Zev Krengel, Chairman of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies, offers a forthright response to criticism of the Jewish communal leadership levelled in Z Word’s recently published essay, “Franchising ‘Apartheid’: Why South Africans Push the Analogy.”
In their otherwise well-researched and insightful article “Franchising Apartheid: Why South Africans Push the Analogy”, Rhoda Kadalie and Julia Bertelsmann are unfairly dismissive of the SA Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD), commenting that for the most part it has become the ruling African National Congress’ spokesperson on Jewish affairs and often defends the ANC’s stance on Israel to the Jewish community. Partly because of the “supine position”of the Board, they argue, the ANC feels it has a free hand to propagate the Israel-apartheid analogy “ever more ardently”.
We were really hurt by this unfair and misinformed statement, which bears no relation to the actual record of the SAJBD in confronting the anti-Israel bias of the South African government over many years. On numerous occasions we have issued hard-hitting press releases, had many letters and full-length articles published in the mainstream press and appeared on radio and television forthrightly denouncing unfair and unbalanced attacks on Israel emanating from government spokespeople. In addition, the SAJBD have taken the lead in lobbying MPs whenever the Middle East has been the subject of debate in Parliament. As the record shows, Opposition parties have made full use of the material we have provided. Our correspondence with the Department of Foreign Affairs and other government ministries has further demonstrated our staunch opposition to criticism of Israel that fails to be even-handed.
Also omitted from Kadalie and Bertelsmann’s article is the central role the SAJBD played in coordinating the efforts of Jewish groups internationally in responding to anti-Israel bashing at three important UN conferences held in South Africa, namely the World Conference Against Racism (2001), the World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002) and Conference on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinians (2004). For these efforts, the SAJBD was warmly applauded by, amongst others, the World Jewish Congress, Anti-Defamation League and American Jewish Committee.
It is important to recognise, however, that in putting forward Israel’s case to government the SAJBD cannot always adopt a confrontational stance. So far as possible, we also need to keep doors open so as to engage with government and influence it as much as we can. We believe that this engagement has borne genuine fruit over the years when it comes to altering government perceptions and positions.
Only through dialogue is it possible to develop effective channels through which to put the Israeli and the Jewish case to those in positions of authority. Earlier this year, the Interpol General Assembly met to vote on the whether or not to uphold international arrest warrants (”Red Notices”) for the apprehension of six suspects in the 1994 attack on AMIA, Buenos Aires. The Board was approached by international Jewish organisations to take up the matter with our government, and it was through the relationships we have built up that we were able to do so, meeting at short notice, to meet with Jackie Selebi, who is not only National Police Commissioner but, as it happens, was at the time also President of Interpol.
Another example of constructive engagement with our government was the Board’s meeting held with Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma in the middle of last year, where we took issue with the fact that certain members of her government were making use of government resources and platforms to push their own strongly anti-Israel agendas. Since that meeting, this problem has largely ceased to surface.
We also succeeded last year in having the ANC publicly distance themselves from the boycott of Israeli goods on their website during the End the Occupation campaign. More recently, we strongly criticised an especially biased statement on the situation in Gaza made by the Department of Foreign Affairs, something that was prominently featured in the print and electronic media. This almost certainly influenced a subsequent statement by the Department that unequivocally condemned recent attacks of Palestinian terrorism without, for once, ‘balancing’ this with criticism of Israeli retaliation.
In fact, never in its 105 year-old history has the Board been as active in defending and supporting Israel as it is at present. The Middle East features prominently on the agenda of every meeting we have with government (including at our recent meeting with President Mbeki and senior members of his
government) and in addition, we always ensure that a representative of the SA Zionist Federation is a part of our delegation.
Another misleading observation by the authors concerned current rates of antisemitism in SA. As Kadalie and Bertelsmann put it, SAJBD National Chairman Zev Krengel “boasts” that SA has amongst the lowest rates of antisemitism in the Diaspora, despite the fact that 2006 “set a new record for antisemitic incidents in South Africa”.
It is true that the 82 antisemitic incidents logged in South Africa in 2006 was the highest ever recorded, but this statistic needs serious qualification:
* Even with this rise, the 2006 was barely a sixth of figures recorded in other major Diaspora communities (e.g. Canada, Australia and the UK) for that year.
* The incidents were mostly of a ‘minor’ nature, e.g. graffiti and ‘hit and run’ verbal abuse (compared to, for example, 114 violent assaults registered in the UK for in 2007).
* No context was provided. The author should have pointed out that the increase coincided with the Lebanon war resulting in a global increase of antisemitic incidents.
* The following year (2007) saw a 30% decrease in antisemitic incidents, none of which entailed serious acts of violence against Jewish persons or property.
While Kadalie and Bertelsmann’s article was enlightening, and made a valid contribution to the ongoing discourse regarding the Apartheid analogy, we find it unfortunate that they were so unfairly dismissive of the ongoing, and important, contribution that the SAJBD is making towards confronting anti-Israel prejudice (including, incidentally, increasingly assisting Jewish organizations around the world with facts and arguments that refute the iniquitous apartheid analogy).
