It does no good to deny antisemitism exists at UCT:
Accusing your opponents of precisely the kind of misconduct that your own side is in reality palpably guilty of is a standard rhetorical ploy. Politicians are adept at it and unfortunately so are many public intellectuals, including university academics. Leslie London’s opinion piece of 3 September is an instance of this kind of rhetorical sleight of hand.
The article is a response to a previous piece of mine that appeared in the Daily Maverick on 18 July. London’s basic thesis is that those reporting on escalating levels of antisemitism at UCT are essentially fabricating such claims as a way of silencing voices critical of Israel. Why this amounts to a fairly obvious act of misdirection on his part is that precisely the opposite has in fact been happening. Whereas critics of Israel on UCT campus pretty much enjoy free rein, the harassment, intimidation and virulent abuse directed at those who dare to dissent from their views amounts to their voices being sidelined and silenced.
Contrary to those who charge Jews/Zionists with seeking to conflate any criticism of Israel with antisemitism, neither the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) nor any of the mainstream Jewish leadership in South Africa are using this as a stratagem to shut down debate. It is accepted that the right to freedom of expression means people can express whatever views they like about Israel, however extreme they may be. That right does not, however, amount to a license to deny that self-same right to those who wish to express a dissenting view. It also does not legitimate threatening their safety, violating their dignity or unfairly discriminating against them in any way. And because the vast majority of Jews in South Africa to varying degrees support and identify with Israel (something attested to by a range of credible academic studies), it is primarily Jewish people to whom I am referring here.
London points out that he has not experienced antisemitism, either directed towards himself or at others, in his more than 30 years at UCT as evidence that claims of rising antisemitism at the institution should not be taken seriously. One does not need to be a genius, however, to know that Jews who (like him) say what are deemed by the self-styled progressive left to be the “right” things about Israel are safe from the kind of targeted abuse that other Jews who speak out for the Jewish state are routinely subjected to. His invoking his own experiences regarding antisemitism at UCT to dismiss concerns other Jews are expressing is therefore pretty much meaningless.
According to the caricature that London seeks to create, the public is being told to uncritically believe that antisemitism has been on the rise at UCT simply because the SAJBD tells them that this is the case. As he puts it, “if the SAJBD, which claims to represent the Jewish community, says an incident is antisemitic, then it is so”. He further remarks that the only evidence I produce for there being an upsurge of antisemitism at UCT is “the ‘dossier’ of complaints the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) has ‘compiled’”. Well, the SAJBD knows the situation for Jewish students at UCT has deteriorated not through its own arbitrary, self-serving definitions as London alleges but because of the on-the-ground experiences and first hand testimonies of the affected students themselves.
When young Jewish people demonstrate in solidarity with Israel after the worst mass killing of Jews since the Holocaust, taunting them with shouts of “We are Hamas” and “October 7 will happen again” is not “only criticism” of Israel; it amounts to a hate crime. It is likewise a hate crime when a Jewish student at a prayer gathering for Israel has his yarmulka struck from his head and thrown in the waste bin.
Beyond the physical assault aspect, it constitutes a deliberate act of humiliating and demeaning someone through desecrating a core and easily recognisable part of his religious identity. It is not okay when Jewish students who express support for Israel are slapped, spat at or receive threatening phone calls. Sending text messages conveying such sentiments as “you f**king b*tch” and “I will place your photo all over this campus you p**s” cannot be explained away as being “only criticism” of Israel. The same is true regarding ripping posters from the hands of Jewish students engaging in their right to peacefully demonstrate, or destroying posters that the representative body for Jewish students on campus have put up.
These are some of the incidents — first-hand testimony from those who had experienced them directly — that have been recorded at UCT since the 7 October 2023 massacre. They speak not to theoretical debates over which of the various definitions of antisemitism that are being bandied about is the correct one but the lived reality of many Jewish students on campus. By way of reminder, the thrust of London’s article is that false allegations of antisemitism are being resorted to as a means of suppressing criticism of Israel at UCT. But according to what is actually happening on the ground, which side is it whose views are being consistently suppressed? To charge those who protest against the bullying and intimidating into silence of anyone who dares to put forward a pro-Israel narrative with seeking to suppress voices that are critical of Israel is not just preposterous but dishonest.
No matter how one tries to spin it, what has been to an unacceptable degree allowed to unfold at UCT is the de facto targeting of Jews for expressing what has always been a core aspect of mainstream Jewish identity and belief, namely attachment to the land and people of Israel and to the ideals of Zionism. It is neither logically coherent nor morally acceptable to assure Jews on the one hand that when it comes to practising their religious traditions or other aspects of traditional Jewish culture, they will be protected and respected, but when it comes to Israel and Zionism, they must expect it to be open season against them. Disagree with those beliefs if you will, but responding with vitriolic insults, threats and even physical violence clearly crosses the line.
That a problem of antisemitism has arisen at UCT can hardly be denied, but the extent of the problem should not be overstated either. London asserts that according to me UCT “is awash with antisemitism”, but that is another common rhetorical sleight of hand on his part, one where the opposing side are made out to be extremist and irrational through purposefully overstating what they are supposedly saying. What I actually wrote was “UCT has [also] reportedly witnessed a significant increase in antisemitic attacks”, which is hardly the same thing.
That being said, when measured against what is happening at other universities in the country, it is a reality that in recent years UCT has been the campus where Jews have experienced by some way the highest levels of hostility. That is continually being attested to by those who experience it on the ground and is an issue that the university needs to confront. Far from being part of any potential solution, those who not only deny there is anything to be concerned about but charge the Jewish leadership with inventing such claims for their own immoral purposes share much of the culpability for the problem having arisen in the first place.
There is one more rhetorical ploy that London uses and because it is aimed at me I would like to address it. This concerns my being charged with supposedly “stepping up to the plate to serve the Netanyahu government”. In response, I would remind London that discourse of this nature can quite easily be turned on its head. I could, for instance, rejoin that it is rather a case of his furthering the agenda of the tyrannical, genocidal Hamas regime, one that in launching a terror attack of unprecedented barbarity against Israel has plunged the entire region into the most prolonged and destructive war in decades and brought untold destruction upon their own society. Since two can play this kind of game it is advisable rather not to play it at all but simply stick to the issues.
David Saks is a former associate director and now consultant to the South African Jewish Board of Deputies.
Upgraded Audi A3 is sportier than ever and shines in every department:
The word “premium” gets thrown around almost too much in the motoring industry these days — so much so that we actually forget what it means.
Because every manufacturer is talking about premium interiors, sporty exteriors and unmatched drives we forget what actually makes a car good or bad.
I don’t dispute that it is great to see things like advanced driver assistance systems in cars that cost less than R500 000 — and even heated seats and ambient lighting. In a way, it is good that some manufacturers are giving consumers excellent value for money and, at the same time, it is also the kick up the backside that legacy brands needed to start offering more to their consumers.
But, features aside, it’s about how a vehicle can move you from point A to point B. How comfortable and responsive the drive is, how effortless the handling feels and how beautiful it feels to drive the car.
I normally start these reviews by going through the exterior but this time we are going to start with the drive.
I had the Audi A3 35 TFSI Black Edition Sedan on test for a week and, every time I drove it, I could comfortably sit back and tell myself that this is what a premium compact car should feel like.
It was refined, it was agile and it leaned into corners very well, which added a sporty element to the car.
I drove it on different highways around Gauteng and, although it doesn’t fall into the category of a performance car, because the 1.4 litre turbocharged engine makes 110kW and 250Nm of torque, it still has an exciting and fresh feeling to it.
It holds its own on the road extremely well, and has the power to give you the quick boosts you might need when overtaking, while maintaining a very posh and refined ride at the same time.
The suspension is firm, but for me, the agility of the vehicle is what extends it past the poshness and allows you to also have a fun driving experience.
The only issue I had was that the car is extremely low and that meant I had to go over large speedbumps at an angle and watch how I pulled out of driveways.
The exterior
When I said that legacy brands needed a kick, I meant it. Audi has done extremely well to make the exterior look aggressive and attractive.
The hexagonal, frameless singleframe features a new structure that is noticeably flatter and wider. It dominates the front end and, in addition to the large angular side air-intakes, enhances the compact models’ sporty character.
The car is also flatter and wider and the lighting design in the front is significantly thin. A very cool feature is that you can change the pattern of the daytime running lights according to your preference. You might be able to confuse a few friends if you use a new shape every time you meet them.
The rear has a refreshed bumper and distinctive diffuser.
Overall, Audi has kept it clean, but also added an element of sportiness and it really makes the A3 stand out.
The interior
The interior also gives off a sporty feel with bucket seats that are extremely comfortable.
The new blade design, the outer surface of which is finished in chrome, makes the air vents in the climate-control package appear thinner, emphasising the width of the cockpit. The centre console has been redesigned and given a new finish.
We had the Black Edition, so we also had the privilege of lovely red stitching along the dash.
I also love that Audi has integrated the infotainment system into the dash instead of planting a tablet on top of it. It feels as if everything was designed for driver convenience.
The buttons below the infotainment system are helpful as it means there is not too much emphasis on the infotainment system.
The ambient lighting along the door panels finishes off a very sexy interior.
For a hatch and compact sedan, the space in the front is ample, but backseat passengers might feel a little suffocated by the lack of room.
Safety
The Audi A3 35 TFSI Black Edition comes with a comprehensive suite of active and passive safety features, many of which come standard across the A3 line.
These include automatic emergency braking; lane-departure warning; park assist with parking aid plus; traction and stability control and multi-collision braking system.
Optional safety features include adaptive cruise control, blind-spot monitoring and rear emergency braking.
Pricing and verdict
The Audi A3 is available in sedan and sportback versions. The sportback starts from R808 200 and goes up to R834 500 for the Black Edition, while the sedan is priced at R823 200 and goes up to R849 500 for the Black Edition.
The Audi A3 holds its own in the compact premium segment extremely well. It does everything right, from interior to exterior, and provides a polished driving experience.
However, the only problem is that BMW has priced the 1 Series M Sport under R800 000 and the price tag on the Mercedes-Benz A-Class AMG line is well below that of the Audi A3 Black Editions.
Even though those prices could affect how the A3 does in the South African market, Audi has delivered an excellent product.
The United Nations at 80: Real reform or ritual?:
The United Nations turns 80 at a time when its relevance is under sharper question than at any point since its founding. Conceived in the ashes of global war, the UN was meant to embody collective security and the promise of universal cooperation. Today, it stumbles under financial arrears of more than $ 5 billion, paralysis in its Security Council and growing reliance on mini-lateral groupings that deliver expedient crisis management, but erode global legitimacy.
Secretary General António Guterres’s “UN80” initiative is framed as an efficiency exercise, a tidying up of mandates, budgets and bureaucratic processes. But the real question is far more profound — can the UN reclaim authority and purpose in a fractured world order? Or will this anniversary be remembered as another hollow reform cycle, long on rhetoric, short on impact?
What reform should actually mean
It is tempting for governments to conflate reform with cosmetic changes. Drafting new committees, reshuffling mandates and adopting aspirational declarations are familiar rituals. Real reform, however, would touch the political nerve of the organisation, its financing, its mandate discipline, its representational legitimacy and its operational delivery.
It requires financing with teeth, because the UN’s credibility cannot rest on whether major donors decide to pay their dues on time. Chronic arrears, especially when used deliberately as leverage, undermine both planning and independence. Reform worth the name would impose strict consequences on non-payers, enforce Article 19 suspensions without exception and link contributions to measurable outcomes, preventive diplomacy, humanitarian delivery and peacekeeping effectiveness. Without predictable funding, “multilateralism” remains an empty slogan.
It requires mandate rationalisation, because the more than 40 000 standing mandates weigh the secretariat down, many of them obsolete. Resources that should be directed toward crisis prevention and mediation are instead consumed by reporting cycles on long-forgotten resolutions. Reform should include mandatory sunset clauses, periodic reviews and a willingness to retire the dead weight. A lighter, sharper UN would be one that spends less time producing paper and more time saving lives.
It requires representation that reflects reality, because the Security Council, the crown jewel of the post-war order, is dangerously misaligned with today’s global balance. Africa, Latin America and much of Asia remain underrepresented, while the veto power of the — those with a permanent seat: China, France, Russia, the UK and US — entrenches paralysis.
Reform cannot mean simply adding more permanent members with the same privileges, since that risks replicating the current dysfunction at a larger scale. Models of regional rotation, time-bound seats or limited veto carve-outs tied to humanitarian need would bring flexibility and accountability, while still preserving decision-making capacity.
It requires operational partnerships, because reform is not only about structure, but about delivery. Mini-lateral arrangements are proliferating precisely because they appear faster and more pragmatic. If the UN wants to remain central, it must show results through structured partnerships with regional organisations like the African Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Predictable financing for AU-led operations, embedded joint planning and burden-sharing agreements would make the UN indispensable again, not for its symbolism, but for its outcomes.
The political obstacles
These reforms are straightforward to list, but formidable to enact. That is because the obstacles are not technical, but political.
Let’s face it, there are great power games. The US, China, Russia and others treat arrears, vetoes and mandates, not as flaws, but as instruments of control. Expecting them to voluntarily relinquish these tools is wishful thinking. Calls for accountability often collide with the raw calculus of power.
Let’s face it, cynicism prevails among the middle-power countries. Many states in the Global South rightly demand representation, but their coalitions are rarely cohesive. Regional rivalries mean that bids for permanent seats become competitions rather than common causes. Reform debates, as a result, frequently stall in procedural wrangling.
And let’s face it, the UN suffers from institutional inertia, because the Secretariat has itself grown adept at managing processes without delivering change, with endless working groups, reviews and consensus drafts consuming energy, while structural imbalances remain untouched. Unfortunately, the culture of the UN often prizes survival over transformation.
History is littered with examples of reform cycles that ended in disappointment, for example, the 2000 Brahimi Report on peace operations promised a revolution in UN capacity, but was largely neutered by budgetary and political resistance. The 2005 World Summit raised hopes for major change, but delivered incremental adjustments. Scepticism, therefore, is not cynicism, but realism.
Why UN80 might be different — or not
And yet, there is something distinctive about this moment. The UN is closer than ever to insolvency, its legitimacy deficit is acute and global trust in multilateralism is eroding, visible in the rise of ad hoc coalitions, transactional diplomacy and populist disdain for international institutions. If UN80 fails, the danger is not merely another missed opportunity, but an accelerated slide into irrelevance.
That urgency could be catalytic. Clear, outcome-based reform, retiring obsolete mandates, enforcing payment discipline, embedding regional partnerships, would have visible impact and restore some faith in collective action. Even modest changes, if measurable, could shift perceptions. A UN that demonstrates it can adapt might still persuade publics and governments alike that it is indispensable.
But the risks of failure are high. If UN80 devolves into another round of ritualised declarations, the narrative of dysfunction will harden. The UN could become less the table at which the world gathers than the museum in which its aspirations are remembered.
A fork in the road
The UN at 80 stands at a crossroads. The easier path is familiar: statements of principle, incremental adjustments and a slow drift into irrelevance. The harder path requires political courage that confronts arrears with enforcement, prunes mandates with discipline and rebalances power with fairness. Reform is not about efficiency for its own sake, it is about authority, legitimacy and survival.
The test for UN80 is whether member states can move beyond rhetoric and sacrifice a measure of control for the sake of credibility. That is a high bar in a world where power is jealously guarded and multilateralism is too often instrumentalised.
The United Nations was founded on a promise of shared responsibility. Eight decades on, it must decide whether that promise can still be made real. If reform delivers prevention over paralysis, fairness over privilege and results over rhetoric, the UN might yet reclaim relevance. If not, its 80th anniversary risks being remembered not as a renewal, but as a eulogy.
Daryl Swanepoel is the chief executive officer of the Inclusive Society Institute. This article draws on the institute’s report published under the title “Reform UN80: Renewal or decline? The future of multilateralism at the United Nations’ 80th anniversary”.
Submit and get free exposure here: Showcase Your Business | Advertise Your Special Offers.
