David Saks
Associate Director
South African Jewish Board of Deputies

Dear David Saks

Your letter of the 30 November refers.

We are not surprised that you are disappointed with our response to your letter. Our detailed explanation of how we understand freedom of expression, our particular focus in regard to it and our painful attempts at clarifying issues seem to have passed you by. It seems that you will only not be disappointed when we agree with all your contentions. It is not we, Mr Saks, who will not admit to being wrong; rather, it is you who insists that everyone that deviates from your position – particularly with regards to Israel – is incorrect and biased.

Our pointing this out to you is not an “attempt to deflect criticism” of the FXI but an attempt to show you that yours is not the only interpretation of freedom of expression and that, in fact, yours is tainted by your need to defend Israel and to attack and silence anyone that might be critical of that state. Our statement that “the character of the Israeli state has been overwhelmingly repressive and has consistently denied the right to freedom of expression to Palestinian people” is not based on any need to unquestioningly defend this or that group of people. It is based on research, on reports by respected human rights organisations, jurists, journalists and the United Nations. You would like to propagate the myth that such criticism and such reports do not exist, and your attempts at silencing critics of Israel is part of this campaign. Our statement does not point to our being anti-Israeli or pro-Palestinian; it points to us having a good sense of human rights abuses around the world. (Incidentally, you will find much harsher criticism than this statement of ours in the Israeli media, by Jews.) If you want to debate this matter, you should do so publicly, but Israel does not become the most democratic state in the world, with no human rights abuses simply because you say so.

You continue to insist that we are biased and will not listen to any reasoned argument about who we are and what we believe. Allow me to remind you what we said in our last letter: “We recognise that freedom of expression is heavily mediated by power and politics. So in interpreting this mandate, we have taken a strategic decision to support particularly the freedom of expression of poor communities and to prioritise marginalised communities who are resisting censorship, repression, colonial occupation, racism and sexism. This is because it is in these communities or sections of our populations where the bulk of freedom of expression problems generally lie. It is also in these communities where the solutions to these problems lie.

“It is for this reason that the bulk of our work in South Africa and beyond is with poor and marginalized peoples' movements, as they are the most threatened in terms of their free expression rights.”

If protecting the rights of poor, oppressed and disadvantaged people means, to you, that we are biased, then we plead guilty to that charge. We are biased in favour of justice and human rights. We are biased against those who perpetrate injustice, violate human rights and whose policies prevent others from being able to exercise their human rights, particularly their right to free expression. We therefore will not take the side of people who strive to deny free expression to others. We do not believe there is moral equality between those who, being in power, deny free expression rights to others and those who are thus denied; our bias is most certainly with the latter.

Before we deal with the specific issues you accuse us of (and which we have already responded to), allow us to point out that there are, in fact, many instances of your (SAJBD and other Jewish organisations you have mentioned) censorious behaviour that have been brought to our notice but which we have not commented on. It is all of these that creates the picture in our minds of yours as an organisation that attempts to silence any free speech you don’t agree with, especially where it has to do with Israel. The latest such incident was your painting of a conspiracy when you were interviewed on Talk Radio 702. According to you, there is some leftist / Islamist / anti-American conspiracy to take over certain institutions in our society. These institutions include the FXI and the Human Sciences Research Council, and among the co-conspirators are Salim Vally, Virginia Tilley and our Naeem Jeenah. As a researcher that focuses on Jewish issues, you should know very well how conspiracy theories play a role in silencing people; they are used against Jews all the time. This is your attempt, simply because these three people do not have the same positions as you regarding Israel. Your attitude really reeks of McCarthyism: finding conspiracies, infiltrators and instigators under every bed and in every institution.

Our staff member, Mr Jeenah, is, of course, not a new target for your organisation. Do you remember how, last year, the SAJBD, the South African Zionist Federation and the South African Union of Jewish Students attempted to prevent Mr Jeenah from delivering a lecture at the University of the Witwatersrand, a lecture organised by the Political Studies Department where he was a lecturer? When numerous phone calls and attempts to pressurise the Head of the School of Social Sciences, Professor Tom Lodge, did not have your desired effect, your three organisations met with Professor Lodge the morning of the lecture to again attempt to convince him to cancel the academic lecture. You didn’t, of course, succeed. And earlier, the South African Zionist Federation wrote a three-page letter to Prof Lodge, then head of the Political Studies Department, seeking to have him regulate and constrain Mr Jeenah’s lecturing at the university because they perceived Mr Jeenah as being critical of Israel. Recently, your organisation succeeded in getting the Goethe Institute to withdraw its permission to allow an event organised by the Ceasefire Campaign, Centre for Policy Studies and other organisations from taking place because the speaker at the event was to be Ronnie Kasrils.

Your organisations, Mr Saks, do have much to answer for in terms of freedom of expression and censorship; drawing an elaborate lie of an FXI that is being taken over by radical Islamists does not detract from that fact.

To respond to the specific accusations you make against us.

1)      The “Linder Auditorium” Incident, September 2002

We place the words “Linder Auditorium” in quotes because, of course, the incident you refer to happened nowhere near the Auditorium; it happened a few hundred metres away and between where the “incident” took place and the Auditorium was a battery of police, water cannons, boom gates, campus security and unnamed private security.

We referred to the Mail & Guardian because it was one of the newspapers that covered the incident and the one that covered it in greatest detail and had the largest number of letters about it. We could have quoted other newspapers as well but do you really want us to remind you of all the accusations against the SAJBD, like Wits Vice-Chancellor Norma Reid’s condemnation of your organisation claiming that you misled the university, etc? We made the point that the narratives on this matter were contested; we could have quoted any number of newspapers to make this same point; the M&G sufficed. Yet, we did not simply accept the M&G’s version of the events as you claim. Three of our executive members were witnesses to the events. We also spoke to a number of other members of social movements – movements that we regularly work with – who were present and the Al-Jazeera journalist who was assaulted by police.

Despite what you call widely differing versions of the story relating to the events of that day, our statements focussed on an issue that we deal with on a daily basis: the right to protest as guaranteed by the South African Constitution and the Regulation of Gatherings Act. This was the focus of our concern in that incident and this remains an important focus of our work because the right to gather and protest is a crucial free expression right of poor communities. We have numerous statements and other documents on the implementation of the RGA and have even been to court on the issue.

2) The e-tv/Pilger Documentary

Surely you cannot deny – with the weight of all the evidence that exists from UN agencies and independent human rights organisations – that there were, at the time that we commented on the Pilger documentary, “pervasive Israeli atrocities in occupied Palestine and the deep humiliation and degradation to which the Zionist government has subjected innocent and defenceless Palestinians”. This is not a reflection of an “ideological bias”, it is a conclusion based on reports from such agencies and organisations. Again, if you want to debate the facts and this conclusion, then an appropriate forum should be created for that. But your denial of it is not sufficient to make your version the correct one and the version of these agencies, organisations and individuals that we have consulted incorrect. Again, it is an attempt by you to force your version of events as the only correct one and to silence any version that might be critical of the Israeli state. 

Incidentally, a few years before the issue of Pilger’s movie, we also objected to attempts by the Muslim community to prevent the screening of “Jihad in America”. Muslims, at the time, had similar criticisms about that movie as you did about Pilger’s. We felt that neither should be censored. Sections of the Muslim community were not pleased with our stand. We also drew the ire of certain Muslim groups – including your favourite, the Media Review Network – when then chairperson of the FXI, Salim Vally, called for the unbanning of Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses.

By the way, you still have not condemned the death threats against Debra Patta. Do you believe that such death threats against journalists are acceptable if they are in the cause of the defence of the image of the Israeli state?

3) Death Threats to Ronnie Kasrils

You still refuse to condemn the death threats against Ronnie Kasrils. Do you believe that such death threats against politicians are acceptable if they are in the cause of the defence of the image of the Israeli state?

Let us reiterate that we will not support and will condemn such threats against anyone, made by anyone: whether the victims or the perpetrators are Muslims or Jews. This, of course, is more than you are willing to say. We should also inform you that not all our work is in the form of media statements. Most of our work, in fact, is in direct contact with people, in court, in boardrooms, in workshops, in conferences and on the streets (through, for example, our campaign for affordable telecommunications for poor people). Thus, if you do not see a media release from us on an issue, this does not imply we have nothing to say about it or that we have said nothing about it. We are an advocacy organisation and media work is only part of that advocacy. We have much to say about intimidation within the Muslim community, have done so often and will continue to do so. If you don’t know of everything we are doing, it does not mean that we are not doing it.

In the incident earlier this year when Ferial Haffejee was threatened, we had a lot to say about the matter. We had many conversations with Ms Haffejee about it, giving our support in various forms. Mr Jeenah also, in a lengthy debate on Voice of the Cape (which you seem to monitor carefully), condemned the threats against Ms Haffejee and, on air, roundly attacked the attorney for the Jamiatul Ulama, Zehir Omar – who was also a guest on the show, for his support of people that had telephoned Ms Haffejee’s mother. Mr Jeenah also raised this matter in other fora and slammed these bullying tactics.

4) FXI and the Radio 786 Case

We are not quibbling: Mr Jeenah gave a single interview on this matter – to Voice of the Cape. Evidently, Voice of the Cape used the interview as the basis of the article on their website. We made no other statement on this issue. His remarks were the official position of the FXI, as our Executive Director explained to you in a lengthy email. We would welcome any debate on the merits or otherwise of the FXI’s official position on hate speech, but unless that position is changed, Mr Jeenah’s remarks will stand as our position.

There was no “self-serving effort” on the part of Mr Jeenah. He was called by a radio station and asked to comment on a very specific issue. He agreed to do so knowing that to comment on that issue he did not require access to the full judgement of the BMCC but he needed to articulate FXI policy. Nevertheless, he made it clear on air that he had not seen the judgement. There was no need for him to do any more homework in order to respond to the particular question he was asked. Ms Duncan explained all of this to you in the email mentioned earlier. If you wish to take this matter forward, the way to do so would be a public debate on our policy on hate speech. We proposed this to the Jewish Report but the editor declined. We are not afraid to subject our policies to public debate.

You say that Ms Duncan’s email to you “wholly failed to address the crux of my objection”. Again, it’s a question of “either you agree with me or you haven’t addressed what I’m saying”. We will not play that game. We have policies and we have made clear what they are on this issue.

5) The Danish Cartoon Controversy

As we said, we did not find the time to send out a formal statement because we were swamped with interviews. And, being swamped with interviews meant that it had become unnecessary for us to send out a formal statement. The point of a media statement is to attract media attention to what one has to say. If the media’s attention is attracted before a statement is issued, then the statement becomes redundant.

You casually mention that “Ms Duncan and Mr Jeenah, in the course of media interviews, condemned the court ruling”. In fact, this point was not a by-the-way thing for the FXI; this was the crux of our commentary on the matter. We repeatedly said that we believed the judge was wrong and the interdict should not have been granted and that the interdict was a blow against media freedom. We also criticised the organisation that applied for the interdict for its censorious behaviour. In fact, Mr Jeenah was supported in these statements by a caller from the South African Zionist Federation on the “After 8 Debate”.

Also, a Google search will reveal to you numerous articles in the media which quote us taking a very strong position against the interdict and in favour of the right of editors to publish the cartoons if they so decided. You will also see reference to it on our website in a progress report.

6) The Cancelled Pogrund-Salem Visit

You are correct: the FXI is not only reactive in terms of its media work but is also often proactive. However, in our last letter we gave you a detailed explanation of this issue. We do not think it necessary to repeat that here. You state as fact that “legitimate debate” was suppressed by Salim Vally; we disputed that and stand by our position.

Further, the notion that Vally’s comment to Walid Salem is a censorious act needs to be placed within the context of a struggle for self-determination of a people fighting against occupation and racism. (Our strategic direction – mentioned in this and our previous letter – and our “biases” mentioned above have relevance here.) Mr Vally supports various non-violent tactics in support of that struggle and in the struggle for oppressed people to be able to realise their rights to free expression. These include sanctions and boycotts. This position is not unique to him and his organisation. The respected South African jurist, Professor John Dugard, who is also a United Nations Special Rapporteur, has also called for sanctions against Israel. Professor Dugard, who was well-known in the anti-apartheid struggle, knows very well what he means by such a call, as he knows very well what he means when he compares Israeli policies to Apartheid policies. Mr Vally also follows the lead of a large number of Palestinian and Israeli academics such as Tanya Reinhart, Ilan Pappe and Uri Davis in supporting an academic boycott of Israel, as he supported the academic boycott against South Africa. Within this context, his call on Salem to cancel the tour is a call in support of the non-violent tactic of an academic boycott in order to realise peace in the Middle East. Certainly, he has the right to support such a boycott and to call on people to adhere to it. Under normal circumstances Mr Vally’s call could be regarded as being censorious. However, under the circumstances that we have pointed out, it is a call in defence of the free expression rights of those who are denied those rights.

As an organisation, the FXI has not taken any position on the academic boycott and we do not have plans to add that issue to our policy discussions in the immediate future. Among members of the FXI, we might not all agree on the issue of academic boycotts. However, we have to agree that it is a tactic that exists and is regarded as a legitimate tactic in the struggle against oppression and occupation. It is a tactic that is used with the recognition that a state has policies which deprive a large number of people of their free expression rights and that this tactic is used to force that state to acquiesce to the demands of those people that their rights be recognised and granted. It is used, its protagonists would argue, in support of free expression rights rather than in opposition to these rights. Sanctions and boycotts were used also in the struggle against apartheid. And many analysts and activists would argue that they played a crucial role in helping bring about an end to apartheid and in ushering in a democratic dispensation in South Africa. It is a great pity that a debate on the merits or otherwise of an academic boycott of Israel, which was being organised by the American Association of University Professors and was to be held in Bellagio in February this year, was cancelled at the last minute because of pressure from pro-Israeli groups. The cancellation was due, according to Joan Scott, former chair of the AAUP’s Committee on Academic Freedom, to “a carefully orchestrated campaign to abort the conference” by groups which believe that “any representation of a point of view other than theirs is anathema; indeed they claim that academic freedom is the freedom to listen only to those who agree with them”.

We do not contest the right of Jewish (or any other organisations) to lobby against television programmes, seminars or whatever else they find offensive. Such lobbying takes place all the time. From what you have said, it certainly seems to be taking place from the Jewish community. Why, only last week, according to media reports, you upset a Jewish comedian and his Jewish producers when your lobbying succeeded  in having an advert they were involved in from being pulled off-air. (This is another instance of censorship related to the SAJBD that we have not commented on.) You have the right to lobby and object and we have the right to say that such and such lobbying initiative, we believe, is censorious. We can then even have a debate about whether it really is censorious, what censorship means, etc. But we have never argued that the Jewish community should not lobby – even if we think they might be incorrect in their lobbying objective on this or that occasion. Similarly, we think the Jamiatul Ulama has the right to lobby, but we think they were wrong and censorious in their application for an interdict against newspapers publishing the Danish cartoons. You and the Jamiatul Ulama are also welcome to organise demonstrations to protest against what you might find offensive. Our organisation specialises in the Regulation of Gatherings Act and we will certainly keep an eye on such demonstrations to ensure that the rights of the demonstrators are not violated.

In summary, Mr Saks, you have not been able (and will not be able) to prove your nonsensical contention that the FXI has “been consistently exploited as a propaganda vehicle by those with a transparently pro-Islamist and anti-Israel (as well as a general anti-Western) agenda.” Nor have you been able to show that, “every opportunity has been seized to denigrate the Jewish community and its institutions while pointedly avoiding acting in far more blatant cases of press intimidation conducted by members of the Muslim community”. What your letters have shown is your own obsession and preoccupation with Muslims and supporters of Palestine. It is an obsession and preoccupation that we do not share, even if you imagine that we do.

Yours faithfully
Mabalane Mfundisi
Chairperson
084 505 8831