Underhand tactics in boycott campaign ‘a sign of desperation’

TALI FEINBERG

The SAJBD has noted at least two such instances in the past few weeks.

UCT has been considering a motion adopted by its senate on 15 March 2019, that “UCT will not enter into any formal relationships with Israeli academic institutions operating in the occupied Palestinian territories as well as other Israeli academic institutions enabling gross human-rights violations in the occupied Palestinian territories”. The senate is scheduled to review the resolution in late November.

In the first instance, the SAJBD says that last Friday, ahead of a UCT senate meeting, a number of students distributing a pro-boycott petition on campus were wearing South African Union of Jewish Students (SAUJS) t-shirts. It implied that the pamphlets represented the views of SAUJS. The SA Jewish Report has photographic evidence of this.

SAUJS has condemned this, and confirms that it is unequivocally opposed to the boycott. “The students were intentionally misrepresenting the position SAUJS holds on this issue presumably in order to fool people into thinking that there exists significant Jewish support for the proposed boycott,” said the organisation’s leadership.

“We believe in free speech, and Israel’s right to exist in peace and security, something that proponents of the boycott vehemently disagree with, hence the ruse of simply cutting ties with Israeli universities.”

It said that in attempting to deceive others, those handing out the pamphlets had disrespected every member of SAUJS and the senate.

The SAJBD wrote to UCT Vice-Chancellor Professor Mamokgethi Phakeng last Friday.

“It has come to our attention that a letter bearing several dozen signatures and titled ‘South African Jews support the academic boycott of Israeli universities enabling the occupation’ was sent to all members of the UCT senate last Friday [the letter was also published in the Mail & Guardian]. The intention of those responsible is presumably to foster the impression that since some people of Jewish origin endorse an academic boycott against Israel, this view enjoys widespread support in the Jewish community,” wrote SAJBD Chairman Shaun Zagnoev.

“There can be no reasonable doubt that the vast majority of South African Jews are strenuously opposed to singling out Israeli academic institutions for special punitive action of this nature. As far as they are concerned, the initiative is entirely politically and ideologically motivated, driven not by human-rights concerns as is being claimed, but by hardline anti-Israel activists,” Zagnoev wrote. He noted recent data by the university’s own Kaplan Centre showing that only about 1% of the South African Jewish community have negative feelings towards Israel.

A Jewish person who signed the pro-boycott letter denied that it claimed to be from the majority of South African Jews. He said they wanted to make the point that there are “South African Jews who are committed to their Jewish identity and the principle of boycott in the name of supporting the Palestinian cause”.

“Our public letter,” said the person who would speak only on condition of anonymity, “went out on Tuesday, 10 September, with a deadline of Thursday, 12 September. In that short space of time, 65 Jews signed their names.”

He said the SAJBD was attempting to silence Jews who support Palestine from speaking openly. “Those of us who do, are regularly ostracised, and thus often self-censor.

“Our first intention was to let the UCT senate know that an academic boycott is an internationally recognised and non-violent method of responding to the human-rights abuses that Israel commits against Palestinians in the West Bank. Our second intention was to make it clear to them that this is not an issue which is split on religious lines. There are Jews in South Africa who are critical of the Israeli occupation, and support strategies to end it.”

In the second instance, the SAJBD said that in flagrant violation of university rules, the UCT senate was spammed with a letter that contained a legal opinion on the boycott motion from someone who is not part of the UCT community.

UCT’s Elijah Moholola confirmed that the statement and petition were not circulated to members of the UCT senate via official university channels. The legal opinion was circulated by email (from a Gmail account) on 13 September 2019 ahead of the senate meeting, to “undisclosed recipients”.

SAJBD communications head Charisse Zeifert said, “It says much about the mounting desperation of the proponents of this boycott initiative that they have felt the need to resort to such underhand and unethical tactics in order to push their radical anti-Israel agenda. If their cause was honest, as they claim it to be, they would surely play by the rules.

“The SAJBD reiterates its opposition to the proposed academic boycott against Israel, and its opposition to academic boycotts in general. They are not in the interests of the university, nor our country, and would most likely have devastating negative implications and consequences for both.”