The Human Rights Commission is a national institution of post apartheid South Africa. Part of the antidote to the old racist system, and independent of government, this institution functions as the linchpin of the new constitution which endows the rainbow nation with a set of legal and democratic guarantees.
The Human Rights Commission ruled last week that the statements of Mongani Masuku on the subject of Israel amounted to antisemitic hate speech. He is a senior official in the South African trade union movement and is currently in the UK on a trip paid for by the University and College Union to promote the exclusion of Israelis, and only Israelis, from the global academic community.
This is the full text of the ruling of the South African Human Rights Commission.
The Human Rights Commission does not makes its judgments frivolously. The Human Rights Commission is aware of the distinction between criticism of Israel and antisemitism. The Human Rights Commission is not pro-Israel and is not concerned with defending the reputation of Israel. It is concerned with racism.
Masuku has openly and repeatedly stated that South African trade unions would target Jewish supporters of Israel in South Africa and “make their lives hell”. He urges that “every Zionist must be made to drink the bitter medicine they are feeding our brothers and sisters in Palestine”.
The Human Rights Commission recognized unequivocally that using anti-Israel rhetoric, Masuku has attempted to mobilize South African trade unionists against Jews in South Africa – against the vast majority of them anyway, those who do not identify themselves as anti-Zionist. Masuku believes that Jews who are not anti-Zionist are “agents of apartheid and friends of Hitler” and he proposes to relate to them as though they were both.
UCU has paid for this man to tour Britain’s campuses to make the argument for a boycott of Israeli universities.
Surely, when it is explained to UCU that Masuku is here to use antisemitic hate speech then it will realise that it has made a mistake?
But no. The distinction between criticism of Israel and antisemitism has been explained to UCU countless times over the past decade but UCU is not interested and it continues to turn a blind eye to antisemitism.
A UCU spokesperson told a journalist from the Jerusalem Post that the sources of the evidence against Masuku was not credible.
“We don’t comment on stuff doing the rounds on the Internet and in the blogosphere and never will,” he told the Post.
The UCU spokesperson does not understand who the South African Human Rights Commission is or the significance of what it has judged.
But there is nothing new about this. UCU has demonstrated repeatedly that it is simply not bothered by antisemitism if it comes packaged in the language of criticism of Israel.
Jews in UCU have been bullied, have resigned, have been pushed out and have been silenced. The situation is so serious that at the last UCU Congress there were no Jews left who were prepared to oppose the boycott campaign.
For more details and argument on UCU and Masuku click here.
David Hirsh
Engage 
December 6, 2009 at 7:57 pm
David,
As far as Masuku is concerned, all Jews who are not anti-zionist, should be forced out of South Africa.
Perhaps The UCU admires Masuku’s approach to The Jewish Question? After all, you write that “at the last UCU congress there were no Jews left who were prepared to oppose the boycott campaign”.
The question arises whether you are being naive. It is as if you believe that The UCU will see the light, when evidence is presented, showing an anti-zionist up in his true anti-semitic colours.
I would argue that Masuku’s trip to The UK has been paid for by The UCU precisely because he is so extreme. His anti-semitic outbursts (judged to be so by The SAHRC) are now part of his attraction. Masuku has raised the stakes. And The UCU love him for it.
December 6, 2009 at 9:12 pm
[…] December 6, 2009 10:12 pm In a rather transparent tactic, UCU is using a proxy to advance the campaign to boycott Israelis, Engage has much more. […]
December 6, 2009 at 9:37 pm
“Masuku has raised the stakes. And The UCU love him for it.”
I doubt that is true. He is probably an embarassment. But, that doesn’t mean they can easily drop him. But they may do, yet.
December 6, 2009 at 10:04 pm
I don’t think they’re embarrassed.
They will just say that he gets accused of antisemitism by the Zionists because he is critical of Israel.
They will declare that it is absurd to accuse an official of COSATU of being a racist.
They will say that the Zionists have effected undue influence on the Human Rights Commission.
They will say that occasionally there is a little problem with antisemitism but it is not important compared to the real issue, which is the continuing dispossession of the Palestinians.
Many UCU members are simple enough to go along with it or to fail to see the significance of it all.
December 6, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Well, I defer to your experience, David. I just meant that they’re not dropping or rebuking him would be a matter of expediency, not love, I think. Not wanting to criticise the SA trades unions.
December 6, 2009 at 10:49 pm
What are the chances that the boycotters will argue that, after years of oppression, those involved in the struggle against apartheid, have taken in the characteristics of their oppressors? That the victims of racism have now become the racists and Masuku is emblematic of this inversion.
It is a line of argument that people think has purchase in “understanding” “Zionists”. so why not the new South Africa?
Well, the answer is obvious – it is utter nonsense in the case of both Israel and South Africa, but, hey, when it comes to Israel, utter nonsense is no bar to belief!
December 8, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Absolute Observer,
‘What are the chances that the boycotters will argue that, after years of oppression, those involved in the struggle against apartheid, have taken in the characteristics of their oppressors? That the victims of racism have now become the racists and Masuku is emblematic of this inversion.’
You don’t seem to understand the rules of the game. In general, when a formerly oppressed people allegedly oppresses others, we are to show understanding, because ‘who are we to criticise?’. Thus they are absolved of full responsibility for their actions.
However, when the formerly oppressed people are the Jews, they bear not less, but more moral responsibility, because ‘they of all people should know better’.
Sadly, there are well-meaning Jews who will echo this reasoning.
December 6, 2009 at 11:31 pm
They might yet effect some fancy footwork. It sounds as though they are using the legalistic excuse that SAHRC hadn’t pronounced before Masuku’s arrival.
December 7, 2009 at 1:11 am
Can members who object to having their dues used to support racism sue an entity that does so under British law?
Regards,
Inna
December 7, 2009 at 7:42 am
How is Masuku’s statement any different from Alan Dershowitz’s threat that he will personally visit legal and financial ruin on any UK academic supporting a boycott?
Or was that hate speech as well?
December 7, 2009 at 7:53 am
UCU wouldn’t dream of hosting Dershowitz.
December 7, 2009 at 8:40 am
Masuku is physically threatening pretty much every Jew who does not explicitly proclaiming him or herself to be an anti-Zionist. He also calls on many many of his supporters to do carry out his threats.
Dershowitz is threatening financial and not physical harm to those who do something ie support boycotts. As he is just one man, his threat is also pretty empty. I am not even sure he can sue boycott supporters as individuals (unless they be UCU officials) and I do not think he has done so so far either.
December 7, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Empty threats aside and Dershowitz Drama aside, anyone sensitive to harassment and discrimination law (I don’t have to go near “hate speech” law in this case) shouldn’t have any problem suing harassers and discriminators. The UCU boycotters ARE playing chicken with the brick wall that is the RRA. Their behavior is chum in the water for sharks, whether they have fins and pointy teeth, or a law degree from Yale.
December 7, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Isn’t Dershowitz (however foolishly and/or emptyily – sorry for the appalling neologism) threatening to unleash the law on actual or potential boycotters? This assumes that the law in question is applicable to the case. Masuku is threatening a group who are breaking no law (in South Africa or the UK) with violence: that is against the law in SA as in the UK.
December 7, 2009 at 10:14 am
luny
don’t be so sillly
Tell you what – elsewhere on the site is the law and ruling under which Masuku was found guilty of race-hate speech and incitement to violence as found in SA. (For now, we’ll overlook the differences of law in SA, USA and UK, although there is some overlap).
Take a look and then either work out a case for or against your own proposition.
Masuku’s being found guilty of race-hate speech and incitement to violence is a legal finding, decided on constitutuional and HR principles; it is not a matter of opinion by someone who sits on the web and comes up with silly equivalents.
By the way, good to see that by your “as well”, you recognise that Masuka has committed the crimes found against him.
You have often claimed to be an anti-racist. I assume you will fight UCU’s hosting of Masusku. If you would, please share your letter of complaint (you need not be a member).
Because otherwise, you look like a 4 year old who caught red-handed wimpers, “but he did it too”, as if that were a defence to anything.
December 7, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Question to those who know the history of the trade union movement better than I do: when was the last time Jews were effectively driven out of a trade union in Western Europe?
December 7, 2009 at 1:00 pm
This is how the matters compare for me, at the moment, though I welcome any other insight.
In 2002 Dershowitz threatened to sue any academic who denies tenure to another on the basis of their sympathy with Israel.
In 2007, following the UCU exec’s motion to boycott or exclude any Israeli JEWISH academic who does not first pass their (anti-Zionist i.e. Masuku) test, he threatened to sue any academic, but particularly UCU, for so doing.
Any Israeli academic so affected is legally entitled to take the matter to law, and Dershowitz is entitled to represent them, with their consent, individually or as a class.
UCU took legal advice, and were warned they would so render the union vulnerable.
He didn’t threaten, inter alia, to make life a living hell, let alone expel, anyone with pro-Palestinian Muslim or Christian nationalist sympathies, or who engaged in pro-Palestinian activities.
Dershowitz’s threat was issued on a basis not dissimilar to the SAHRC ruling re. Masuku.
December 7, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Threatening to sue someone does not constitute hate speech, I think.
December 7, 2009 at 8:07 pm
But threatening “financial and legal ruin” (I use Dershowitz’s wording) is.
Funy that Dershowitz “threatened to sue any academic who denies tenure to another on the basis of their sympathy with Israel”, since he himself has abused his powers to deny tenure to people guilty of disagreeing with him.
December 7, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Dershowitz certainly did his best to ruin the lives of several people whose only crime is to disagree with him, from Norman Finkelstein to [this has been deleted for legal reasons – dh]
All of them had a whole lot more trouble than any “victim” of Masuku,
No idea what does “a legal finding” means in this context.
Masuku was certainly not convicted in a court of law of a crime under South Africa anti-racism laws. Obviously saw, because she did not advocate racial hatred. At most, political hatred, just like Dershowitz
advocated political hatred against supporters of the academic boycott.
December 7, 2009 at 8:26 pm
“Masuku was certainly not convicted in a court of law of a crime under South Africa anti-racism laws.”
Yet, luny, yet. But the SAHRC are threatening to take him to court if he doesn’t apologise for his words.
December 7, 2009 at 1:11 pm
This, I think, constitutes hate speech:
” Here is a clear case of stirring trouble and hatred (which Zionists are good at)…Do you see how Zionists divide Muslims? Is it not time we united against this scum of the earth?”
http://www.mpacuk.org/story/061209/enemy-my-enemy-my-friend.html
The trouble, I suspect, is that Luny and certain members of UCU have been engaging in it so long themselves, that they have become inured to it. It’s just baseline discourse about people, especially Jews, who do not actively support the dissolution of the Jewish state of Isael.
December 7, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Calling Dershowitz’s threat to sue “hate speech” means that any threat to sue is “hate speech”.
Suing is a legal measure that fails or succeeds on legal grounds.
December 7, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Dershowitz threatened to sue UCU or participating academics for excluding Israeli Jews.
He did not threaten to make life hell for, or expel, or march on the homes or offices of, sympathisers or supporters of the Palestinian Muslim or Christian national movement.
I didn’t say SAHRC’s was a legal ruling. I said the similar allegation of discrimination was the basis for Dershowitz’s threat to sue.
Threat to sue is not hate speech, political or otherwise (and thanks for the implicit admission), nor incitement to hate. It is a threat to sue. And it fails or succeeds on legal grounds.
But, clearly, you’ve been participating in hate speech so long yourself that you no longer no the difference.
December 7, 2009 at 8:12 pm
#no longer KNOW the difference.
December 7, 2009 at 8:24 pm
“All of them had a whole lot more trouble than any “victim” of Masuku,”
None of said alleged victims were threatened with expulsion from the US, never mind with making their lives hell.
Finkelstein made accusations against Dershowitz which the latter was entitled to dispute. When he showed De Paul that Finkelstein had been guilty of grave infringments of academic protocol, and refused to apologise or acknowledge error, his contract was not renewed.
If you accuse others of academic fraud or plagiarism (a serious charge, which Finkelstein made, which can ruin another’s career), you have to be prepared to accept the consequences if you are shown to be wrong, and refuse to recant or apologise.
Dershowitz could have sued Finkestein. He didn’t.
Academic fraud is a serious charge, and UCU should be foremost in insisting on the most stringent criteria for asserting it.
December 7, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Masuku also seems to have blanketly assumed Jewish guilt unless they actively denounce Israel.
Further the email referring to “Jewish arrogance” is a clear instance of anti-Jewish racism.
December 7, 2009 at 8:41 pm
A threat to sue is not hate speech. Otherwise everyone who threatened to sue would be guilty of it.
December 7, 2009 at 8:47 pm
If Dershowitz had said:
“I will make life hell for every sympathiser with the Palestinian national movement, expel or make this country not their own, march en masse to their homes, offices etc, and encourage the union of American lawyers, or whatever, to do so” or referred to, say, “Muslim arrogance”, among other things,
that would have been incitement to hatred.
December 7, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Harassment and discrimination law is not necessarily in or near the same legal domain as findings from various HRCs (e.g, things like “hate speech”) and similar bodies. Even legal “small-c” conservatives can easily accept most western countries’ anti-discrimination laws (like the RRA). “Hate Speech” Law, “Speech Codes” and even “Hate Crime” laws, maybe not so much. Few sensible attorneys would say that free speech or academic freedom are a shields behind which to Discriminate or Harass (using most formal legal definitions). And Dershowitz interests in the above examples by Zachary were clearly under H/D law not “hate speech.” It also doesn’t have much to do here with his eternal feud with Chomsky, Finkelstein and Cockburn, and all three are doing quite well in their bubbles, even post-DePaul Norm and Dersh didn’t have so much to do with that as did Norm himself. Masuku, however, hit nearly every H/D law sweet spots that I learned in my H/D orientation sessions.
December 8, 2009 at 7:27 am
In response to an email I sent to my local UCU list about this matter I’ve had one response which suggested that BRICUP rather than the UCU funded the tour. Was it definitely the UCU?
December 8, 2009 at 9:50 am
“However, we have learnt that Bongani Masuku is one of the invited speakers, along with Kasrils and Barghouti. The BRICUP tour is only an “spin-off” event. UCU has indicated that is paying for international visitors to the conference; this would mean that it is paying for Masuku’s visit to Britain.”
https://engageonline.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/bongani-masuku-an-invited-guest-of-ucu/
Can anyone please clarify or confirm?
December 8, 2009 at 2:19 pm
The flyer from leeds Uni which originally had Masuku’s name on it is promoted as a joint BRICUP/UCU event. Which means that even i UCU didn’t fund it, UCU (or at least one of its representatives) still approved of it, which is bad enough.
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=184244677909&ref=share
December 9, 2009 at 7:53 am
In my experience, the organizations listed after the event are the organizations funding said event and/or program in money or in kind. (E.g., BRICUP may be paying speakers’ fees but UCU may be providing the hall and refreshments.)
However you look at it, money is changing hands to sponsor this event.
Regards,
Inna
December 8, 2009 at 9:49 am
Sorry – I think I posted that too early in the morning! The colleague said the tour was organised by BRICUP – I have now replied that I believe this is true but the *conference* on Sat was organised by UCU. As this appears to be mentioned on several sites, including this one, I assume this *is* the case. Any further clarification welcome.
I should say that I have already had some responses to my email, all bar one actively supportive, some robustly so
December 8, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Luny is seeking to change the subject. He or she always does.
He or she thinks that two negatives equals a positive.
Note how he or she refuses to discuss the fact that Masuku has been found by the SAHRC to have inctied violence and indulged in race-hate.
I think it is about time Luny we do not let luny sidetrack the discussion.
That discussion is that UCU and Bricup are happliy hosting a person who has been deemed to have incited violence against Jews and indulged in race-hate.
But of course antizionsts don’t like being confronted with empirical facts that blows the antizionist/antisemitism distinction clear out of the water. That’s why they will search high and low for “equivalents”.
So, if you have something to say about Masusku fine; That is the topic of discussion.
December 8, 2009 at 4:11 pm
PS: this statement alone
22. Mr Masuku’s heated statements made amidst an already tense audience appeared to advocate hatred against Jews and all other supporters of Israel.
Shows that the judgement by the Human Rights commission has no merit. If anything, its the judgement itself which is antisemitic, since it conflates a racial/ethnic group, Jews, with a political opinion, supporters of Israel (and falsely so. Ronnie Kasrils, in the audience when Masuku made this statement, is a Jew but not a supporter of Israel).
The South African human rights commission has come out with some
completely ridiculous decisions in the past
(
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/south-african-newspaper-editors-summoned-to-answer-racism-claims-726900.html
)
and this is sadly another example. Thankfully, it has no executive power.
December 8, 2009 at 6:27 pm
“since it conflates a racial/ethnic group, Jews, with a political opinion, supporters of Israel”
I’m not sure it does. It speaks of “Jews”. Not “Jews as a racial/ethnic group” or “the Jews” or “all Jews”.
You, it seems, do that.
“Jews” is unspecified as to number except its plural.
December 8, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Only a small number of Muslims are Islamist. But inciting people to make their lives hell or expel them would still be incitement to hatred.
December 8, 2009 at 6:38 pm
“small number of Muslims are Islamist”
In the UK, and by “Islamist” I mean, say, HuT.
December 8, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Paragraph 22 may be badly written in my eyes given what he was doing. But his statements included targeting “silent” supporters of Israel, meaning that people who aren’t actively reading off the witchsmeller pursuivant’s “Good Jew” script will be targeted. Thus, the a priori assignment of Zionism as a “Jewish” trait, is Masuku’s sin, not the SAHRC’s. That’s also an active and selective search pattern for Harassment with a capital-H. And had his statements be made into a personal or organization policy (or is made in the future), alleged busybodies at the SAHRC will be the least of his worries — he and his pals will be in the sights of the pros. And they don’t just write legal briefs.
December 8, 2009 at 12:58 pm
What significance does Dershowitz’s comment have in relation to Masuku’s antisemitism?
December 8, 2009 at 1:53 pm
”, since he himself has abused his powers to deny tenure to people guilty of disagreeing with him.”
Stop lying.
Finklestien was denied tenure by his university, not by Desrhowitz, who spoke against Finklestein.
Ellie Weisel spoke in favour of Finklestein.
Their is no need to imply things about Masuku. The SAHRC found him liable for incitement to violence and race-hate.
Luny can twist and turn to avoid facing this fact, but fact it is.
BRICUP and UCU exec member Tom Hickey is hosting a person found liable in South Africa for race hate and incitement of vioence against Jews.
Hence his or her need to change the subject again and again and again.
December 8, 2009 at 5:52 pm
“BRICUP and UCU exec member Tom Hickey is hosting a person found liable in South Africa for race hate and incitement of vioence against Jews.”
And specifically, Hickey’s hosting him for a meeting where they will be discussing ways to move forward with a boycott against Jews-and-Only-Jews — inviting someone who openly discusses putting undue, unwelcome and obstructively pervasive pressure on ethnically targeted South African citizens who don’t read off his script. Indisputably illegal professional conduct.
Didn’t the UCU get some legal advice on those items?
December 8, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Absolute Observer,
I believe that Cosatu and The PSC will do everything in their power to undermine The SAHRC’s finding. The question is whether the judicial process can remain firm or whether the “hate speech” verdict will be kicked into touch. Knowing how
various judicial institutions are being undermined on a daily basis in SA, I unfortunately have little faith in SA’s ability to stop Cosatu/Masuku/PSC in their “hate speech” tracks.
December 8, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Luny is now clutcvhing at straws.
In pointing to Kasrils, he or she is running the normal defence used against those who, by pointing to Margaret Thatcher, deny that women are discriminated against directly or indirectly. Ah, they say, women are oppresses. Yeah, right, look at Thatcher.
Likewise, those who oppose anti-discrimination legislation point to Obama, and say racism is no longer an issue in the States.
It is to escape from such facile comments that HR jurisprudence look to the effect on the group as a whole. It is for this reason that in some jurisdictions breaches of HR obligations have been upheld, even where it may not effect certain individuals within the group.
In the context of the case, Masuku’s comments about “supporters of Israel” was clearly understood by the HRC as meaning Jews as a catergory – regardless as to whether there are individual Jews who do not support Israel, like Kasrils, or alternatively, non-Jewish supporters of Israel. That is how HR works.
If, say in Northern Ireland, a speaker was to stand up and speak about “supporters of the Vatican” – which is, to all intents and purposes, a sovereign state – the fact that he or she was referring to Catholics would be clear, even if not every Catholic “supported the Vatican” or that non-Catholics “supported the Vatican”.
The distinction between Zionism and Jews on the basis that the latter is a political opinion is an irrelevance. The fact is that Zionism is the political aspiration for a Jewish homeland. To call for the causing of harm to “supporters of Israel” is to call for the causing of harm against Jews as a group precisly for this reason.
Indeed, since Zionism has not other meaning than as a Jewish political aspiration, the threat to “Zionists” can only be seen, in this context, as a threat to Jews regardless of the fact that not all Jews are zionists or all zionists Jews, and, indeed, regardless of whether a majority or minority support Israel.
The idea that antisemitism cannot take on a political form or operate on a political level is, frankly, absurd.
If Luny is serious about challenging the validity and finding of the SAHRC, he or she would be advised to know something about what they speak – i.e. the nature of HR, and the parameters and substance of HR jurisprudence. There are many books and articles written on the subject.
But, of course, Luny is not serious. Luny cannot come to terms that an antizionist has resorted to antisemitism. Hence his or her banalities that, he or she, no doubt mistakes for insight.
E-
December 9, 2009 at 9:30 am
I’ve been drawing parallels with the other thread on Howard Jacobson where there has been some discussion of what is meant by ‘Zionist’. I wouldn’t describe myself as a Zionist but more as an anti-anti-Zionist. But if my views and actions were exactly the same as they are now with the one difference that I was Jewish, I think I would far more readily be classed as a Zionist – because on top of being (in this hypothetical scenario) Jewish, I had also made a fuss about the Israel boycott and about this guest speaker. That’s maybe not totally clear, but I suppose my point is that if you are a non Jewish South African who happens to be inclined to sympathise with Israel or at least dislike singling out Israel for attack then you are unlikely, I think, to be hassled by Masuku or his cronies.
December 9, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Discrimination against “Zionists”, however defined, will disproportionately affect Jews, especially if “Zionist” means “Not actively anti-Zionist”.
The trouble is such a one as Luny (AKA Internationalist on HP?) seems to defend or acquiesce in such discrimination, as legal or legitimate.
And that’s the problem: the assumption that sympathy with Zionism or Israel is illegitimate and merits discrimination or retribution (even as Jews once merited it for the “political ideology” of Judaism).
And that is why this form of extreme anti-Zionism looks like the latest form of anti-Judaism or antisemitism (and, ironically, “Zionism”, if it forces SA Jews to leave for Israel).
White Reformed Dutch Afrikaners have no other family-national group to which they have ethno-political ties which such as Masuku demand to be dissolved. That is precisely the bind in which SA, and any other, Jews find themselves.
SA Jews could then face a dissolution over and above that of the state of White Reformed Dutch Afrikaners (or however you want to define them).
That has no legal basis in the UK, nor, I suspect, SA, though that mightn’t make a practical difference, given efficacy of law re. Zuma, COATSU, the ANC etc.
And if SA “Zionists” are to be so discriminated against, harassed or persecuted, what bodes that for UCU-SWP’s vision of a final solution to Israel-Palestine?
December 8, 2009 at 7:17 pm
“Thankfully, it has no executive power.”
A blessing indeed! Now we can intimidate, threaten, hassle any Jew we like. And, if we’re caught, we can say, hey, we don’t hate him cos he’s a Jew, we hate him cos he’s a supporter of Israel.
I remember my grandad bless him. Lived down the East End of London. Cracked a few Jews heads open in his time. Of course, when he was told he hated Jews he took real umbiridge. “Jews?” he’d say indignantly, “I don’t hate Jews? I only hate landlords”!
Ah, bless him. Good days, good days, indeed.
With you all the way, Luny, with you all the way.
December 9, 2009 at 10:51 am
Theory,
“Masuku has openly and repeatedly stated that South African trade unions would target Jewish supporters of Israel in South Africa and “make their lives hell”. He urges that “every Zionist must be made to drink the bitter medicine they are feeding our brothers and sisters in Palestine”.”
Practice,
“When a small off-cinema in St. Pauli recently tried to show Claude Lanzmann’s 1973 documentary “Why Israel”, the public found themselves in front of barricaded doors, guarded by fake troops decorated with Israeli flags on toilet paper. After the cinema had called off the screening in order to avoid a physical conflict, visitors declaring themselves unsatisfied with the artistic standard of the “street theatre” performance where hit in the face by activists well-prepared for violence, shouting “Schwuchteln!” (faggots) and “Judenschweine!”. The disturbing (though not at all surprising) thing about this is that the attackers are not Neo-Nazis (at least not in the usual meaning of the word) but leftist “anti-imperialists” from the “Internationales Zentrum B5″ next door – who themselves also shouted “Nazis raus!” at the cinema guests.”
Practice,
“When a small off-cinema in St. Pauli recently tried to show Claude Lanzmann’s 1973 documentary “Why Israel”, the public found themselves in front of barricaded doors, guarded by fake troops decorated with Israeli flags on toilet paper. After the cinema had called off the screening in order to avoid a physical conflict, visitors declaring themselves unsatisfied with the artistic standard of the “street theatre” performance where hit in the face by activists well-prepared for violence, shouting “Schwuchteln!” (faggots) and “Judenschweine!”. The disturbing (though not at all surprising) thing about this is that the attackers are not Neo-Nazis (at least not in the usual meaning of the word) but leftist “anti-imperialists” from the “Internationales Zentrum B5″ next door – who themselves also shouted “Nazis raus!” at the cinema guests.”
Theory,
“Masuku has openly and repeatedly stated that South African trade unions would target Jewish supporters of Israel in South Africa and “make their lives hell”. He urges that “every Zionist must be made to drink the bitter medicine they are feeding our brothers and sisters in Palestine”.”
December 9, 2009 at 1:46 pm
“Mr Masuku was originally supposed to speak at the event but he didn’t turn up.”
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/12/09/ucu-activists-on-masuku/#comment-423878
Sounds like he’s been dropped.
December 9, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Sarah December 9, 2009 at 9:30 am
I think that your conclusion is correct. Masuku seems to place a special obligation on SA Jewry to oppose Israel. He is prepared to befriend extreme anti-zionist Jews such as Ronnie Kasrils, but if one is not in that boat, then expulsion from SA is advocated. Masuku is demanding that Jews must convert to anti-zionism, and in that regard, I describe him as Cosatu’s Grand Inquisitor.
Since I am a Jew who has chosen not to live in Israel, I also describe myself as an anti anti-zionist.
April 16, 2010 at 4:52 pm
[…] But the way UCU chooses to think about the Holocaust in relation to its own activities hasn’t been sufficient to keep it free of other forms of antisemitism. Posted in Holocaust, UCU. Leave a […]
April 16, 2010 at 4:54 pm
[…] But the way UCU chooses to think about the Holocaust in relation to its own activities hasn’t been sufficient to keep it free of other forms of antisemitism. Posted in Holocaust, UCU. Leave a […]