​Opinion | Double standards, delegitimization: SAJBD rejects ‘moral blindness' accusations News 24 David Saks

Opinion | Double standards, delegitimization: SAJBD rejects ‘moral blindness' accusationsNews 24David Saks

Tony Karon’s would-be take down of the SA Jewish Board of Deputies (‘Welcome to the club: SAJBD’s ‘Anti-Semite label reveals its own moral blindness’, 10 September)

is predicated on the supposed “moral blindness” of the SA Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) in having baselessly affixed the ‘antisemite’ label onto someone, in this case Department of International Relations and Cooperation director-general Zane Dangor. To give the background, the SAJBD article Karon was commenting on appeared, under the title “Desperate Dangor’s antizionist rant”, in the SA Jewish Report of 29 August. That article in turn was in response to an interview with Dangor featured in the Daily Maverick on 24 August.

At the core of Karon’s argument is the widely held assumption that what purports to be mere ‘criticism’ of Israel can never be equated to attacking Jews as a whole. This is presumably because the entity being thus targeted is not a specifically identified ethnic and/or religious group but a particular national, political entity. How correct is that assumption, however? Could it in fact be that when what purports to be mere ‘criticism’ of a country takes so extreme, unreasonable and discriminatory a form that it does in actuality amount to a form of prejudice, and that in this particular case the de facto targets of such prejudice are in actuality (albeit not always in intent) in fact Jewish? And how more true should this be the case when the supposed criticism goes beyond simply excoriating the Israeli state to maligning, gas-lighting and essentially ‘othering’ Jews as a whole for refusing to sign on to that agenda?

Let it be clear: No reasonable person disputes that criticism of Israel, with the proviso that it be similar in degree and nature to that leveled against other countries cannot be regarded as antisemitism. The widely adopted International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism for one is unambiguous on that score. Where the question does arise, however, is when Israel is not merely criticised, but – as the “Three D” test would have it – effectively demonized, delegitimized and discriminated against.

Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people and indeed came into being on that basis through a broad consensus of the international community at the time. It is today home to the world’s largest Jewish community and is something that the great majority of Jews everywhere, and quite understandably, both identify with and are in turn identified with. When such a state becomes the target of extreme invective and grossly one-sided condemnation, when it is held to a standard of behaviour not expected of any other sovereign entity and when those bent on its violent destruction are consistently shielded from any meaningful critical scrutiny, it can only be regarded as “anti-Jewish”, regardless of whether or not this fit in with how the term ‘Antisemitism’ is generally understood. Honestly, how could it be otherwise?

The question becomes even stronger when it is not just a matter of Israel the country being the object of such negative, overtly hostile treatment, but when Jews in general are subjected to all kinds of untoward pressure to get them to denounce the Jewish state, regardless of what their views might be on the subject. That is what Zane Dangor was attempting to do in his Daily Maverick interview and is one of the reasons why the SAJBD decided to call him out.

Of course, not all people of Jewish origin support Israel. From the ranks of the Jewish community itself, one inevitably finds dissenting voices who vociferously endorse the kind of views held by Dangor and his like. Such alternative Jewish voices naturally provide very useful cover for those bent not just on repudiating the Jewish state but on silencing and sidelining any Jews who refuse to do likewise. As he makes plain in his article, Tony Karon is one such voice. He too insists that the SAJBD, as the recognised representative voice of the Jewish community, have a supposed moral duty to distance itself from Israel’s actions, and in fact from Israel in general. Unfortunately for him the SAJBD, along with the vast majority of SA Jews whom it in point of fact represents, have no intention of endorsing what it regards as a distorted, overtly propagandistic take on what is happening in the Middle East.

Another especially objectionable aspect of what Dangor had to say from the SAJBD’s point of view was his attempting to delegitimize a core aspect of Jewish belief and practice, namely the ideology of Zionism. As broadly understood, the latter is both a philosophy and a practical political programme of national restoration, one underpinned by the historical and religious Jewish connection to the land of Israel, and the legitimate political belief that the Jewish people have a right to political self-determination in that land. However, according to Dangor’s cavalier rewriting of Jewish thought and history, the basis of the modern-day Zionist movement is not in Judaism at all but in components of evangelical Christianity. The assertion is as insulting as it is preposterous; anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the origins of the Zionist movement will be well aware of its deep roots in Jewish theology stretching back to early Biblical times. Opportunistically, and presumptuously, reinterpreting Jewish history in order to delegitimize core aspects of Jewish belief and identity may not itself make Zane Dangor antisemitic. It does, however, do much to embolden and at least to some degree legitimize the views of those who are. As for Zionism, while Dangor is entitled to his eccentric theories about its origins, it is another matter altogether to exploit his senior position in a high profile government department to trash this core aspect of Jewish identity.

As emerges all too clearly in his Daily Maverick interview, to be regarded as a “good Jew” according to Dangor, one is required to denounce Israel. More specifically, one is required to publicly sign on to the multiple damning indictments being hurled against that country, regardless of whether one believes them to be true or not. Well, this hasn’t happened. Regardless of how much gaslighting, emotional blackmail and crass pseudo-moral bullying to which they have been subjected, the average Jews in this country are not caving in by endorsing such agenda-driven interpretation about what is happening. That stance, however, comes at a price. A quick trawl of the social media alone will show how ugly the mood has turned against the mainstream Jewish community, whose members are increasingly being told, often in crudely threatening terms, that unless the speak out against the ‘crimes’ Israel is supposedly committing they will be regarded as complicit in those acts. When high profile figures like Dangor echo these kinds of sentiments, however much it is couched in pious human rights-speak, it fans the flames further. The implication is that the local Jewish community is somehow answerable for the actions of another country, and that is simply not acceptable, particularly when, as already pointed out, no other community in South Africa is being targeted in this way.

Jewish South Africans, no less than any other ethnic, religious or otherwise defined community, should be allowed to make up their own minds on these issues and decide for themselves what they wish to say - or not say - about them without being dictated to from on high by their own government. It is unbefitting, and even dangerous, when someone in a position of authority presumes to dictate to another community what it is they are morally obliged to believe in order to find acceptance in society. This is especially true when no other sector of the population is being similarly hauled into the spotlight in this way and told what it is they should, and should not, be saying on issues that are of fundamental importance to it. Couch it in whatever terms you like, but that in itself amounts to anti-Jewish discrimination.