Case of the pot calling the kettle

The South African BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) Coalition, much like the former BDS-SA, which is now Africa4Palestine, claims that it is made up of human-rights activists and definitely isn’t antisemitic. In fact, they both make a big thing about having a handful of Jewish members.

I wonder, though, what their definition of antisemitism is, especially in light of the SA BDS Coalition doing its best to stop the honourable Judge David Unterhalter from becoming a Constitutional Court judge. His crime was working on the executive of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) for some months.

As we all know, the role of the SAJBD is clearly stated as being the “umbrella representative spokesbody and civil rights lobby of the South African Jewish community. It promotes the safety and welfare of South African Jewry, including combatting antisemitism in all forms, and builds bridges of friendship and understanding between Jews and the broader South African population”.

Like most South African Jews, the board doesn’t want South Africa to cut ties with Israel because Israel is a Jewish state, a place that most Jews feel very strongly about. The board – much like the South African government – is also unequivocal about its belief in a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

There are members of the board who are left-wing and right-wing, and some fall somewhere in between in terms of Israeli politics. Although they don’t agree on Israeli politics, they do all believe in a Jewish state. And that’s their right. They possibly have vast political disagreements about Israeli politics, but it doesn’t matter because their job has nothing to do with Israeli politics and everything to do with safeguarding our community here.

Judge Unterhalter is Jewish and, by virtue of that fact, he is part of this minority community. In fact, in 2018, he very deservedly won the Absa Jewish Achiever Award for Professional Excellence.

He is a judge beyond reproach, and takes what he does very seriously. He is a professor of law, and before becoming a judge at the beginning of 2018, he was an exemplary senior advocate. As an advocate, he spent 27 years tackling many high-profile cases. These include representing then Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa at the Marikana Commission and the SAJBD in a hate-speech case. He also appeared for the Helen Suzman Foundation when businessman Hugh Glenister tried to get the Hawks permanently separated from the police.

When the SA Jewish Report interviewed Unterhalter on becoming a high court judge, we asked about his being Jewish in the judiciary. He explained that his judiciary function isn’t one to which this is relevant, nor does it have any bearing on his role. “Judaism is truly a part of who I am. It offers a rich tradition from which concepts of justice stem and which are exemplified in the field of law. Although it has no direct impact on my legal decisions, Judaism offers tenets which inform the values of justice.”

Most of us in the community agree with that. We also feel strongly about values, ethics, and morals, as well as the South African Constitution. In fact, our chief rabbi created a “Bill of Responsibility” more than 10 years ago that aligned to the Bill of Rights and is still being taught as part of the South African school syllabus.

Had he been selected, Unterhalter would have been the fourth Jewish judge on the Constitutional Court.

There was Arthur Chaskalson, who was president of the court from 1994 until 2001, who then became chief justice of South Africa until 2005. Then, of course, there was our esteemed Judges Richard Goldstone (1994-2003) and Albie Sachs (1994-2009).

When Unterhalter agreed to be on the executive of the SAJBD, it was to help with dire welfare issues during the pandemic. He wanted to help give back to society, and he saw working through the community he was born into as one way of doing so. Somehow, this got twisted and manipulated into being something so ugly in the SA BDS Coalition’s complaint.

It claimed that the board’s values, ethos, and actions didn’t align with government policies and our constitutional values. What a lot of hogwash!

It went on to say that the board is “akin to the Broederbond”.

Let’s see. As far as I know, the Broederbond was a men’s only secret society whose aim was to promote the interests of Afrikaans nationalism. I guess the only thing similar is that our board promotes the interest of the South African Jewish community, but certainly not by treating anyone else badly. To the contrary. And as for supporting so-called war crimes against Palestinians, that’s certainly not on the board’s agenda.

To jump to the conclusion that Unterhalter also unquestionably supports “war crimes” is a giant assumption to make. Never has Unterhalter made any such comments or suggestions, but that didn’t stop this coalition from demanding that the Judicial Services Commission shouldn’t even interview Unterhalter.

It didn’t even want to give him a chance to be interviewed to find out his views.

It also called the board an “organisation that has a sordid history of hurling allegations of antisemitism against people in South Africa who advocate for Palestinian rights”. Talk about a “a sordid history of hurling allegations”! That’s exactly what the SA BDS Coalition is doing right now and seems to take pleasure in doing. They are in fact the ones who “smear individuals and organisations in an attempt to silence” them.

The board, on the other hand, makes sure that it uses legal recourse in situations of antisemitism. Let’s be real about who is calling who what.

Or is this yet another smokescreen and the SA BDS Coalition simply doesn’t want another Jew in one of the highest legal positions in the country? Oh, but that wouldn’t be the case because they aren’t antisemitic. They would never tar all Jews with the same brush. They would never say that all Jews are the same, or would they?

What, in their view, is Unterhalter’s crime? The fact that he spent a few months on the executive of the Jewish board of deputies. Because of that, they make incredibly demeaning and ugly assumptions. Are you sure this can’t be construed as antisemitism. Hmmmm, what do you think?

Shabbat Shalom!