Storm wall against politically motivated resolutions November 6, 2025

Over the past two weeks, the South African Jewish Board of Deputies has been involved in a Western Cape High Court case: Professor Adam Mendelsohn versus University of Cape Town (UCT) Council. The case centres on the alleged lack of correct process followed by the UCT Council in its decision to pass a boycott resolution against Israel.

The resolution that was passed ultimately contained two key elements which are highly problematic for us as a community: a boycott of all co-operation with individuals or organisations linked to the Israel Defense Forces; and a rejection of the International Holocaust Remembrance Association’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism in favour of the “Jerusalem Declaration”. The passing of these resolutions mark not just overt hostility, but a quieter erosion of process and fairness that can do just as much damage over time.

The court case is actually a procedural case, focusing on whether all the proper processes were followed in the passing of the resolution, most importantly whether the Council was made aware of the massive losses that the university stood to incur with the passing of the resolution. The Board took the decision to join as an amicus curiae (friend of the court) after UCT was supported by amici who claimed that there was no antisemitism on the campus; that the decision to alter the definition of antisemitism was considered and correct; and that the university shouldn’t be beholden to donor pressure.

In 2024, UCT recorded the highest number of recorded antisemitic incidents of any campus in the country. It’s true that relative to our fellow communities across the globe, our campuses are in an incredible position, however, we cannot sit idly by and surrender one of the most important campuses, allowing it to become inhospitable to our community.

By way of background, the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism is the most widely adopted standard worldwide. It serves as the gold standard, and has been embraced by thousands of university campuses globally. Among other provisions, it outlines scenarios in which anti-Israel rhetoric may constitute antisemitism. For instance, it states that, “Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism … to characterise Israel or Israelis” may be considered antisemitic.

In response, and as a rejection of any potential linkage between anti-Israel rhetoric and antisemitism, a group of academics drafted the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism. This document primarily emphasises what doesn’t constitute antisemitism. It defines the term narrowly as “discrimination, prejudice, hostility, or violence against Jews as Jews [or against Jewish institutions as Jewish]”. Under this formulation, a Jew facing discrimination as a banker, sportsman, or artist wouldn’t be deemed a victim of antisemitism.

The Jerusalem Declaration also provides explicit examples of conduct that isn’t antisemitic, including the assertion that: “Boycott, divestment, and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states. In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic.”

The Board obviously doesn’t wish to dictate to any institution what it should or shouldn’t accept as best practice. However, it’s crucial that the relevant parties be consulted before taking such a decision. In this case, the Jewish community was ignored, and a well-regarded and global standard of antisemitism was rejected on our behalf for clearly political reasons. As our brilliant advocate put it, it was as if a group of men gathered to decide on the meaning of sexism. It was especially laughable when an advocate standing against us stated that consultation should also take place with “those who would be accused of antisemitism”. I cannot imagine anyone expecting the Ku Klux Klan or Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging being a necessary voice in the definition of racism.

This case is especially important in creating a storm wall against the tide of narrow politically motivated resolutions and movements that have affected our community in so many professional, social, and cultural spaces. We’ve seen it before: the boycotts; the divestments; the casual conflations that blur into something uglier. By joining this fight, we’re not just defending process; we’re affirming a deeper truth. Our story; our safety; our right to exist in the public space, these aren’t negotiable.