Politics Comes for Sports

Let’s talk about a sport that leaves many of our readers scratching their heads: cricket. Against the background of South Africa’s claims of Israeli genocide, the South African under-19s national team announced late last week that team captain David Teeger — who is Jewish — won’t be leading the side, ostensibly to prevent “conflict or violence” occurring during the tournament. This was not a shot out of the blue: At the beginning of the war, Teeger spoke up for Israeli soldiers. So, is this just rank bigotry and anti-Semitism, or something more subtle?

I think it’s as raw and as crude as rank anti-Semitism. Of course, people like that will seek to make the distinction that we’ve got no problem with Jews — we’ve just got a problem with Israel, the IDF, and Zionism. It’s what South Africa’s minister of justice said while speaking in the Hague: We’ve got no problem with the Jewish community in South Africa, we’ve just got a problem with Israel. But my answer to that is, we are Israel. Our connection to Israel is part of our Jewish identity, it’s inseparable, and our enemies know it.

I know David Teeger — he’s a very fine boy, a proud Jew. He’s shomer Shabbos and kashrus. When he received the award for his sports achievement, it was a few weeks after October 7, and he dedicated it to the soldiers of the IDF. He said they are the true heroes. And then there was an outcry from the anti-Israel people, because he’s the captain of the under-19 South African cricket team. Cricket South Africa — the sport’s governing body — then held an inquiry to see whether he had contravened the players’ code of conduct, and the inquiry found that he had not contravened anything.

So, we thought the issue was closed, and then on Friday they made this announcement, which they blamed on security concerns. But it’s just lies. Cricket South Africa is infiltrated by people who are very anti-Israel, and this decision is pure politics. It’s anti-Israel and disgraceful persecution of Jews.

Given the high profile of professional sports, a move such as this matters because of the signal that it sends that Jews are fair game. What can be done to reverse the decision?

The International Cricket Council — the international governing body for the sport — should have a look at this. It’s one of their cardinal rules, that you can’t have political interference in selection, and this is the ultimate example of that. One of the main opposition parties in South Africa, the Democratic Alliance, has called for an inquiry into this, because the security claim can’t be the reason. You can’t start determining selection policies because of intimidation. That is the death knell of sport and of civilized society. So, of course, this is the way the enemies of Israel work. They really are the enemies of democracy and freedom in the world. So they work by fear and intimidation.

Many people who remember Nelson Mandela, and all his talk of a forward-looking South Africa can’t understand how his party, the ANC, has descended to such depths. How did it happen?

This is no longer the party of Nelson Mandela, but they’re cleverly using his brand. The ANC has historically always been close to the Palestinian cause, so there’s nothing new in that. But what is new is the level of this affiliation, making common cause with Hamas and Iran. And just to give it context, within a week of October 7, the South African foreign minister was in Tehran for discussions with the Iranian government. The first time that President Ramaphosa mentioned the idea of Israel being guilty of genocide, he announced it in Qatar. The ANC welcomed an official delegation of Hamas in 2007. Hamas has had official presence in South Africa for all of these years.

What’s clear is that it’s an election year, and with the ANC polling below 50 percent, the kind of global prominence that they’re getting is serving to distract from the problems in South Africa, of which there are many and for which they are directly responsible.

South Africa is operating as a kind of Iranian proxy, fighting the war of words and ideas and using the United Nations, which we all know is a corrupt institution dominated by dictatorships. The Iranians and South Africans very cleverly use two things in this assault on Israel: They use the ANC’s historic struggle against apartheid, which gives it a veneer of respectability. They lean on that brand, and they also lean on the brand of the United Nations.

Undercutting the UN

You recently spoke out very strongly against the United Nations, saying that the organization “has a credibility it doesn’t deserve,” and is “a threat to freedom and democracy.” No one who has seen the anti-Israel bigotry spewed at the UN will argue with that, but how realistic is it to expect such an enormous institution to be put in its place?

It’s not a matter of whether to disband the UN or not; my point was more nuanced than that. You know, those judges wear their robes, they look judicial, but beneath the surface, it’s just raw politics masquerading under the direction of the UN General Assembly with the veneer of law. The UN is an organization that the dictatorships use as a tool to weaken free democracies. The West needs to understand that there’s a power play in the world. Iran, China and Russia are building alliances globally. They seek the defeat of democracy and freedom.

Do you think that Israel should have refused to argue its case in front of the ICJ in the Hague?

I don’t have all the facts available to me like the Israeli prime minister does, but yes, I believe that in appearing before the ICJ, you are actually playing into the hands of the anti-Israel front because you are conceding that this is a court. We’re going to arrive there in our gowns and wigs, and we’re going to present as if this is some sort of a real court, which it’s not. It’s just the UN in another form, and they’re going to dress it up in some kind of a legal opinion, but it’s just pure politics and should be treated as such.

I do not believe that Israel should even present in such a forum. I think the Israeli team did an excellent job, but by presenting there, you grant them legitimacy. These are judgment calls, but the cost of granting legitimacy to the International Court of Justice, in my opinion, is greater than the benefit you get from presenting your case. You need to find another forum for doing so.

Democracies Are Different

Let me raise some really breathtaking comments you made and discuss their implications. At a pro-Israel community rally a week after the October 7 attacks, you excoriated the South African government, saying, “You are not South Africa. You don’t own this country. Your party tried to steal it. They shame themselves. They will be judged by history and G-d for their support of evil. They haven’t found a tyranny they don’t support.”

By any standards, these are very strong words — all the more so from a chief rabbi against a government. Is that a wise course of action — does it not risk blowback against the community?

The one thing that people need to understand about South Africa is that despite the fact that the ANC government keeps close company with Russia, China, Iran, and Hamas — unlike these countries, South Africa is a true democracy in the fullest sense of the word. It is a 100 percent free society, which means I can criticize the government without any fear of any retribution.

Elections are free and fair; there’s a very robust press, a very independent judiciary that often strikes down government actions. It is a very, very free society, which also makes the support for these tyrannical organizations and regimes a betrayal of its own constitution.

So, the point that I was making is that there’s a difference between the government and the people of South Africa. When the advocates stood up at the Hague last week wearing their South African flags as scarves in the courtroom and said that they represent the people of South Africa, I find that offensive. They have no mandate to represent the people of South Africa; this is just ANC policy.

South African Jews were disproportionately involved in the liberation from apartheid. Not only historically, but currently, South African Jews are disproportionately involved in the building up of the modern post-apartheid South Africa. The idea of living in a constitutional democracy is that there is a difference between the government of the day and the country. And that is what was at the heart of that speech.

You went beyond words, changing the traditional tefillah for the welfare of the government recited in shuls on Shabbos to make it clear that it was for the country, not the government.

Correct, because the speech articulated a very important intellectual and philosophical point: the difference between the government of the day and the country.

And it was around that philosophical point that I also altered the prayer for the country, removing the government reference. We pray for shelom hamalchus. Not malchus in the narrow sense of government, but the malchus meaning the society as a whole, the realm, not the political party who happens to be the ruling party today.

How has that line gone down with the opinion makers of South Africa?

You know, I think the Jewish community have had a lot of positive feedback from it. This is unarguable. That is the nature of a constitutional democracy. At the heart of it is, there is a difference between the government and the nation.

Rabbinic Leadership

Surely thousands of years of galus history has taught us that Jewish communities should keep their heads down and refrain from confronting host governments? That’s especially a question when it comes to rabbinic leadership — is it not a rabbi’s job to tend to his community and leave others to deal with the great battle over democracy?

I think there is a major distinction between a situation where a rabbi lives in a free country and one where he lives in a dictatorship. In a dictatorship, you can’t criticize the government because there’s absolute power. You’re utterly vulnerable. If you’re living in a country where you need the goodwill of the president in which you live, of the country in which you live, you’re by definition living in a very vulnerable state. And that’s not safe. So if you can get out of it, you must. Because it’s not safe to be in a place where you’re at the whim of a dictator.

One of the great blessings of the modern world that HaKadosh Baruch Hu has given to Klal Yisrael is that the vast majority of the Jewish people live in free democracies. There is a tremendous safety and security that comes from that. The fundamental structure of a free society is that your freedom comes not from the goodwill of the government but from the structure of society. And if that structure gives way, then anyway you’re not safe, so then you need to get out.

South Africa remains a free constitutional democracy with independent courts and a free press and the freedom of association and free speech. And I’m proof of that because this is not the first time I’ve done this. Under the previous leader, President Jacob Zuma at the height of his power, I joined the civil society movement to call for his removal from power.

Democracy means that the government expects to be challenged. It’s part of the rules of the game. Democracy is a very modern phenomenon. It’s a completely different world in which we’re living, and therefore there is a different set of rules in terms of that.

Has the community not suffered as a result of your confrontational stand?

No, because what can the government do? You cannot persecute Jews, because that is in violation of every clause of the Constitution. If the government were to do that, you take them the independent courts. And if they override the courts, well, then, you don’t live in a democracy, so you’d better get out.

What went through your mind as you delivered that stinging criticism?

I had a sense that it was my responsibility as a leader to guide my community through the double trauma of what Israel went through on October 7 and of a government that then sides with our enemies. That’s part of my responsibility as a leader: to help frame that for people and provide a Torah lens with which to understand what is going on. The imperative of speaking out, I believe, is the mitzvah of kiddush Hashem. Because when there is rishus, and there’s silence, then that itself is a chillul Hashem.

There’s also an imperative of pikuach nefesh of Klal Yisrael as a whole. Diaspora communities can all support Israel from where we are, but you can’t support Israel in private. When people call me with messages of private support from outside the Jewish community, my first response is: Don’t tell me, please make a public statement about it. It makes us all safer to get into the public domain, to articulate the case for Israel. When people accuse Klal Yisrael of genocide, that is a chilul Hashem. It’s disgraceful, it’s false, it’s evil, but we have to answer those claims. We can’t just say, “They’ll say whatever they say.” No, we have to get into the public space.

On the side of ruchniyus, We’ve had a tremendous chizuk, many tefillah gatherings, including Yom Kippur Katan, big Torah learning events. That has to be complemented also with explaining what is going on in the world.

Your own rabbinic career has seen those two elements come to the fore: You’re well-known for founding the global Shabbos Project, as well as high-profile interventions on behalf of Israel. Where do you draw the inspiration for that broad vision of rabbinic leadership from?

It’s part of the mesorah that I received from our rosh yeshivah, Rav Azriel Chaim Goldfine ztz”l, who was a talmid muvhak of Rav Mordechai Gifter. When I was appointed as chief rabbi, he gave me a copy of the biography of Rav Chaim Ozer. And his message to me was that Rav Chaim Ozer was involved in every aspect of life in Vilna. He didn’t say, well, I’ll just look after you in shul and in the beis medrash. He took on responsibility for the fullness of Jewish life. I see rabbanus as achrayus, which means implementing the Torah’s approach to everything. When we talk about society and human rights, we’re talking about how humanity needs to conduct itself, so Klal Yisrael has a view on that that can be communicated. That has to be done in the public domain, because if it’s not done in the public domain, where do you do it?

Your PhD thesis became a book subtitled Jewish Law’s Vision for a Moral Society, exploring themes of Judaism and human rights, so the Torah viewpoint on freedom is something of a signature theme. Why is that?

It’s because I passionately believe in a Torah which is big. The Torah is everything — as Chazal tell us, Hashem looked into the Torah and created the world. The full meaning of that is there is a Torah hashkafah on everything. We can’t compartmentalize our lives and say, okay, in shul we are Torah Jews. We need to see ourselves as carrying HaKadosh Baruch Hu and the Torah with us wherever we go. And that means big vision, and I’ve tried to do that in my chief rabbinate, not see it just as an ambassadorial, ceremonial role. Turn it into something that has impact and looks after the kehillah and is big and broad.

Hasbarah Needs Help

Returning to the Hague where the anti-Israel struggle has assumed the form of lawfare — the use of legal intimidation to prevent Israel achieving its strategic aims — what does this encounter show about the wider war as it plays out across the West?

I think that the global protests are not spontaneous. It’s coordinated, funded, and driven by Iran, and Qatar. They have recognized that the battle that is physically fought on the battlefields of Gaza is actually only part of the battle. There’s another battle that is fought, which is public opinion and political pressure. And what’s happening at the Hague is exactly that. It’s just another front to assault Israel. It’s not law, it’s just politics. And it’s being used in that same way. And therefore the Jewish world — and the State of Israel itself needs to undergo a paradigm shift in how it thinks about getting its message out.

The term hasbarah is just not strong enough a term in my opinion. It is a matter of national security to win the battle of ideas. And we have to give equal attention to that as we would give to the IDF, because the IDF has the firepower to win all of these battles. But if we don’t win the battle of ideas and public opinion, both internally within the Jewish People and externally with the Western allies of Israel, that has a direct impact on the ability to win the war. —

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 995)