This morning I woke up to accusations from Nathan Geffen labelling me an anti-Semite and accusing me of defamation. The source of the accusation was a blog post I penned last night about an e-mail doing the rounds calling for a boycott of all Jewish businesses in South Africa.
The Muslim boycott email contained the following point, which I used to make a sarcastic remark about Nathan Geffen because of the ‘not in my name’ style letter he distributed a couple of weeks ago. The boycott email read:
The support by the religious head of SA Jews for Israel, suggests that most SA Jews would have a similar view. Some Jews have distanced themselves from the statements by the Chief Rabbi and the SAJBD . None of the prominent business leaders above are in this group.[I.e. if you sign Geffen’s petition you are exempt from the boycott - Ed] |
The inference I made is that you can remove your business from the boycott list by signing Nathan’s petition. Given that inference I made the following - sloppily written, I do admit - sarcastic remark.
To get your business removed from this list you can contact Nathan Geffen from the SA Human Rights Delegation, signatory number 1 on the recent "not in my name" style letter. |
The casual reader may have incorrectly concluded that I was blaming them for the letter, or insinuating that they were involved in its drafting. Of course, that was not what I meant. I ought to have been clearer in my point which is one I have made before – that Nathan’s efforts are driving the Muslim and Jewish communities further apart and not closer together, as he claims. Again, this is not to imply that Nathan’s petition is the cause of the Muslim anti-Semitism. But if Muslim Israel/Jew-haters think the "not in my name" crowd is kosher; it indicates that Geffen & Co. have clearly done a poor job at connecting Muslims and Jews. Furthermore, I wished to impress upon my readers that Nathan's efforts are being abused by real anti-Semites who seem to be supporting him, whether he agrees with it or not.
Seven years ago, the Palestine Solidarity Committee also tried a boycott of Raymond Ackerman’s stores. There has been plenty of time since then for the "not in my name" crowd to dissuade the Muslim community from using such tactics, but instead they have poured scorn on the Jewish community.
To reiterate, Nathan has accused me and this blog of being anti-Semitic – a preposterous notion. He and Doron Isaacs have also charged me with defamation. I am not taking the former charge seriously, I don’t think anyone will. It’s laughable. Joel Pollak has made the point quite well:
Geffen responded to IAS by accusing the blog of "anti-semitism" [sic], as if criticism of one particular Jew is criticism of all Jews! Some of the same activists routinely accuse Jewish leaders of conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, but criticize them and you're an anti-Semite! |
I also disagree with the latter charge, that of defamation. My sarcastic suggestion that these business leaders contact Nathan in order to sign his letter and thereby protect their business from the boycott is a reasonable inference GIVEN the fact that the boycott specifically exempts them.
I contest that it is NOT defamation to suggest an opinion based on apparent facts -- but it is certainly a form of intimidation to threaten, as emails I have since received have tacitly implied, to take legal action against me if I do not issue a correction and an apology. It is interesting how these so-called proponents of human rights are the first to dismiss freedom of speech when they don't like what is being said!
Another incorrect accusation propelled by Nathan is that I was already aware of his written response to the Muslim boycott. Nathan writes:
And Steve, your particular It's Almost Supernatural blog today, is the worst yet of these anti-semitic insults directed at me. There is nothing more I can say in response to such filth, other than to print below an email I wrote and circulated widely immediately upon receiving the anti-semitic email that your anti-semitic blog refers to. You were undoubtedly aware of it, but it would not have served your propaganda interests to include it in your blog.[My emphasis] |
I don't know why Geffen claims I was "undoubtedly aware" of this email. It's not in my inbox and this morning was the first I heard of Nathan’s email, which condemns and distances himself from the Muslim boycott. (I’m not sure why he needed to distance himself from it in the first place?) I am only too happy to publish it below.
In fact, now that he has released his letter to them in which he suggests that a boycott of Israeli or "settlement" products might be acceptable, Geffen has stumbled into what others could perceive as some form of coordination between the two groups. Geffen claims that he is against targeting ethnic groups, but he suggests that he would not oppose a boycott that targeted Israelis as such. Are all Israelis fair game simply because of their national origin? If that is what Geffen believes then his human rights credentials must be questioned.
Had I known of the email, I would still have reacted in the same manner, because I am not implying he was involved. I was implying that his petition is being abused by anti-Semites within the Muslim community who are supporting his efforts. His efforts are having unintended consequences and are receiving support from some real anti-Semites.
On the whole I commend Nathan for the stand he took against the Muslim boycott. But I think the strength of his response is diminished by the fact that he did not ask that their names be removed from the letter--they only suggest that the boycott be directed against Israelis and not Jews! His response spends too much time explaining that some of the Jews on the list are actually ‘quite good’ and this distracts from the part I commend, where he states that their approach is reprehensible, immoral, racist and disgusting and that he wants nothing to do with it.
Moreover, whatever religious and political differences Geffen might have with the Chief Rabbi, to call him a "fundamentalist" in an exchange with radical Muslim critics, evidently willing to resort to base anti-Semitism, is to paint a target on him for the benefit of those looking for someone to scapegoat for the Gaza war. It is irresponsible and dangerous. If any remark in the entire exchange qualifies as defamation that surely is it.
This should conclude the matter. Out of courtesy to my detractors, I have published the full text of Nathan’s response below.
Steve
In all my time in politics, whether campaigning against Mbeki's AIDS policies, organising demonstrations and writing statements against the Zimbabwean government or denouncing the Chinese government's imprisonment of an AIDS activist in front of several thousand people at the International AIDS Conference, I have never been attacked with more vememous dishonesty than by members of my own community for my temperate and moderate criticisms of Israel. It is, Steve, a form of anti-semitism and I'm sorry to say a much more dangerous and insidious form of anti-semitism than most other kinds in existence today. For its aim is to ostracise and to hurt. I admit that it certainly succeeds in this aim. It is also meant to set an example to other Jews about what they can expect if they criticise Israel. However, I assure you, despite the fact that it hurts, it will not silence my criticisms.
And Steve, your particular It's Almost Supernatural blog today, is the worst yet of these anti-semitic insults directed at me. There is nothing more I can say in response to such filth, other than to print below an email I wrote and circulated widely immediately upon receiving the anti-semitic email that your anti-semitic blog refers to. You were undoubtedly aware of it, but it would not have served your propaganda interests to include it in your blog.
Here it is:
Shafika
I find this email to be reprehensibly anti-semitic. It is analogous in its morality to Israel's collective punishment of Palestinians. It is also incredibly ignorant of the complexity and diversity of the Jewish community.
Because the Chief Rabbi and others released a statement claiming to represent the SA Jewish community, it does not mean that what they have said does in fact represent the SA Jewish community. That is why Doron Isaacs and I have circulated a response, which you have seen and referred to below, that already has 240 signatories on it.
I know some of the people you have listed here (some are friends of mine). They are definitely not all supporters of Israel. Some are also not politically involved and so are unlikely to sign the response by Doron and me. They're just everyday South Africans who go about their business and behind the scenes some of them do a lot more good than you realise. If you want to organise a boycott of Israeli products or settlement products that's a very different matter, but this is naked discrimination on the basis of ethnic background. Even for those on your list below that are supporters of Israel, an action like this against people in South Africa for beliefs they hold that disagree with yours is unjustified. There is no historical precedent for such an action by progressive movements.
Many in the Jewish community have emailed me and said they agree entirely with my statement but are too scared to sign it. Others are trying to make up their minds still. I have no doubt some people in your list below fall into that category. You have no idea of the risks that some people who have signed our statement have taken.
Then take, for example, Raymond Ackerman. He is a reform Jew and therefore not represented by the Chief Rabbi in any way. On the contrary, he and other reform Jews are ostracised in the Jewish community by fundamentalists like the chief rabbi.
This kind of anti-semitic approach fuels tension between Muslims and Jews, is immoral and I want nothing to do with it. I am offended by it and unreservedly condemn it. It's unprogressive, racist and disgusting. And I assure you no progressive Jews or Muslims will have anything to do with it.
Doron and I are trying to effect change in the Jewish community by strengthening the hand of progressives. If you want to drive the community into a lager and undo all our work, then this is definitely the way to go about it.
Nathan
|
We have also been accused of defamation for claiming that there was coordination between Nathan Geffen's "not in my name" style letter and various Muslim groups such as the PSC. This claim had absolutely nothing to do with the Muslim boycott and was written before we were even aware of the boycott email. The reason this claim was made is because the Voice of the Cape website quoted Dr Farid Essack of the Palestine Solidarity Group in Cape Town, predicting the petition before it was publicly released. The VoC website wrote:
According to Dr Farid Essack of the Palestine Solidarity Group in Cape Town, moves were afoot to produce a statement from within the community that would counter the SAJBD statement. (My emphasis). |
It's interesting that Geffen equates a claim of coordination with a Muslim group to defamation.
Update
Subsequent to my drafting of this post, Nathan Geffen has emailed the editor of the SA Jewish Report, in response to accusations from someone not at all connected to me, offering:
If Jewish Report ever wishes to expose the way [the IAS team], the person below and others attempt to use lies to discredit members of the community I would be happy to co-operate. |
Comments Disclaimer