Jewish Board of Deputies defends racist article

Posted Tue, 01/27/2009 - 01:22 by Nathan Geffen

One of the tasks of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBOD) is to monitor and respond to antisemitic incidents. This is an important job that the board does quite effectively. However, to be a credible voice against racism it is important that you do not tolerate it in your own institution. Unfortunately the SAJBOD has recently failed to deal with a racist incident in its midst.

In the 12-19 September 2008 issue of the Jewish Report, David Saks, SAJBOD's Associate Director, compared Palestinians to Nazis and made several racist comments about Muslims in an article titled This is Sheer Nazism with an Islamist Veneer. The piece is a sustained piece of racism, filled with hate, vulgar generalisations that explicitly supports superior force as the way to respond to Palestinians. Here are examples of what he wrote:

"What is being instilled into the Palestinian population is sheer unadulterated Nazism, this time with an Islamist religious veneer rather than a racist Aryan one."

"If people still generally fail to learn from history, one of history's lessons that they seem to have taken to heart is that Nazis cannot be appeased nor negotiated with, but can only be dealt with through superior force."

"The Palestinians at least have a genuine grievance, having come off so disastrously second best in their war with the Jews over the same piece of land. One cannot very well expect them to love us, even if the demented extent of their hatred goes far beyond what can be regarded as reasonable resentment. More than anyone else, the Palestinians are obsessed by - even self willed prisoners of - the Islamist death cult. Of course, they are not the only ones. Islamist-inspired violence, frequently including suicide terrorism, has caused carnage throughout the world and continues to do so."

"A brief survey of conflict situations the world over shows how unexceptional the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian situation is. In Thailand, Muslims are fighting Buddhists. In Kashmir, Muslims fight Hindus. In Chechnya, the  Philippines, Bosnia, Sudan and Nigeria, it is Muslims against Christians. In Israel, Muslims fight Jews. And in Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia, Algeria, Sudan (again), Somalia and elsewhere, Muslims are fighting each other. All this, moreover, says nothing about the Islamist terror attacks - those thwarted as well as those actually carried out - that have taken place in the US, Argentina, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, the UK, Spain, Turkey and quite a few other places."

There's more. You can click on the link above to read Saks's whole piece. It is on page 10.

I complained to the SAJBOD about this article.

Instead of apologising or commiting to counsel Saks, or even distancing itself from Saks, the national chairman, Zev Krengel, defended his article.

Although the Constitution sets limits on freedom of expression, many types of racist speech remain protected possibly including Saks's article. Saks has the right to express racist views. He should of course expect to be castigated when he does so. What is concerning though is that a body with the responsibility of protecting a minority group from racist attacks employs him in a senior position and tolerates, indeed defends, his racism.
 

Comments

Please correct link

by Brett - 02/02/2009 - 16:46

The link to the SA Jewish Report is incorrect
should be http://www.sajewishreport.co.za/pdf/2008/sep/12-september-2008.pdf
thanks

Thanks

by Nathan Geffen - 02/03/2009 - 12:02

Thanks for pointing this out. I've corrected it.

Charge Saks with hate speech under South African Law

by leonardo - 02/03/2009 - 04:23

Charge Saks with hatespeech under South African law.

Response to Geffen accusations

by David Saks (not verified) - 02/03/2009 - 10:41

Dear Mr Geffen

Since when, pray explain, does denouncing racism make one a racist? Put another way, would it have been logical for someone who spoke out against the foul indoctrination of German youth under the Nazis to have been accused of anti-German racism?

Anti-Jewish racism of the vilest kind is being instilled on a continual basis at all levels of Palestinian society. This is a fact. (Example: "the extermination of Jews is good for the inhabitants of the world on a land, to which Allah gave his blessing for the sake of the inhabitants of the worlds”, in the Hamas organ Al-Risalah, April 23, 2007). Is it racist to speak out against this ghastly phenomenon?

Had I written something along the lines that Palestinians had innate character traits that predisposed them to committing acts of violence, that would have been racist, but I wrote no such thing and Geffen knows it.

Next, it is an indisputable fact that the majority of "hot" wars plaguing the world today are Islamist, often involving deadly violence between Muslims themselves. Algeria, Pakistan and Iraq are examples of the latter. There is nothing 'racist' about drawing attention to this reality, particularly in the context of discussing the ever-vexed Israeli-Palestinian issue.

In short, I regard Geffen's uncalled for diatribe as a crude smear aimed at discrediting me and my views. It is underhanded, as was his attempt to silence me by complaining to the SAJBD chairman.

Dear David,This comment is

by Doron (not verified) - 02/03/2009 - 14:03

Dear David,

This comment is based on an e-mail I sent you earlier, which I have now adapted, having read your post.

I am quite comfortable that Nathan's allegation of racism is a reasonable one. The threatening nature of your letter to me and its reference to hypothetical legal ramifications ring hollow. Comparing an entire people to Nazis and saying an entire people has a death-cult and then saying an entire religion is responsible for global conflict --- those are reasonably interpreted as racism. To argue that an entire people or religion are debased or uncivilised in racism.

You are quite correct that identifying racism does not make someone a racist. (Although its amazing how often critics of discrimatory Israeli policies are called antisemites.) However you go further than simply identifying racism. It would not be racist, even if somewhat pseduo-scientific, to say that hardcore Hamas members are "obsessed by - even self-willed prisoners of - the Islamist death cult". But you describe all Palestinians in this way.

I am not sure how many Palestinians you have met. I have met a dozen or so and they were pretty normal. I haven't met the leadership of Hamas or members of violent groups, but again, the point is you tarnish all Palestinians. Palestinian society has produced quite a number of suicide bombers, but it has also produced poets, intellectualls, doctors, nurses, the bricklayers that built the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, the labour force of the Israeli economy until the importation of illegal Thai workers, and a fair number of ordinary, secular people. It is because you describe all Palestinians as prisoners of a hateful cult that what you have written can be termed racist.

You say that it would only have been racist if you'd specified "innate character traits" or predisposition. That is an impoverished understanding of racism. As you know antisemitism itself has been through stages where it was based on hatred for Jewish religious beliefs, demonisation of Jews as Christ-killers, fabrications or conspiracy theories about Jewish power, blood-libels about imaginary Jewish practices like drinking blood, and then, its in Nazi form, as base hatred. Earlier forms of antisemitism held that Jews could rid themselves of their malignancy by converting, whilst later forms said the malignancy was innate. All forms of antisemitism can legitimately be called racism. Just as the demonisation of any group on a national or religious basis can legitimately be called racism. (And if not racism, then bigotry and prejudice on the basis of national or religious group. But I assume we are not arguing over semantics.)

There are ways to identify the fundamentalist, violent groups, elements and thinking that exist within a given society without condemning that entire society. Of course it is legitimate and very important to criticise parts of the Muslim and Arab world for various things. Milton Shain wrote an article yesterday in the Cape Times which was largely about extremism and racism amongst Muslims and yet he didn't slip into the racist stereotyping that is evident in your article.

There is also of course a difference between identifying racist comments in an article and labelling someone a racist. Nathan has done the former.

You have recently, and correctly, pointed out that is it inflammatory and unacceptable to compare Jews and/or Israelis to Nazis, and yet this is precisely what your article does in respect of Palestinians. That you don't see the irony is amazing. The inconsistency of your approach is matched only by Nathan's consistency in condemning the racism in your article and the racism of Deputy Minister Hajaig. Given Hajaig's position of prominence in our country Nathan has put far more public effort into condemning her, as you will have noticed.

It is also worth remembering that Nathan's criticism of your article is in the context of you being the Associate Director of the Board of Deputies. It is unwise for the Board of Deputies to associate itself and to defend an article which is offensive and contains racist stereotyping, particularly in light of its important role in countering anti-Jewish racism.

As a representative of our community, a community which aspires to function in a democratic manner, you should expect to be criticised.

Perhaps this can become a sensible discussion about how to be forthright in criticising those who practice antisemitism whilst at the same time working for good relations between Jews and other parts of South African society.

Regards,

Doron Isaacs 

D Saks: When are 'Nazi' comparisons valid?

by David Saks (not verified) - 02/04/2009 - 08:51

Dear Doron

You write that as I have "correctly, pointed out...it is inflammatory and unacceptable to compare Jews and/or Israelis to Nazis, and yet this is precisely what your article does in respect of Palestinians. That you don't see the irony is amazing".

With respect, the two things cannot be conflated. Let's say, for argument's sake, that the following was the case: that it was Israel whose school syllabuses taught that Palestinians were evil, plotting enemies of humanity whose extermination was to the world's benefit; whose media, academia, religious leaders and politicians persistently said the same thing; whose soldiers were instructed to kill as many Palestinians as they possibly could and were feted as heroes when they did so. What if, in other words, these undeniable characteristics of Palestinian society were true of Israel? In that case, were someone then to make the Nazi comparison, there is not a damned thing I could say, because it would be absolutely true. The reason why the "Israel = Nazism" charge is so viciously offensive is that because it is fundamentally a lie - a modern-day blood libel.

One more comment on Mr Geffen's 'racism' charge: One all too often is confronted with the sneering claim that Jews continually 'cry' antisemitism to deflect criticism of their 'persecution' of the Palestinians. Well, sometimes that is true and sometimes not. But what we are seeing above is the epithet 'racism' being misused as a kind of all-purposes slur in order to discredit criticism of the Palestinians. Racism means falsely attributing fundamental negative character traits to an entire people - deploring the racist indoctrination and openly genocidal agenda that prevails within the Palestinian territories clearly doesn't fall into this category.

I know I should not allow a loose popgun like Mister Geffen to push my buttons like this but really - the young man is becoming most annoying.

David Saks, you refer to

by leonardo - 10/20/2009 - 21:59

David Saks, you refer to Nathan Geffen as a "loose popgun" and a "young man" who, "is becoming most annoying". On the subject of munitions, loose cannons like you potentially give South African Jews a "bad name". I am suprised that the SAJBD has not reigned you in yet. Your imperious and condescending tone towards Geffen attempts to publicly undermine his intelligence and underlies your refusal to acknowledge (to yourself) that he simply is correct in his estimation of you.