straightforward; it requires a specific intent to annihilate a group of people. The final ruling may provide guidance on its construction, and distinguish the crime of genocide from other violations of international law, including war crimes over which the ICJ has no jurisdiction.

It is by no means certain that the Court’s readiness to accede to South Africa’s application for provisional measures will translate into a finding against Israel whenever the day of judgment dawns. One hopes that by then the war will have concluded, and that some sort of peace will have been secured.

About the writer:

Raymond Wacks, Emeritus Professor of Law and Legal Theory, is the author of seventeen books, editor of ten, and numerous articles. His books have been translated into more than a dozen languages. They include Personal Information: Privacy and the Law; Privacy and Media Freedom; Privacy: A Very Short Introduction; Law: A Very Short Introduction; and Justice: A Beginner’s Guide. Among his most recent publications are Protecting Personal Information: The Right to Privacy Reconsidered; COVID-19 and Public Policy in the Digital Age; and National Security in the New World Order: Government and the Technology of Information (with Andrea Monti). The sixth edition of his Understanding Jurisprudence: An Introduction to Legal Theory appeared in 2021, as did The Rule of Law Under Fire? His latest book, Animal Lives Matter: The Continuing Quest for Justice, was published in February.

SOUTH AFRICAN CRICKET ON A STICKY WICKET

The highly publicised Teeger affair exposes a “cover up” in South African cricket of political persecution with a chilling effect on the freedom of expression of South African Jewry.

By Craig Snoyman

CricketSA and the Gauteng Central Lions have chosen to cover up their malfeasance in the Teeger matter. They have chosen to sweep under the carpet issues of corporate governance, fraudulent misrepresentations and violations of media contracts which employees and South African cricketers have breached.

David Teeger was charged with bringing cricket into disrepute by making a statement in favour of the Israeli army at a private function. He was not under contract at the time. Five complaints were lodged with the Gauteng Central Lions and from the Lions’ initial position that it would send out letters to the complainants acknowledging their concerns, the matter escalated. Soon CricketSA were drawn into the matter and the same five complaints that had been sent to the Lions now formed the basis for a charge brought against Teeger by CricketSA.

**Foul Play**. Brandishing signs declaring “He’s My Captain”, protestors outside the HQ of Cricket South Africa declare support for South African Jewish cricketer David Teeger amid ongoing antisemitism scandal. (Photo: Ilan Ossendryver)

Of the complaints lodged, there was one that emanated from Lenasia Cricket Club. Another came from “Diadora”, a sponsor of Lions cricket. There is a very clear link between these two complainants. The Chairman of the Lenasia Cricket Club is one Azar Saloojee and the person lodging the complaint on behalf of Diadora is also Azar Saloojee – the same person. The complaint of Diadora South Africa stated that they:

“will not tolerate Mr Teeger playing in any tournament sponsored by Diadora”.

Responding to the warranted allegation of discrimination, Diadora’s Head Office in Italy were quick to reply that:

– Diadora had no directors in South Africa

– it disassociates itself from the statement made by Saloojee

– Saloojee was not authorized to make such a statement.

Saloojee had made the statement in his personal capacity but as the Chairman of Lenasia Cricket Club and subject to the jurisdiction and sanction of CricketSA, he had abused his authority by falsely misrepresenting facts to Gauteng Lions and CricketSA, even going as far as threatening/ extorting CricketSA.

From the Gauteng Central Lions level, the matter was elevated to CricketSA level, using the same complaints lodged with Gauteng Lions. There is nothing in the constitution of either the Gauteng Lions or CricketSA (the South African Cricket Board) which provides for a matter which has been launched at a franchise level to be dealt with at a national level. The acknowledgement of complaint letter was discarded and Teeger was charged at a national level.

**Taking on Teeger**. Pushing to have Teeger removed from captaining South Africa’s Under-19 cricket squad, Dr. Mohammed Moosajee, President of the Gauteng Lions Cricket Board detailed in his affidavit a compilation of complaints against the Jewish captain that included demands from pro-Palestinian groups.

New complainant statements used in the charge against Teeger were those of Mohammed Moosajee, the President of the Gauteng Lions, Jonathan Leaf-Wright, the CEO of the Gauteng Lions, and that of Pholetsi Moketi, the CEO of Cricket South Africa. For these members to have provided statements, they needed to have received the prior approval of their respective boards. While acknowledging that he did not have permission of the Lions, Moosajee – although somewhat irregular – submitted an affidavit in his personal capacity. Both Moosajee and Moketi – who had charged Teeger for the statement he made in support of Israeli soldiers – failed to recognise the irony in submitting their views of the history of “the occupation of Palestine” and a condemnation of the Israeli Defence Force. But, as no Board approvals were given, all of these statements were unauthorised and irregular. There is no provision for executives to express their personal political opinions or to submit their own voluntary statements in disciplinary charges.

**From Batting to Battling as a Jew**. Despite David Teeger been exonerated by an independent inquiry for his pro-Israeli army comments made at a private gathering, this did not stop the antisemitic onslaught in South Africa to having him removed from the position of captain for “security” concerns. (Photo: Stock Cricket Image: Pixaba)

Further overt politics was brought into ‘play’ by the PSA (trade union for public sector workers in South Africa) which went into detail about the “genocidal war against the Palestinians”. In all, each of the complainants was given the right to express their opinions freely – some virulently political – against the statement uttered by Teeger

Nonetheless, Teeger was charged with unbecoming conduct and statements detrimental to the game of cricket in violation of the Lions and CricketSA codes of conduct. Teeger was not subject to any social media contract which prevented him from making a statement to the media. His statement was not even made to the media but was made at an awards ceremony at a private function. Employees and cricketers on contract are however prevented from making public statements without the approval of the relevant cricket authority. Hashim Amla, an employee of the Gauteng Lions, as well as contracted SA cricketers Kagiso Rabada and Tabriz Shamsi have all expressed their opinion of the Israel-Hamas war on social media. Each expressed an opinion in favour of the Palestinians. Each has a social media contract preventing them from expressing these opinions publicly.

However, no action has been taken against them!

In an endeavour to have CricketSA explain its position concerning the above issues and take the necessary corrective measures or to explain why these were not necessary, legal correspondence was entered into. First, there was correspondence with CricketSA and Gauteng Lions and thereafter with their legal representatives.

After initial stonewalling by CricketSA, and non-substantive correspondence by their legal representatives, a response was finally received, stating:

“There is no legal obligation on our client to either provide the information that your client seeks or to take any of the measures demanded.”

So CricketSA, the custodian of cricket in South Africa which has undertaken to promote, advance, and administer the game of cricket in South Africa and adhere to the general principles contained in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa saw fit to charge Teeger because he expressed his constitutional right to freedom of expression. It sees no reason to explain why it is not adhering to general principles of fairness and good labour practices – at least, certainly not to a mere stakeholder member of the public.

The same CricketSA, which swore to respect and recognise the penalties laid down by members of Cricket South Africa, sees no reason to take measures where numerous clearly identifiable offences arising out of the Teeger matter which are chargeable in terms of CricketSA’s rules and regulations and probably even in terms of South Africa’s criminal law.

**Pitch Im’perfect**. Failing to see the true state of South Africa’s proverbial cricket pitch, Lawson Naidoo, the chair of CricketSA’s board, responds to accusations of antisemitism that they are “*not deserving of a response*”.

While Lawson Naidoo, the chair of CricketSA’s board, may say that accusations of antisemitism are “not deserving of a response” let’s see how he responds to accusations of malfeasance and double standards now that the matter has gone public.

Double standards where Jews are involved usually suggest antisemitism.

About the writer:

Craig Snoyman is a practising advocate in South Africa.

LETTER FROM ISRAEL AT WAR – WEEK 24

Justifying and whitewashing October 7 serves the interests of those responsible for the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. Does the world care?

By Harris Zvi Green

March 15, 2024

My dearest friends,

The international community has clearly had enough of Israel. As I wrote in my last letter, the Free World and its freedoms are in decay. Its heads of state and humanitarian organizations, its religious leaders and academic institutions have proved, for the umpteenth time, they don’t have the will or the ability to fight, outlaw or even recognize terror, especially when it’s targeted against Israel.

On October 7, invading Hamas forces perpetrated a genocide against Israel. Around 1,200 people, including women and children, were brutally murdered. An additional 250 Israelis were abducted to Gaza. After 164 days, 134 of them remain in hostage. They haven’t been visited by representatives of any humanitarian organization. Since October 7, more than 9,000 missiles have been randomly fired from Gaza into population centers in Israel. As a result of this violence, around 100,000 people have, for the past 5 months, been displaced from their homes along Israel’s southern border.

**Forgotten Footage**. Haunting images of Israeli civilians burned alive in their car by Hamas terrorists, is the imagery the world is purposely forgetting. (Photo: South First Responders)

Clearly, this violence must be countered. Failure to do so will further embolden Hamas. The Hamas violence on Israel’s southern border has already emboldened Hezbollah on Israel’s northern border and the Houthi rebels in the Red Sea. It’s even emboldened South Africa to weaponize international law to demonize Israel and delegitimize her right to exist as the nation state of the Jewish people.

Sadly, the UN Security Council is engaged in a systematic process of denial. The Security Council is doing its utmost to distance itself from the report prepared by its envoy on sex crimes committed during conflict. The Russian representative discounted the report claiming it was based on partial information.

**Truth is Irrelevant**. Russian Deputy Ambassador to the UN, Maria Zabolotskaya (above), attempts to cast doubt against overwhelming evidence in the Security Council on a UN report confirming sexual violence committed by Hamas-led terrorists on Israelis on and after October 7.(Screen capture)

The Security Council continues to ignore the plight of the Israeli hostages in Gaza. It ignores the indiscriminate firing of missiles at population centers in Israel. It ignores the use of hospitals, schools, mosques and its own buildings as part of the Hamas terror machine against Israel. It ignores the cynical use of Gaza’s civilian population as human shields to protect the Hamas military infrastructure.

Following World War II, the Allies convened a joint tribunal in Nuremberg to establish evidence of the war crimes committed and to bring the perpetrators to justice. Why aren’t they doing so this time around?

The world accuses Israel of over-reacting. I ask myself whether this is reasonable.

Over the years, Israel has done her utmost to avoid charges of over-reacting. Since 2005, Hamas has fired more than 20,000 missiles and mortars at Israel. Imagine the astronomical number of Israeli casualties that would been recorded without Israel’s Iron Dome air-defense system. Imagine the air strikes and the artillery required to eliminate this threat. Imagine the even more astronomical number of Palestinian casualties that would have been recorded in the process.

Israel’s Iron Dome air-defense system is more worthy of the Nobel Peace prize than are politicians or those heading any of its humanitarian organizations.

How does the world expect Israel to defend herself? Effectively, the world is seeking to neutralize Israel’s right to self-defense. How should Israel demilitarize Gaza? How should Israel secure release of the hostages? How should Israel ensure that the events of October 7 don’t repeat themselves?

Without providing effective and realistic solutions to these questions, the accusations made against Israel are ludicrous to the extreme. Ceasefires won’t achieve any of these fundamental requirements.

The world is stuck with one Holocaust Memorial Day. It shouldn’t be looking for a second one.

Israel conducted major air strikes and ground attacks against military targets in the Gaza Strip. These attacks caused enormous damage and many casualties including women and children serving as human shields for the Hamas leadership. But Israel also put her own soldiers at enormous risk in her attempts to limit the unnecessary loss of civilian life in Gaza. Has any other country in military history gone to such lengths to limit the loss of enemy life? If so, please name them.

To date, more than 12,000 Hamas militants have been killed. Many others have been apprehended. By international standards, the collateral damage has been negligible. The numbers of non-combatants relative to combatants killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and Ukraine were much greater. Given the extensive use by Hamas of women and children as human shields, this is an even more remarkable achievement.

The discourse surrounding the conflict has become toxic. Protest events around the world calling for the release of the hostages are dispersed by unruly mobs. Law enforcement to protect the right to demonstrate is either ridiculously inadequate or non-existent. Pictures of the hostages are ripped to shreds within minutes of their being posted. That’s what become of our world. No wonder Michelle Obama, Julia Roberts and others who seek popularity audiences, are so quiet on the subject.

As Leonard Cohen wrote:

“First we take Manhattan then we take Berlin”

Cohen described this as a terrorist song. Terrorism, he said, is something that has no alibis or compromises. Judging by what’s becoming increasingly acceptable on the streets of Manhattan and Berlin, both cities have fallen to the whims of terrorism.

**Crazy Court**. Instead of the leaders of Gaza being charged for the genocide of Israelis having orchestrated a well-planned massacre, Israel finds itself so falsely charged at The Hague thanks to South Africa weaponizing international law. Seen here are South Africa’s Justice Minister Ronald Lamola (left) and its Ambassador to the Netherlands Vusimuzi Madonsela. (Photo: Remko de Waal/AFP/Getty Images)

Justifying and whitewashing the events of October 7 are an essential part of the strategy. It serves the interests of the perpetrators and the international community.

My condolences to those mourning their nearest and dearest. My wishes to the injured for a complete and speedy recovery. May God protect our brave soldiers. May the hostages soon be reunited with their families. May you all be blessed with good health to see smiles on the faces of your loved ones for many years to come.

Wishing you all Shabbat Shalom and better times ahead.

Am Yisrael Chai.

Harris Zvi Green

About the writer:

Harris Zvi Green was born in Cape Town, South Africa. Aged 77, he made Aliyah 53 years ago. An accountant by profession, he served as the Chief Financial Officer for a number of Israel based hi-tech companies. He is married to Phyllis. They have 3 married children ,13 grandchildren and 3 great-grandchildren. Harris Zvi Green is a founder member of Truth be Told, an organization engaged in public diplomacy on behalf of Israel.

LETTER FROM ISRAEL AT WAR – WEEK 23

What is left of the so-called “Free World” when its democratic values and freedoms are in decay and refuses to outlaw terror – or is it just when it’s against Jews?

By Harris Zvi Green

March 8, 2024

My dearest friends,

After 150 days of denial and deafening silence, it’s now official. Last Monday, the UN finally published its report confirming the rapes and horrendous sexual assaults that took place in the Hamas offensive of October 7. The report presents evidence of the raping of dead bodies and the execution of naked women with their hands tied behind their backs. The report also refers to sexual abuse of the hostages and calls for their immediate and unconditional release.

**Broadcasting Bias**. Al Jazeera journalists were quick to characterize the UN report that conclusively proved that rapes and horrendous sexual assaults took place on October 7 as – “an endorsement of the Israeli narrative”. (Photo: Getty file)

This report is based on 36 in-depth interrogations, 5,000 photographs and 50 hours of video footage.

Twenty-two weeks have passed since the October 7 massacre. During this time, I’ve written and published 22 blog pieces. The aim of these weekly pieces was to help maintain awareness of the outrageous atrocities. It was my way of memorializing the victims and keeping the plight of the hostages alive.

Fighting BBC and Al Jazeera was easy. They had the resources. But we had the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The dismissive comments made by Al Jazeera’s journalists at Monday’s press conference proves they won’t allow themselves to be confused by the facts. They referred to the UN report as “an endorsement of the Israeli narrative”.

The descriptions of the atrocities committed on October 7 were so unimaginable that they negatively impacted the authenticity of the savagery. It took me a few days to fully comprehend the gravity of the situation. Shocked and outraged as I was, I never expected anything better from Hamas. Their actions were consistent with their Charter.

I was moved by the initial expressions of solidarity from the more enlightened leaders of the Free World. I knew the shelf-life of this solidarity was limited, but I never realized just how brittle their resolve and moral clarity really are. Fighting terror is dirty work. It requires commitment and fortitude. It doesn’t provide photo-opportunities for expedient politicians. It’s a job that needs to be done and only true leaders can deliver.

The behavior of the international community after the events of October 7, disappoints me to the core. Their leaders are more interested in recommending UNRWA for a Nobel Peace Prize. Reality shows have better television ratings than monotonous footage of underground tunnels and never-ending firing of missiles into Israel.

Will justice ever be done? I doubt it.

The UN has yet to designate Hamas as a terrorist organization. China believes Hamas is the elected representative of the Palestinian people. When asked about her country’s opinion on the matter, Naledi Pandor, South Africa’s Minister of International Relations, replied smugly, “South Africa’s position on Hamas is in line with the United Nations.”

**Pandor the Pretender**. While projecting herself as a defender of human rights, South Africa’s foreign minister, Naledi Pandor, had no reservation calling Hamas’s leaders following their organization’s massacre of Jews on October 7 and offering her country’s support.

Hamas is clearly a terrorist organization. The events of October 7 prove that. If those weren’t acts of terror, what exactly is terror? For as long as the Free World continues to bluff itself and avoid recognizing the facts, terror will continue to plague our world.

US Vice-President, Kamala Harris, blamed Israel for not doing enough to ease the “humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza” and called for an immediate ceasefire. To be fair, she added that this was part of a deal that would free hostages kidnapped by Hamas on October 7.

But being fair also requires being clear. Certified Public Accountants call it “fair disclosure”. It’s a fundamental requirement of any policy statement. Yet, Ms. Harris failed to advise her audience that the contemplated deal anticipates the release of only “around 40” of the 134 hostages. So, let me ask the obvious question. What about the remaining 94 hostages?

The time has come to speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. A ceasefire will only intensify the next round of hostilities. It will protect and provide impunity to the ruthless Hamas leadership and what remains of its military infrastructure. It will enable Hamas to rearm and regroup. It will enable the release of around 400 convicted terrorists and implies abandoning the 94 hostages who will remain in captivity.

It may help her upcoming election campaign, but it doesn’t help the hostages.

Resolving a “humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza” requires the immediate and unconditional release of all the hostages. All the hostages are an integral part of the “humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza”. What makes the hostages unique in this situation, is that they are excluded from the truckloads and parachuted humanitarian aid flowing into Gaza. The Red Cross, UNRWA and other UN agencies service Hamas and the people of Gaza. They’re doing absolutely nothing to ease the plight of the hostages.

**UN’acceptable and UN’forgivable**. While the Red Cross, UNRWA and other UN agencies service Hamas and the people of Gaza, absolutely nothing is done to ease the plight of Israel’s hostages.

Being politically correct may have its advantages in the short term, but, at the end of the day, people are elected to get difficult jobs done. Kamala Harris should be aware of that. The Free World needs leaders who can make difficult and challenging decisions, even when they might be considered controversial.

Some more bad news for the Free World.

George Galloway, was re-elected to the House of Commons as the member for Rochdale. A few months ago, he went on record saying there were no rapes on October 7. Galloway despises Jews. He makes no secret of it. He has no allegiance to the truth or to any acceptable moral standard. What does this say about those who elected him to power?

**If only Galloway could go Faraway**. Recently re-elected to the House of Commons as the member for Rochdale, Hamas supporter, George Galloway posted denials of the October 7 atrocities alleging that there was no evidence of rape.

The so-called “Free World” is not in good shape. Its leadership prefers comfort and convenience. It avoids challenge and controversy. Its democratic values and freedoms are in decay. Its priorities serve its short-term interests. Worst of all, it refuses to recognize, outlaw and fight terror.

Sadly, the Free World is no longer free.

Wishing you all Shabbat Shalom and better times ahead.

Am Yisrael Chai.

Harris Zvi Green.

About the writer:

SOUTH AFRICA, A HOTBED OF HYPOCRISY

Set on being in the spotlight, South Africa should instead be seen in a dim light opting to exploit troubles abroad while ignoring them closer to home.

By David E. Kaplan

How should one read South Africa’s moral mindset when it champions the plight of Palestinians in Gaza and yet on its doorstep ignores jihadi attacks on its north-eastern border of Mozambique where more than 67,000 people have fled attacks in recent weeks?

“What is particularly of concern to UNICEF is that the majority of these displaced people are women and children, more than two-thirds of the total when combined,” said Guy Taylor, UNICEF’s (United Nations Children’s Fund) Mozambique spokesperson.

**Northern Exposure**. Tens of thousands flee new wave of jihadist attacks in Mozambique, a country on South Africa’s northern border.

What’s more, “the insurgency isn’t ending anytime soon,” says Jasmine Opperman, a Security Consultant specializing in Extremism and Political Violence in southern Africa. “This is about organised chaos to create fear, to recruit and spread an Islamic extremism narrative.”

Nary a murmur on this issue on its doorstep, but a half a world away, South Africa launches – basking in splendid media spotlight – a legal assault on Israel at the UN’s highest court at The Hague.

We should not be surprised.

For a variety of reasons all comfortably closeted in self-interest, South Africa choses to be in the terrorist camp as evidenced by revelations that South Africa today is now “a nerve centre for jihadist financing.”

**Aiming to Displease**. Analysts and counter-terrorism experts have described South Africa as a nerve centre for jihadist financing in Africa.

“South Africa is open hunting ground,” the Pretoria-based counter-terrorism expert Jasmine Opperman told Agence France-Presse.

Islamist financiers gather money in the country and transfer it into “the hands of terrorism,” she said, adding it was internationally recognised “that we are now a hub.”

Opperman’s assessment is widely shared by analysts across Africa, Europe and the United States.

Red flags were first raised in 2023 when the US government levied sanctions on several South Africans it accused of belonging to an Islamic State (IS) cell. According to Washington, money was being transmitted out of South Africa to IS branches across Africa. According to the US treasury in November, IS was being provided from South Africa with “technical, financial, or material support.”

**Hand It to Terror**. Pretoria-based counter-terrorism expert **Jasmine Opperman** says Islamist financiers gather money in South Africa and transfer it into “*the hands of terrorism*.”

In March last year, the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a global illicit cash flow watchdog that aims to tackle money laundering and terrorist financing, placed South Africa on its “grey list” finding that South Africa today is “a fertile ground” for Islamists to raise funds.

**The Money Trail**. Intelligence evidence suggests that Al-Qaeda-linked Al-Shabaab used South Africa to move funds after the 2013 attack on Westgate mall in Kenya’s capital by Islamists terrorists. (Photo: Kenyan Presidential Press Service/Getty Images)

“South Africa’s role in international terrorism dates back more than a decade,” says Ryan Cummings an analyst with the Cape Town based Signal Risk security advisory firm. He cited intelligence evidence that suggested Somalia’s Al-Qaeda-linked Al-Shabaab used South Africa to move funds after the 2013 attack on the Westgate mall in Kenya’s capital.

**Desperate for Answers**. Poster of the most wanted Al-Shabaab leaders at the US Embassy in Nairobi, November 2022 (Photo: Simon MAINA / AFP)

There are also reports, said Cummings of “an increase of funds… flowing from South Africa” to Mozambique and an ISIS affiliate in the DR Congo.

**Christians on the Run**. Where is South Africa’s concern as Christians call for peace amidst attacks by jihadist insurgents in the Mozambican province of Cabo Delgado that are forcing priests, nuns and other Church workers to flee to cities already overwhelmed by internally displaced people (IDPs).

TERRORISM IS ‘BANKING’ ON SOUTH AFRICA

Is it any further surprise that banks in South Africa may be – unwittingly or not – facilitating payments to Hamas and affiliated organizations. Uncovered in a recent Jerusalem Post investigative report , there appears to be a network of several South African organizations deeply involved in Hamas funding. According to the researched report, three of the country’s main banks, Nedbank, Standard Bank, and Absa, were accused of enabling funding for Hamas activities through the Al-Quds Foundation, an international group sanctioned by the US and outlawed by Israel. Through the cunning guise of charity, the Al-Quds International Foundation was established in Beirut in 2021 by members of Hamas to raise funds for their terror organization.

**Sign of the Times**. This sign displayed to greet South Africa’s returning from The Hague Minister of Justice Ronald Lamola at OR Tambo International airport, Johannesburg on January 14, 2024, depicts the ANC’s government commitment to be party to the end of Jewish life in Israel. (Photo: Alet Pretorius/Reuters)

So grave is this development, especially since the massacre of October 7, the taking and still holding of hostages and the war that has followed, South Africa’s Chief Rabbi, Warren Goldstein, has written to the CEOs of these banks appealing for them:

“To come and see me to provide assurance and proof that these allegations are without merit.”

**Rabbi’s Rebuke**. South Africa’s chief rabbi, Warren Goldstein pledges to hold banks accountable for funding Hamas. (Photo: screenshot)

In muscular mode – “This is not 1938. It is 2024” – the Chief Rabbi says that failing their cooperation, he has warned the banks that “there are numerous local criminal and international anti-terror laws here that they may be contravening. I will personally pursue this case on every forum to hold them accountable.”

If South Africa can lay false charges of genocide against the Jewish state at the Hague, it should not be surprised if it too finds itself facing real charges on complicity in international terrorism resulting in mass murder and massacre of Jews.

MORAL MISTEPS

South Africa’s response in navigating the October 7 massacres in southern Israel

By Tim Flack

The aftermath of the October 7, 2023, attacks in Israel has unfolded a deeply troubling narrative, marked by the brutal use of sexual violence as a weapon of war. This dark chapter, involving Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other groups, left around 1,200 dead and led to the kidnapping of 240 hostages into Gaza. What has emerged from the United Nations Commission of Inquiry’s findings is not just a tale of widespread devastation but a shocking exposé of war crimes, with sexual violence at its grim core.

**Human Prey**. A young woman flees Hamas attackers at the Nova Music Festival the music festival.

Imagine a music festival turned into a nightmare scenario, where young attendees faced unimaginable horrors. The Nova Music Festival, with about 3,500 young people, turned into a site of mass murder and sexual assault, including gang rapes and the desecration of corpses. Then, there’s Road 232, a supposed escape that instead bore witness to severe injuries and evidence of sexual violence, including signs of rape and mutilation. And in the kibbutzim close to Gaza’s perimeter, such as Re’im, Be’eri, and Kfar Aza, survivors recount tales of rape and sexualized violence.

**Hamas’ Horror**. Israel’s Supernova festival celebrated music and unity. Instead, it turned into the deadliest concert attack in history.

Even the military wasn’t spared, with reports of sexual violence against both male and female soldiers at the Nahal Oz military base. The horror extended to the hostages taken to Gaza, with firsthand accounts of rape, sexualized torture, and inhumane treatment painting a grim picture of sexual violence as a deliberate tool of war, meant to terrorize and dehumanize.

The global reaction to these revelations has been mixed. While some condemned these acts swiftly, others have been slower to react, raising questions about the commitment to preventing war crimes and sexual violence in conflict zones. South Africa, in particular, finds itself in a contentious spot. Despite President Cyril Ramaphosa‘s condemnation of the Hamas assault, his gestures of solidarity with the Palestinians have sparked debate. Additionally, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Naledi Pandor‘s interactions with Hamas and her visits to Iran and Qatar, have drawn criticism, raising concerns over South Africa’s impartiality in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

South Africa has a history of openly siding with Palestinian terrorists, inviting members of their terror organizations to visit South Africa on multiple occasions. In 2015, South Africa welcomed a high-profile visit from Hamas. The delegation was led by Khaled Meshaal, the then-leader of Hamas, who met with South African President Jacob Zuma and other top officials. This visit was a significant event, as it marked the first time a Hamas leader had visited South Africa since the country’s transition to democracy in 1994. In 2023, South Africa hosted a controversial visit from Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), both of which are designated as terrorist organizations by several countries.

**Hosting Hamas**. At a rally in Hamas’s honour in Cape Town, South Africa on October 21, 2015, Hamas political leader Khaled Mashaal told a crowd of several hundred supporters waving Hamas’s white-and-green flags that “the uprisings shall continue until … the land is for Palestine and its people.” (AFP/Rodger Bosch)

The purpose of the visit was to participate in the fifth Global Convention of Solidarity with Palestine, which aimed to strengthen international support for the Palestinian cause. The delegation from Hamas included Dr. Bassem Naim, a member of the Hamas political bureau in the Gaza Strip, and Dr. Khaled Qaddoumi, the group’s representative in Iran. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and its prominent member Leila Khaled have made several visits to South Africa in recent years. Khaled, a Palestinian political activist and former plane hijacker, has been warmly welcomed by South African officials and organizations.

The juxtaposition of condemning violence while showing solidarity with terrorist organizations, and the controversy around Minister Pandor’s actions, highlights the complexity of South Africa’s stance. It’s a delicate balance, requiring a clear condemnation of all forms of violence, including sexual violence, and a commitment to justice for the victims.

The need for South Africa – and indeed, the world – to reassess diplomatic engagements and public statements to align with human rights principles is clear. Engaging with all parties in the conflict demands a delicate balance, emphasizing the need to end violence, pursue dialogue, and seek a peaceful resolution, all while taking a firm stance against violence against civilians.

As we grapple with the atrocities of October 7, the implications for international relations and human rights advocacy are profound. It’s a moment that calls for not only immediate action but also a deep reflection on the frameworks for international engagement in conflict zones. For South Africa, this is a test of its commitment to human rights and impartiality, demanding a nuanced, yet firm stance against violence and injustice. This situation underscores the imperative for all nations to stand unequivocally against the use of sexual violence in conflict and to work towards a world where the dignity and rights of every individual are respected and protected.

Among the myriad of reactions, the roles of South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa and the Minister of Foreign Affairs Naledi Pandor have come under scrutiny. Their actions and statements post-massacre and abduction of hostages have sparked debate, particularly in the context of international diplomacy and human rights advocacy.

Given the gravity of the situation and the critical need for global leaders to stand united against such atrocities, it is imperative to seek clarity and accountability from those in positions of power. Therefore, we turn our attention to President Ramaphosa and Minister Pandor, asking for their response to the harrowing revelations made by the UN Commission.

**Embracing Killers**. Just weeks after Israel suffered on 7 October the gravest act of mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust, the Hamas killer’s leaders (seen here in Cape Town’s Waterfront) were warmly welcomed by representatives of the ruling African National Congress (ANC), the Anglican Church, civil society groups, and the Palestine solidarity movement.

What needs to be asked of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Naledi Pandor, and President Ramaphosa:

Acknowledgment of the Report:

How do you respond to the UN Commission’s findings, especially regarding the heinous use of sexual violence as a weapon of war during the October 7 attacks? What steps are you taking to ensure South Africa’s voice is heard in the global condemnation of these acts?

Diplomatic Stance and Actions:

In light of the criticisms regarding South Africa’s response and diplomatic engagements following the attacks, how do you justify the balance between showing solidarity with the Palestinian cause and condemning acts of violence unequivocally, including sexual violence?

Implications for South Africa’s Foreign Policy:

How will the findings of the report influence South Africa’s foreign policy and its approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict moving forward? Is there a reassessment underway to ensure that South Africa’s engagements and public statements are aligned with the principles of human rights and justice?

Support for the Victims:

What measures is South Africa willing to advocate for or implement at the international level to support the victims of these crimes, ensuring they receive justice and the necessary support to rebuild their lives?

Preventing Future Atrocities:

Given the strategic use of sexual violence as a terror tool in conflicts, what proactive steps does South Africa propose the international community should take to prevent such atrocities in future conflicts?

The answers to these questions are crucial not only for understanding South Africa’s position and actions in the aftermath of the October 7 attacks but also for gauging the commitment of its leadership to upholding and advocating for human rights on the global stage. The world watches and waits for a response that not only addresses these pressing inquiries but also demonstrates a resolve to combat sexual violence in conflict, and work towards a lasting peace and justice in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

While the world ‘watches and waits’, the world should also note that the rate of sexual violence in South Africa is among the highest recorded in the world. Interpol has named South Africa the “Rape Capital of the World”.

About the writer:

Tim Flack is the CEO and Head of Comms and Public Relations and founder of Flack Partners PR, a boutique public relations firm in Cape Town, South Africa. Tim specialises in providing tailored communication strategies for businesses in the political, safety and security, and small business fields.

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)

IS SOUTH AFRICA ABANDONING HER JEWS?

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.”

**Troubling Times**. Writer on South African Jewish history, South African politics and the history of antisemitism, UCT Emeritus Professor, Milton Shain laments that “*What was once considered unacceptable is now acceptable*.”

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.

**Terror Thulsie Twins**. Brandon-Lee and Tony-Lee Thulsie – both linked to Islamic State (ISIS) – were convicted in 2022 for plotting to blow up the US Embassy and various Jewish institutions in South Africa. (Photo: Gallo Images/Papi Morake)

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?”

**Galvanizing Hatred**. Pagad leader Abdul Salaam Ebrahim said in 2023 that by “putting pressure on the satanic Zionist regime” we would help Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the people of Yemen and Lebanon.

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.

**Sound Familiar?** Top South African trade-unionist and senior ANC politician, Tony Ehrenreich, has called on Jewish leaders supporting Zionism to leave the country and threatened Jewish-owned businesses.

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.”

“**OUT!” for being a Zionist**. In today’s South Africa, David Teeger as a Jew was good enough to be selected captain of the South African Under-19 cricket team but as a Zionist he wasn’t.

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.

**Inciting to Kill**. EFF leader Julius Malema vows to fund Hamas if his party wins the 2024 elections saying, “When the EFF takes over next year it is going to arm Hamas and make sure they have the necessary equipment to fight for their freedom.” (Photo: Image: EFF Twitter)

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!”

**Threatening a Blood Bath**. In South Africa’s parliament, Ahmed Manzoor Shaik Eman accused rival ‘Democratic Alliance’ party of handing Cape Town to “Zionists” and threated there would “be a blood bath”. The fiery parliamentarian bellowed: “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.

SAVIOUR OR SATAN’S HANDMAIDEN?

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.

**Masters at Masquerading**. Caring nothing for the massacre of Jews that occurred in Israel by Hamas, South Africa sends its legal pugilists to The Hague to falsely accuse Israel of committing genocide. It failed.

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.

**Back to Court**. South Africa rapidly returns to the ICJ only for its request for urgent measures to limit Israeli action in Rafah to be rejected. (AP/Peter Dejong)

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.

**Site of Sorrow**. By instituting action against Israel at the ICJ, “South Africa seeks to allow Hamas to return to commit the war crimes,” says Israel. (Photo: Jack Guez/AFP via Getty Images) JANUARY 11, 2024 4:45 PM CET

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?

27 Jan 2024: Kemp explains why Israel is not guilty of genocide and why Hamas, Hezbollah, and their patrons in Tehran are.

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

SHORT-SIGHTED SOUTH AFRICA

Looking East instead of West, South Africa’s ruling ANC fails to see ills closer to home

By Kenneth Mokgatlhe

South Africa’s late unsung philosopher hero, Robert Mangaliso Sobukwe said during the launch of his Pan Africanist Congress party in 1959:

“I wish to make it clear again that we are anti-nobody. We are pro-Africa. We breathe, we dream, we live Africa because Africa and humanity are inseparable.”

Sobukwe was a political strategist who was cognisant of the balance of power. While it is prevalent that he was inspired by the outcomes of the Bandung Conference in 1955 where 29 Asian and African countries resolved not to take either side of the East or the West, it is clear that Sobukwe acknowledged that African countries had a fundamental duty of building inclusive and effective state institutions, policies and systems to replace the foreign systems which were imposed by the colonialist.

Numerous African and Asian countries are still adhering to the principles of the Non-Aligned Movement in the current conflicts between Israel and Hamas as well as Russia and Ukraine. South Africa has recently made headlines when it took Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the accusations of genocide by Israel against the people of Gaza.

Pretoria’s foreign policy has shifted from the West to the East political and economic bloc. In 2010, under the country’s controversial former leader, Jacob Zuma, South Africa joined BRICS to become BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and SA) a move that was seen as the adoption of the “Look East Policy”. South Africa has sought to strengthen its ties with East powers such as Russia, China, Turkey, Iran, and others in recent years.

**The Boys of BRICS**. Clasping hands at the BRICS Summit in Johannesburg on August 23, 2023 are South African President Cyril Ramaphosa (centre) with from (l-r) Brazil’s President Luiz da Silva, China’s President Xi Jinping, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. (Photo: Alet Pretorius/pool/AFP via Getty Images)

Ever since the ANC emerged as South Africa’s governing party in 1994, it has confounded many with a seemingly inconsistent foreign policy taking contradicting stances on global issues. End result, the ANC stands exposed as hypocrites. They do not see anything wrong with supporting and associating with Russia’s Vladimir Putin whom they believe is a hero for invading and mass killing Ukrainians but accuse Israel of committing genocide when it responds in defense of its people.

The ANC is complacent about what the ruling tyrant ZANU-PF party is doing to its oppressed people. Today, nearly four out of every five Zimbabweans just about survives in absolute poverty. Zimbabweans on average are poorer now than they were at independence in 1980. Zimbabwe’s grave humanitarian crisis is only being met by increased state repression. It is mind-boggling to think that while the Zimbabweans have been oppressed in the backyard of South Africa for decades, our ANC government turns a blind eye and instead focuses on issues taking place a continent away! If South Africa cares about the welfare of people and the abuse of human rights, why has it turned its back on the long-suffering neighbouring Zimbabweans?

**Skewered Scruples**. South Africa is failing but it is also failing its northern neighbour Zimbabwe too by turning a blind eye to gross human rights violations.

With the ANC’s erratic foreign policy – dubious at best on issues of morality – it came as little surprise to read about the unholy meeting between Cyril Ramaphosa and Mohamed Hamden Dagalo who is chiefly implicated in the 2005 genocide in Darfur, Sudan. Well, we should all remember that the International Criminal Court ruled that South Africa was guilty for failure to arrest the former Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir who is accused of war crimes, genocide, and violations of human rights.

**Embracing Killers**. Judges at the International Criminal Court strongly criticized South Africa for its failure to arrest president Omar Hassan al-Bashir wanted on charges of “crimes against humanity” for his government’s violence in Darfur when he visited Johannesburg in 2015.

Instead, South Africa, under the ANC, is continuing to use every little chance they get to delegitimize the State of Israel. This obsession by the ANC has nothing to do with resolving the historical and political impasse between Israel and Palestine. Trivialized and politicized, the Israel-Palestine issue is now used as an electioneering weapon to deflect and defocus the attention and sobriety of voters who are so disillusioned with the bad record of Nelson Mandela’s party.

If we are really to believe that our foreign policy is premised on the principles and values of human rights, why does the ANC not apply the same humanitarian concern to its neighbour – the long-suffering people of Zimbabwe?

I am just worried by the ANC’s growing and increasing coziness with Hamas, a terrorist group that does not have regard for the people they claim to be waging the struggle for. Does the ANC know that Hamas has been diverting funds meant for the civil services of the people of Gaza since 2005 to build tunnels and buy armaments in a bid to eradicate the State of Israel? And furthermore, is the ANC so ignorant that it is unaware that when Hamas supporters chant – including our foreign minister Naledi Mandisa Pandor – “From the river to the sea” that they mean the destruction of the Jewish State.

**Morally Malignant Minister**. Foreign Affairs minister, Naledi Pandor, panders to Hamas thus aligning South Africa with the perpetrators of a massacre of Jews.

A SEA CHANGE
Whatever happened to the ANC when on the eve of South Africa’s democracy three decades ago condemned the senseless attacks by the PAC against innocent civilians because they were White? The ANC then encouraged dialogue thus preventing a huge loss of life and lambasted those who were calling for white people to be driven off into the sea. That ANC is today is unrecognizable! Where they once stood for not driving the Whites into the sea, today they embrace killers whose sole aim is to drive the Jews of Israel into the sea.

About the writer:

Kenneth Mokgatlhe is a political writer and columnist studying Master’s at Ben Gurion University in Israel.

Category: Israel- South Africa relations

I AM BLOCKED FROM VOTING IN SOUTH AFRICA’S NATIONAL ELECTION

Like this:

JUDGING GENOCIDE

Like this:

SOUTH AFRICAN CRICKET ON A STICKY WICKET

Like this:

LETTER FROM ISRAEL AT WAR – WEEK 24

Like this:

LETTER FROM ISRAEL AT WAR – WEEK 23

Like this:

SOUTH AFRICA, A HOTBED OF HYPOCRISY

Like this:

MORAL MISTEPS

Like this:

IS SOUTH AFRICA ABANDONING HER JEWS?

Like this:

SAVIOUR OR SATAN’S HANDMAIDEN?

Like this:

SHORT-SIGHTED SOUTH AFRICA

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: