South Africa Jewish Board of Deputies: Response to SA Jews for a Free Palestine

This premium content has been made freely available

International Relations

25 November 2016
Chairperson: Mr M Masango (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) had requested to meet with the Committee, following a meeting that the same Committee had held with a pro-Palestinian delegation of the South African Jews for a Free Palestine (SAJFP) and the South Africa Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS). SAHBD noted that two of the groups meeting with the Committee earlier are believed to be anti-Semitic. The SAJBD is the representative body that interfaces with government and civil society on behalf of the South African Jewish community. A key objective of the SAJBD is to promote religious freedom for all Jewish South Africans. It was explained that a synonym for Jerusalem is Zion, and that Zionism is merely the idea that the Jews are entitled to self-determination in their homeland.

The SAJBD presented on a number of different issues, highlighting the rich heritage and contribution of the South African Jewish community over the last 175 years, noting that South African Jews are highly committed to the country, and the values of democratic South Africa. However, they also retained a strong connection to Israel. South African Jews had been recipients of hate speech and bigotry, based on their perceived association with the state of Israel, and their perceived anti-Palestinian bias. The SAJBD was committed to a two-state solution to the current Israel-Palestine conflict, in which both sides should be able to cooperate and co-exist peacefully.

Other members of the SAJBD delegation highlighted a number of compromises, and altruistic steps that Israel has taken in regard to Palestine, other neighboring and world-wide countries. Israel had strong and innovative technology which it was prepared to share with others; for instance, its water solutions. They said that Israel has taken positive steps to compromise during negotiations with Palestine. The strong connection between Israel and South Africa was emphasised, and it was noted that many South Africans see Israel as an example of how a state with low-access to resources can develop economically in a short period of time. Land remained problematic and a bone of contention. The delegate pointed to further cooperation between Israel and South Africa over the past decades. It was agreed that there were clear sticking points to peace, such as a settlements, but that Israel has demonstrated it is willing to negotiate.  The community was not homogenous but there was a clear common thread that Israel and Palestine both had a right to exist. 

The delegation explained that the development of modern Israel had begun in the late 19th century, when the Jewish National Fund (JNF) was created from donations intended to develop a homeland for the Jewish people. Many Christians also had strong religious ties to Israel. Many further had economic interests. South Africa and Israel were seen to share many parallels in history, technological possibilities and state-building and there were efforts to facilitate bilateral cooperation between the two countries. It was noted that the South African post-apartheid rebuilding project is one of the best examples of how to effectively handle difficult challenges, and believed that through dialogue, many of the challenges facing Israel, South African Jews, can be effectively arbitrated.

Members specifically asked what steps the SAJBD had taken to promote a two-state solution, and noted that the South African Jewish community is putting its faith in the South African government’s ability to facilitate a dialogue, in an effort to build peace in the region. They expressed the hope that the SAJBD would advocate for peace. They noted that the conflict will only be able to be resolved through dialogue and negotiation, and that South Africa has always been committed to a two-state solution to the conflict. The Chairperson highlighted the high-level ambiguity in this specific conflict, and drew parallels between the past South African conflict and the current Middle Eastern one, noting that the extremes and siege mentalities create excesses that are difficult to back down from, and make dialogue and negotiation difficult. The SAJBC delegation agreed that dialogue between the many stakeholders in both South Africa, and between the stakeholders in the conflict itself is essential. However, they noted that extreme views that some of the anti-Israel groups take, denying Israel’s right to exist, and expressing anti-Semitism make it unfeasible for positive dialogue to take place. The delegation noted that South Africa is in a unique position to help negotiate a peaceful solution to this conflict, because of its reputation as a peacemaker, its adherence to human rights and reconciliation, and a relatively good relationship with Israel and Palestine. .
 

Meeting report

South Africa Jewish Board of Deputies: Response to SA Jews for a Free Palestine
The Chairperson noted, by way of introduction, that this meeting was requested  by the SA Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD), following the meeting that the Portfolio Committee held with the South African Jews for a Free Palestine (SAJFP) and the South Africa Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) organisations. The Committee agreed to this meeting because it recognised of the importance of hearing both sides of any issue.

Ms Chaya Singer, Diplomatic Liaison, SAJBD, thanked the Committee and expressed appreciation that Parliament made itself so accessible to the people, and how open this Committee was to holding its meetings in open. 

Ms Singer stated that the SAJBD is the representative body that interfaces with government and civil society on behalf of the South African Jewish community. She stated that the SAJBD has assembled a delegation that can speak directly to the issues and claims put forward by the SAJFP and the BDS.

Ms Mary Kluk, President, SAJBD, explained that the SAJBD is an organization which elects its members from within the South African Jewish community. The organisation is 113 years old, and the South African Jewish community itself just celebrated its 175 th anniversary in South Africa. The Jewish community is committed to helping build a stronger South Africa.

Ms Kluk explained that the SAJBD interacts with government and civil society on all issues that face South African Jews, such as social cohesion, anti-Semitism, economic development, and others. Throughout its history, the SA Jewish community was made up of Jews who have shown their commitment to the country, although a recent study also showed that 86% of South African Jews expressed a connection to Israel.

Ms Kluk noted that one of the key objectives of the SAJBD is to promote religious freedom for all Jewish South Africans. They are entitled to religious freedom, and freedom to express their opinion without fear of reprisals.

On the issue of Israel and Palestine, Ms Kluk explained that the SAJBD is committed to a two-state solution, and the promotion of a good relationship between Israel and Palestine, and the promotion of social cohesion and economic development between the two countries.

Ms Kluk stated that the groups that met with the Committee, SAJFP and BDS, are believed to be anti-Jewish groups, which promote anti-Semitism.

Mr Rowen Polarin, Chairperson, Cape Town Branch of the South African Zionist Federation (SAZF), expressed his thanks to the Committee for its willingness to meet with the SAJBD. Mr Polarin stated that South African Jews have a strong commitment to South Africa, but also have a strong commitment to Israel, and the idea of homeland that it embodies, with Jerusalem as the spiritual capital of international Jewry for over 3 000 years.

Mr Polarin noted that a synonym for Jerusalem is Zion, and that Zionism is merely the idea that the Jews are entitled to self-determination in their homeland. He explained that other interpretations of the word are often negative appropriations.

Mr Polarin stated that SAZF strongly supports the South African government’s position of advocating for a two-state solution. He personally also strongly believes that there should be two states existing side-by-side in peace and harmony. He did admit however, that a two-state solution can only be achieved through dialogue, and painful compromise by both sides.

Mr Polarin stated that Israel has proven its willingness to make peace, and its willingness to give up land for the end goal of making peace. For example, Israel gave the land of Sinai to Egypt, a land three times the size of Israel, in an effort to make peace. In addition, he stated that in 2005 Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, as a peace offering. He conceded that there are clear sticking points to peace, such as the settlements, but that Israel has demonstrated that it is willing to negotiate, and that it is in everyone’s best interest to build a lasting peace.

Mr Polarin stated that Israel, like the South African Jewish community, is not homogenous, and has a diversity of different views and opinions on these many issues. However, he explained that there is a common thread in the belief that Israel has a right to exist, just as Palestine does.

Mr Polarin explained that Israel has done a lot to help its neighboring countries. He noted that through technological advances, Israel was able to solve its own water crisis, and now had excess water, which the country exports to its neighbors. He noted that he would like to see Israel share that technology with South Africa, and help South Africa solve its cycle of droughts.

Mr Benji Shulman, Executive Director, South Africa Israel Forum, explained that there is a long-standing relationship between South Africa and Israel, and that high-profile members of the ANC, such as Walter Sisusu had a strong relationship with Israel.

Land is a serious serious issue, as Israel is a small country, and the width of Israel at its narrowest is only 15km . He stated that modern day Israel is significantly narrower than the traditional homeland of the Jewish people, explaining that King David’s Kingdom was about three times the size of modern day Israel.

He explained that the development of Jewish communities, in what is “modern Israel” began in the late 19th century. To help develop that land, a group of Jewish leaders created the Jewish National Fund (JNF). Jews all over the world would donate to the JNF, with the express desire of developing a homeland for the Jewish people in Israel. The Jewish National Fund has a long history of supporting other countries in technology sharing, for example sharing its water conservation technology. Mr Shulman explained that the JNF has a strong relationship with South Africa, and has shared a number of key technological advancements in South Africa also.

Mr Leon Mithi, Brand Director, South African Friends of Israel, explained that Israel is important to both Jews and Christians worldwide, as the spiritual capital of the Abrahamic faiths. He stated that a large group of South African Christians have strong religious ties to Israel.

Mr Mithi stated that a large group of South Africans have an interest in Israel from an economic standpoint, arguing that many South Africans see Israel as an example of how to develop economically following a difficult period of instability. He argued that Israel should be viewed as an effective case study of how to create effective start-ups, and to improve the economic condition of a country through economic entrepreneurship. Many young South Africans, in particular, look to the examples provided by Israeli technology companies, as something that could be copied here in South Africa. This applies to a number of well-known companies that are creating mobile apps, and who, by doing so, are becoming successful on an international scale.

In part, the interest in Israeli tech companies is not just linked to the companies themselves, but also is linked to the example that Israel provides, as a young state, with limited resources, which created an economic environment that is conducive to entrepreneurship. He argued that South Africans need to see these type of companies starting up here in South Africa.

Mr Mithi stated that he represents a group of young South Africans who believe that Israel offers a parallel to South Africa, and that the two countries can learn much from each other. He argued that state building is very complicated, and state building in the Middle East is especially difficult. States in the Middle East do interact and collaborate, despite the challenges and differences. This in fact was something that held true for the rest of the world, pointing out that South Africa has interacted with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zimbabwe, Russia, and the US, while still maintaining a good relationship with China.

Mr Mithi stated that Israeli and Jewish communities in South Africa are doing a great deal to facilitate bilateral cooperation between the two countries. He noted that there is a keen desire amongst those communities to bring that Israeli entrepreneurial mindset to South Africa.

Mr Mithi then explained what collaborative work the South African Friends of Israel has done in South Africa. He stated that a number of clinics have been built in KwaZulu-Natal, in conjunction with the South African Jewish community and communities in Israel. He believed that the Jewish community and Israel have a lot to contribute to South Africa, and stressed that the South African Friends of Israel actively works to build relationships with the Israeli state and the Israeli people.

Mr Mithi concluded that the South African post-apartheid rebuilding project is one of the best examples of how to effectively handle difficult challenges, and believed that through dialogue, many of the challenges facing Israel, South African Jews, can be effectively arbitrated.

Discussion
Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) thanked the delegations and said that the only way the current conflict can be solved is through all sides coming together to have dialogue. He asked what steps the SAJBD had taken to promote a two-state solution. Mr Mokgalapa stated that he has listened to both sides, during the meetings with the SAJFP, BDS, and SAJBD delegations, and noted that the issue of insecurity is based on a trust-deficit.

Ms C Dudley (ACDP) stated that she is grateful that the SAJBD is not overly involved in Israel’s politics, and that it maintains a more objective standpoint. She was getting a strong sense that the South African Jewish community is putting its faith in the South African government’s ability to facilitate a dialogue, in an effort to build peace in the region.

Ms D Raphuti (ANC) thanked the delegation for the presentation, and stated that it seems that the SAJBD shares the belief, as stated by Nelson Mandela, that the people of South Africa are not free until the people of Palestine are free.

Ms Raphuti hoped that the SAJBD would advocate for peace and play the role of peacemakers. She explained the importance of bringing people together from both sides of the conflict. The basis for Ubuntu was bringing of people together. She asked that the SAJBD should use its influence to take a stand against the conflict, and promote a peaceful two-state solution in their role as the voice of the South African Jewish community.

Ms Raphuti, responding to a video of anti-Semitic remarks that was included in the presentation by Ms Kluk, stated that she thought that this should be viewed as an expression of displeasure with the Israeli state.

The Chairperson thanked the delegation for these very thorough presentations. He noted that across the different parties, NGOs and stakeholders there was a lack of consensus on how to advise on Israel and Palestine, which could be due to lack of engagement between the different parties. He agreed that the world did look up to South Africa in terms of how to solve internal conflicts peacefully. However, that in this conflict there is often an excess of force, especially by Israel, and that those excesses should not be carried out in the name of the South African Jewish community.

The Chairperson expressed his desire that the SAJFP, BDS, and SAJBD have a dialogue, and then come together and present a united view to this Committee so that the South African government can take a position on this issue, without contradicting itself.

On the issue of anti-Semitism, the Chairperson stated that when HAMAS attended a meeting with the Committee, the delegates called for the destruction of the state of Israel. He noted that there is a similar sentiment from the BDS, and he had asked the BDS how it would respond to allegations that they were anti-Semitic, or anti-Jewish. He noted that although their delegates were not uniform in rejecting those allegations, they did state that the desire to see a free Palestinian people is not inherently an anti-Jewish sentiment.

The Chairperson explained that in South Africa, the Afrikaners did not feel any lingering attachment to Holland, and therefore developed a siege mentality. That mentality led to excesses, and he thought that a similar mentality could be seen in some Israelis and Jews.

The Chairperson noted that it was only during negotiations in the late 1980s and early 1990s, that each side realised that the other side could be reasonable. Only through dialogue was the situation de-fused. This could happen in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Neither is going to eradicate the other, so continued conflict is pointless, and only through negotiation will the situation be resolved.

The Chairperson noted that although the official stance of Israel, as well as South Africa, is one of support for a two-state solution, the problem is that in fact the Israeli state is still promoting encroachment into Palestinian territory. He asked how South Africa is supposed to help with a dialogue, when each side is unwilling to relent on certain issues, such as both sides claiming East Jerusalem as their own.

The Chairperson noted that Afrikaners that were believed to not support Apartheid were seen as “less Afrikaans. It seemed to him that the SAJBD also had a view that those who supported Palestine over Israel were somehow “less Jewish”.

The Chairperson asked if the SAJBD was approached by the stakeholders supporting the Palestinian side. He noted that each side speaks highly of either Israel or Palestine, and very little or poorly of the other side. He noted that this makes it difficult to have a constructive and meaningful discussion on the issue.

The Chairperson pointed out that the Jews have experienced huge injustice, both Egypt over 2 000 years ago, and in Europe during the Second World War, and asked whether the Jewish people would want to perpetrate those same injustices against another people. Again, he likened this to the Afrikaner situation, for the Afrikaners experienced terrible injustices perpetrated against them by the British in the two Anglo-Boer wars. Ironically, when the Afrikaners won their freedom, they responded by turning around and oppressing the blacks. Allegedly, the Jews were doing this against the Palestinians. He argued that people who had experienced oppression themselves did not appreciate that what was not good for them also would not be good for others. He pointed out that Afrikaners did not give up during the Boer War, and black South Africans did not give up during apartheid, so why did the State of Israel think that the Palestinians would give up.

The Chairperson brought up the contentious issue of the 1948 Balfour Declaration, and the issue of disputed borders. He noted that the SAJBD brought one map of Israel, and the BDS brought a different map. He did not know which map was correct, but said that history is revised by the victors, and in this case Israel gets to dictate which map is put forward.

The Chairperson would like to facilitate a meeting between the many different South African Jewish and Palestinian stakeholders on this issue. At such a meeting, issues that each side really disagreed on could be left out, but issues on which there is common ground would be discussed.

The Chairperson noted that there are areas in which each party’s position is supposed to be respected. However, he explained that there are also areas in which Parliament can more freely adjudicate disputes.

Ms J Fubbs (ANC), Chairperson, Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry, introduced herself and explained that she was attending this meeting because she attended the previous meeting with the SAJFP and BDS, and that there are trade and industry related issues associated with South Africa’s relationship with Israel. She stated that South Africa has a long-standing policy of finding a path that promotes reconciliation and peace-brokering. She stated that it is not the desire of the South African government to see the conflict between Israel and Palestine get any worse.

Ms Fubbs noted that Parliament is the voice of all South Africans, but that the government cannot change its long-standing policies at the behest of one person or a minority group or nationality. MPs and Parliament are committed to human rights, a two-state solution, and an end to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Many trade policies had been taken by the ruling party.

She was alarmed to hear that MPs and the South African public in general were alarmed to hear that some South African citizens, or citizens who may hold dual-citizenship, allegedly went to fight for Israel.

She noted that two years ago in Johannesburg, there was a huge Jewish rally, where the participants publicly denounced what was happening in Israel, and stated their support for human rights. She stated her support for this initiative, and asked that all South Africans, regardless of religion, must remember that they are South African. South Africa has a plethora of people, faiths, and cultures. The country has gained a reputation of being open and tolerant, and the government is committed to that, and to supporting openness and tolerance at home and abroad.

The Chairperson noted that the BDS stated that the Jewish militia had excluded people from Lubya, and this version differed from the SAJBD version that it was bought by NJF. This was one area of contestation but it would probably be resolved in a meeting.

Ms Kluk thanked the Chairperson and MPs, and stated that she and the delegates would address a number of the Committee members’ concerns.

Mr Shulman, as a geographer, found maps and borders interesting. He noted that the NJF bought about 13% of the land that was given to the Israeli state in 1948. He noted that in 1947, when the UN put forward a two-state solution, the Jews agreed to that solution, but the Palestinian people were not willing to agree to such a solution, and launched attacks against the nascent Israeli state.

Mr Shulman agreed that Lubya was indeed a village, but it was being used as an army garrison by the Palestinian army. The Palestinians attacked from that village, and when the Jews responded, the village was destroyed. That area is currently recognized as being part of Israel, by South Africa, the UN, and other nations.

Ms Kluk responded to the issue of the South African Jewish community. She noted that the SAJBD has no jurisdiction on the issue of international relations, and does not take a stance on these issues.

She explained that the SAJBD believes that the South African government is in a unique position to influence the conflict. She argued that since South Africa and the Palestinian leadership of both FATAH and HAMAS have a good relationship, and South Africa has a relatively good relationship with Israel, it is one of the few countries in the world that could have a serious impact on the negotiation process.

Ms Kluk explained that the SAJBD does not have enough information to choose sides, nor are they Israeli, but that they were strongly seeking a solution in peace. It was protesting against the increase in negativity between fellow South Africans over this conflict. She stated that hate speech and anger between South Africans is not going to help solve the conflict in Israel.

Ms Kluk noted that the SAJBD does have some small amount of influence on the Israeli government, and that at every possible opportunity, the SAJBD aims for a peaceful solution to the conflict, through dialogue and negotiation.

Ms Kluk asked when the last time an Israeli delegation met with the South African government. She noted that Palestinian officials have met with both the legislative and executive branches of government. She asked that the South African government meet with both sides equally, asserting and that each side with listen to South Africa because of its reputation of reconciliation. Despite the history of conflict in South Africa, South Africa had reached a strong position today, which gives credence to its reputation as an objective peacemaker.

Ms Kluk explained that the SAJBD does have a relationship with the diaspora of Jewish communities around the world, and that the SAJBD presents the South African model whenever possible. The SAJBD does not have solutions, but that it uses its influence whenever possible to push for a dialogue between the two sides. She reiterated that the SAJBD is passionate about a two-state solution.

Mr Polarin thanked the Committee and said that they were open to dialogue, although his group would speak only to people who believe in Israel’s right to exist. He argued that some pro-Palestinian groups would not  give a straight answer on whether they are in favor of a two-state solution, and that they often put forward the idea of the Palestinian state as the river to the sea, an area that currently makes up the state of Israel.

Mr Polarin stated that legitimate criticism of Israel is possible, without being anti-Semitic. To find out if that criticism is legitimate, it must be free of the three D’s: Double Standards, Demonisation, and De-Legitimisation.

Ms Kluk agreed that criticism of Israel does not imply that a person is anti-Semitic, but chants of “Kill the Jew” at Wits campus were unacceptable, and do not constitute legitimate criticism of the state of Israel.

Mr Mithi agreed with Mr Polarin and Ms Kluk, stating that an attack on a specific person or their beliefs fall outside the realm of acceptable criticism. This applied to the ideology of Zionism, which is the belief that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. He stated that attacking people who believe that, and saying that the Zionists must fall, is not an attack on the Israeli state, but anti-Semitism.

Mr Mithi argued that there needs to be de-escalation of the binary rhetoric between the two sides, and that only through dialogue can South Africans be of one mind on what must happen in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Ms Singer hoped that the meeting cleared up some ambiguity on where the South African Jewish community stands on some of these contentious issues. She hoped that it is clear that the South African Jewish spiritual and ancestral connection to Israel is greater than any one government that may rule that political community.

Ms Singer stated as a South African, she embraces the culture of dialogue, inclusion, and peaceful resolutions, and that in a two-state solution, each side wins, and can hopefully live harmoniously, and prosper together.

Ms Singer concluded by stating that the South African Jewish community is a broad and diverse one, and therefore does not share one common view. The SAJBD will engage with anyone and everyone, and that they are not pro-Israel, but support both sides of the conflict in finding a peaceful solution.

The Chairperson concluded by noting that South Africa may indeed have to play a more meaningful role in negotiation of this conflict. These meetings were therefore important in helping it to formulate a view.

The meeting was closed. 

Documents

No related documents

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: