One would expect more from a professor of law

Ziyad Motala’s article “Lawman erred in exonerating cricketer over his Israel stand” (December 10) alleges that I endorsed David Unterhalter for appointment to the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).

The facts are that the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution (Casac), of which I am the executive secretary, challenged the manner in which the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) conducted interviews for the Constitutional Court in 2021. A settlement agreement provided that the interviews be carried out again, which was duly done. Casac did not go out to bat for any candidate; we successfully challenged the legality of the process.

Similarly, Casac recently asked the JSC for reasons why only two candidates were recommended for appointment to the SCA when four vacancies existed. Once again we did not do so to favour any candidate, but to ensure that the JSC is held accountable for its decisions.

As a professor of law one would expect that Motala would be aware of these facts. Yet he conveniently ignores them in order to denigrate Cricket South Africa and mislead readers. In doing so he infers that I am either tolerant of or a supporter of the Zionist movement. It is churlish of Motala to make such a gratuitous and self-serving assumption, especially with regard to someone he does not know. One would expect more from an academic who expects to be taken seriously.

For the record, as someone steeped in the struggle for liberation, Nelson Mandela’s words, “We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians” resonate deeply with me.

Lawson Naidoo, Cape Town

Open dialogue essential

While acknowledging Ziyad Motala’s intelligence and passion, I must express my concerns about the content of his recent piece.

Motala has unequivocally decided that by defending their country after a horrific massacre, Israel’s soldiers are “brutally enforcing racist and apartheid rule”. Though nothing could be further from the truth, he has a right to believe whatever he wants, logical or not.

I also understand that for guerrilla warfare to succeed it is important to rally opinion against your enemy. Even so, it’ sa bit rich to say that voicing support for the Israeli army in its fight against savage and barbaric terrorism is tantamount to “tolerating views based on violent enforcement of racial superiority”.

I am concerned that the publication of this article may inadvertently convey the message that certain perspectives are deemed intolerable. I believe it is essential to encourage open dialogue and constructive debate, even on contentious issues. By publishing a range of perspectives, your newspaper can contribute to a more nuanced understanding of complex geopolitical situations and facilitate meaningful discussions among your readership. Alan Menachemson, Germiston Hate speech by Motala, not cricketer Firstly, your editorial indicated that after the initial articles regarding the Israel/ Gaza war no more articles would be published on this divisive complex issue. However, you published a blatantly divisive article by Ziyad Motala.

Ironically Ziyad attributes the speech a young Jewish cricketer made at a Jewish Awards ceremony to “hate speech”, when it is Mr Motala’s article which is full of “hate speech” and misinformation.

Not sure how Mr Motala, as a law professor, is able to discuss the law in a balanced way [with] his students.

He says “boundaries of freedom of speech in context of sports representation prohibit hate speech or any enforcement of racial, ethnic or religious superiority”.

[He also says that] Zionism is “a political ideology of racism” and advocate Wim Trengove’s support for David Unterhalter (an avid Zionist) for appointment to the Supreme Court of Appeal is not worthy as it is racist.

Is Mr Motala aware that the IDF (Israel’s army) is made up of all civilians of age, including Arab Israelis and African

Israelis? Is he aware that a large percentage of the Israel football team are Arabs?

While Israel established a state in 1948, a Palestinian state was not established but that territory was administered by Jordan and Egypt. While 700,000 Arabs fled or were driven out due to the 1948 war in which Israel was attacked for establishing a Jewish state on the land they were allocated in the partition, 850,000 Jews were expelled from Arab lands due to this war and their homes/businesses [and other property] confiscated.

So Mr Motala, if Zionism (an Israel state) is racist so is a Palestinian state racist or any Arab state with an Arab majority population.

In closing, Mr Motala, what you are implying is that either no Jew should be eligible to represent their country in sport or an appeal/constitutional court or that they should not align as a “Zionist”, [and] support Israel as Jewish state and its right to live in peace. Nadine Jocum, via e-mail

● Motala’s article was published because it raised a sufficiently different issue, of the limits of freedom of expression — Editor.

Rest in peace, Zahara

Zahara, our local music icon, has passed away; what sad and devastating news. Rest in peace our multi-award winning songstress and guitarist from the Eastern Cape.

She is no longer with us but her entertaining and well-received music will long live on. Thanks for blessing us with your great talent coming from humble beginnings. What a pity your life has been cut short.

Hamba kahle Bulelwa Mtukuwana — you will be sorely missed. Simon T Dehal, Verulam

Write to PO Box 1742, Saxonwold 2132; SMS 33662; e-mail: tellus@sundaytimes.co.za. All mail should be accompanied by a street address and phone number. The Editor reserves the right to cut letters