Budlender Report - No Racial Profiling Took Place at Limmud

Advocate Geoff Budlender last week rejected allegations made by the Wits Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC) that Limmud’s security marshals carried out “racial profiling” against students and academics of colour during the course of the Limmud event on August 9.

David Saks reports in last week’s Jewish Report:

THE INVESTIGATION instituted by Wits University into the events that took place on campus during the Limmud event on August 9 this year, has rejected allegations that Limmud’s security marshals carried out “racial profiling” against students of colour. In a report that overwhelmingly vindicated Limmud, Advocate Geoff Budlender SC did, however, say that Limmud marshals overstepped their authority and appeared “heavyhanded”. But he found no male fides on their part. His 13-page report found that Limmud participants were subjected to offensive slurs and intimidation by those protesting outside the university. The controversy centred around the participation on the programme of Lt-Colonel David Benjamin of the Israeli Defence Forces, labelled as a “war criminal” by pro-Palestinian factions on and off campus. Budlender based his conclusions on more than 70 written submissions received from those who were present on the day and individual interviews with some of the latter whose testimony was regarded as particularly significant. These included senior members of the Wits administration, Limmud, SAUJS, the SAJBD and the Palestinian Solidarity Committee. The SAJBD has welcomed Budlender’s findings, saying that the findings had vindicated all the essential points it had made in its own submission. SAJBD National Director Wendy Kahn, called the report balanced and thorough, and felt that Budlender had done “an excellent job” in getting to the heart of what had happened, without being swayed by people’s political agendas. “We were very disturbed that those protesting against Limmud resorted to baseless charges of racial profiling in order to smear our community. Fortunately, a thorough and non-partisan investigation has revealed these to be false,” she said.

Whilst some may be tempted to celebrate these findings as a resounding victory, the whole saga will ultimately prove to be a depressing defeat for South African Jewry. The Palestinian and Muslim lobby have sent a strong message to Jews in South Africa that not only will they not tolerate our political positions; but our deeply enshrined value of robust inner debate too, will not be allowed.

Are these just empty threats? The fraudulent tactics employed may be cheap, but they are not empty. In fact, they are very effective. Take one high profile consequence as an example, the gratuitous comments of the Wits Vice Chancellor and Principal Professor Loyiso Nongxa immediately following the allegations. Before even issuing an investigation, he lamented the appearance at Wits of anyone who seeks to justify Israel’s military action in the Gaza Strip (by his language this would have to include the majority of Jewish students) and then, accepting the PSC accusations as fact, he proceeded to apologise to anyone who felt they were discriminated against during the Limmud event.

These comments confirm the strategic value of these mephitic accusations. The mark of Cain sticks, especially on campus but also in the minds of our community leaders who need to steer a course clear from the rough rapids that may capsize our boat.

This time a proper investigation has ruled against the PSC. But what of next time? Have we moved into a situation where we will need to spend energy defending ourselves following every event or activity involving Israel that takes place at a public premises. The answer may be to use a different and more private venue. To creep further and further into the shadows and to hope against hope that next time no-one will notice us. And that is exactly the nature of the PSC victory. They want us to consider the impact of their baseless accusations after each and every event so that we think twice before organising the event and so that we reconsider the people we invite.

It’s been a tough year for the community - protests within the hub of our residences, members of cabinet yelling that we control the world, unionist incitement via our inboxes, dock workers refusing to offload Israeli goods, accusations of racial profiling at an event usually renowned for its openness and courage of ideas. On the bright side, however, it’s good to end the year on a positive note. The efforts expended by our students on campus was inspirational and we all owe them a debt of gratitude for not taking this without a fighting response.

Though not involved in Limmud, SAUJS dealt with the consequences of Jews being accused of racial profiling on campus. I caught up with SAUJS National Chairperson Benji Shulman this week. He candidly explained that he was content with how the report revealed the truth despite the PSC’s coordinated lies. “The PSC were exposed and the report showed exactly how they like to operate on campus.”

The saddest part of the ordeal for Shulman was the conduct of the Vice Chancellor, who apologised to the students before waiting for an investigation. However, when there was basis for an apology, after the report ruled that Limmud participants had been abused and insulted, including being called “Nazis” and “child killers”, the Vice Chancellor was not so forthcoming. “This is something you don’t expect at a university” he lamented.

Perhaps not, but I for one wasn’t entirely shocked to read Nongxa’s remarks. Even despite his lashing of Israel, perhaps one can’t read too much into his political views from his statement alone. It’s worth considering the stressful nature of the pressure the PSC and co. placed on him, a pressure which may have forced him into reclaiming his liberal credentials in the simplest way possible – by giving into the anti-Israel line immediately and completely.

The report findings may not be irrelevant, but the true "victors" in this saga should be judged by Nongxa’s immediate and utterly foolish response.

Comments

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

It's the classic 21st century version of
"a fool can ask more questions than a wise man can answer"

to whit ...

" a rabid leftist anti-semite / muslim fanatic masquerading as a humanist/liberal can make more false accusations than can be refuted, let alone that the public will bother to follow up on"

Playing defensively can stop you losing wickets. It will never put a defensible total on the board, nor will it chase down a respectable target.

[Steve]

I thought you would have forgotten what cricket is by now living in Israel for all these years :)

[Lawrence]

Hillel lives in Israel? or do I confuse RF1 with RF2? Does anybody posting up here still live in South Africa?

off-topic - I see that Mandela is going on a circus road trip with Jew-haters Jimmah Carter and Tutu to Egypt. I thought Mandela being very old and frail had retired from political life, but I guess when it comes to Judenhass, it's all too tempting to play to the peanut gallery - one last hoorah perhaps. Of course I doubt any notables in the SA Jewish community have the guts to point out that not only is Mandela a know-nothing dupe and useful idiot of the Jihad like Carter and Tutu, but it follows that like them he is an anti-Semite. You join notorious anti-Semites like Tutu and Carter for an Israel bashing tour aka Middle-East conflict resolution tour or whatever other Orwellian term they want to employ, you are an anti-Semite yourself pure and simple. Mandela remains a sacred cow unfortunately, so don't expect any call it like it is protests from the SAJBD re Mandela here, especially given their endless history of cravenness. Of course Mandela had long ago revealed himself as a dupe for the Jihad (think his buddy buddy affability with Arafat, Gadaffi and Ayatollah Khameni) and anti-Semite, so no surprises here with the latest round of diplomatic Judenhass. The ANC's anti-Semitism is consistent with the anti-Semitism of their most famous son.

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

Sure, Zinn still lives in SA. Makes you think.

[RF2]

We both do Lawrence.

Has anyone approached Nongxa for a response?

To further Steve's point, anyone who thinks that the report was a victory doesn't understand the game. The ganme is not one of who an prove who wrong. Its one of who can make who look bad. Make accusations and you've made your play, refuting such accusations has no effect on the play.

[Shaun]

Yep, looks like it was a little too early to call victory. See the letter in the SA Jewish report from Dr Shereen Usdin.
Facts be damned, anything the Jews to is wrong, anything done against Jews is justified retaliation… See the goldstone report for more details

[Lawrence]

ok so we are all posting and reading the blog from Israel, would the last Jew to leave SA please switch off the lights at the Oxford and Marais Rd synagogues, thank you..

off-topic - Mendel Kaplan died, a great SA Jew who achieved and did so much for Jewry in SA and abroad, in education and in other spheres. Kind of the anti-Goldstone. Article about him in the JPost today
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1258624595372&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Sad that everybody (Jewish or non-Jewish) knows who that kapo Goldstone is, yet the truly great Jews and Zionists today are not common household names with us - Kaplan was such a man.

[Eduard Grebe]

This response to the Budlender report is deluded at best but more probably a shameful distortion. Have you actually read the report? While Advocate Budlender says that racial profiling is not a useful term to describe the behaviour by the CSO, he nevertheless unequivocally condemns the behaviour and states that members of racial groups were treated differently.
This website is a hub of racism and the most vulgar nationalism. It does nothing to combat anti-semitism. Rather, it serves as an outlet for those who are guilty of its correlate and in fact merely fosters the hateful and violence-celebrating behaviours it sees in its opponents. Shame on you.

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

oh, we can't have nationalism. Verboten.

[SOLAR PLEXUS]

To Eduard Grebe: Dear, dear such fastidiousness! I have not come across a popular political website, left or right, in which the comments do not rapidly descend into vulgar abuse with a few outstanding exceptions. It has nothing to do with this website. Yes, Jews are nationalistic - you may wonder why? If not, at least try. And please, do watch out for stereotypes while you're about it.

[Shaun]

Is the desire for Palestinian self determination also regarded as nationalism?

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

While we're on the topic what about the "proudly South African" campaign?

How does a knuckle-dragging inbred from Benoni tell the difference between "vulgar nationalism" and the nice, polite, share-tea-with-your-intellectual-friends sort of nationalism that Eddie thinks is acceptable?

[The Blacklisted Dictator]

Eduard Grebe,

You write: "This website is a hub of racism and the most vulgar nationalism. It does nothing to combat anti-semitism. Rather, it serves as an outlet for those who are guilty of its correlate and in fact merely fosters the hateful and violence-celebrating behaviours it sees in its opponents. Shame on you."

Is this just another standard response from another Aids "activist" in Cape Town? Or is it derived from what they "taught" you on your philosophy course at Stellenbosch?

Is there really no scope for originality in The Cape? Are you all robots force fed by Nathan Geffen??