Professor Mendelsohn sues antizionist Choritz for defamation

When Professor Adam Mendelsohn took the University of Cape Town (UCT) to court over its anti-Israel resolutions, he showed that he is unafraid of standing up to discrimination. Now, he is suing Jewish antizionist agitator Megan Choritz for defamation. 

The sheriff of the court served Choritz on Thursday, 18 June. Choritz is a member of antizionist hate movement SA Jews for a Free Palestine, which calls for the obliteration of the Jewish State. The summons refers to two instances in which Choritz allegedly defamed Mendelsohn, in response to his inaugural lecture at UCT in April. 

In the first incident, she alleged in a TikTok video that Mendelsohn is “a supporter of Israel’s genocide” and “an Islamophobe”, and asked why he is “allowed a voice” and is not “criticised, stopped, and deplatformed”. 

In the second, Choritz said in an article on the blogging platform Substack that “there is no word for what Mendelsohn and his friends are … these Zionists do not fear Muslims, they hate them. Their hatred looks and sounds exactly like antisemitism.” 

She stated that “letting his lecture happen without protest gives him and his hateful, racist views legitimacy” and that “Mendelsohn’s Zionist paranoia, fragile feelings, and bad faith slurring of antizionists needs to be challenged at every opportunity”. 

Also in the Substack post, she wrote that “According to them [Mendelsohn and ‘friends’], every Muslim is Hamas. Every antizionist is a Hamas supporter.” 

The summons states that both claims were published for the general public, and would have been seen by a considerable number of people. It says the statements in their ordinary meaning are defamatory of the plaintiff, Mendelsohn. 

According to the summons, people reading or hearing Choritz’s statements would understand that Mendelsohn is supportive of the crime of genocide; that he fears, hates, and discriminates against Islam and the people of the Muslim faith in general; and that he is the kind of person who should not be permitted to speak in public, including at UCT. 

They would understand that Mendelsohn believes every person who is opposed to Zionism is a supporter of Hamas; that he is a racist and holds hateful, racist views; and is paranoid, acts in bad faith, and is irrational. 

The summons says “the statements were published by the defendant wrongfully and with the intention of injuring the plaintiff in his reputation”. 

It states that Mendelsohn has suffered damages in the amount of R500 000, which Choritz, despite demand, has failed or refused to pay. 

Mendelsohn is claiming R250 000 per claim, and interest on these amounts from the date of judgment to date of payment at the prescribed rate of 10.25% per year. 

He is also asking the court to order Choritz to make an unconditional apology, which is to be published in a manner and form to be determined by the court. Further or alternative relief would be legal costs. 

Choritz has called for Zionists to be “made unsafe”, “isolated”, and “kicked out of spaces”, and said they are “Nazis” who must be “made uncomfortable” and “unwelcome”. She has stood next to a banner with the words “We are All Hamas” and said that Zionists are “not real Jews”. 

She stated that Nova festival victims were “getting shitfaced alongside the walls of the prison of Gaza”. 

Choritz has said, “It is impossible to separate racism from Zionism. Zionists are racists. Zionists are supremacists. Zionists only value Jewish lives. Palestinians are just problems that need to die, including innocent children.” 

In the post on Substack described in the summons, Choritz stated that Mendelsohn would use his lecture to “generate more hate and division”. 

On the same day that she was served, she wrote on Substack that she encountered “Jewish parents of Herzlia kids,” at a theatre, and that the Jewish parents have “an absolute inability to be human beings”. 

Emma Sadleir, an expert on print and electronic media law, including the disciplinary and reputational consequences of social media use, told the SA Jewish Report that “there’s no question that there is defamation” in Choritz’s content targeting Mendelsohn. 

Sadleir explains that to successfully sue somebody for defamation, you must show three things. The first is the statement must have been published, that is, seen by another person. “So even if it’s on a WhatsApp group, we treat it as if it’s on the front page of a newspaper. Clearly, this content was seen by a lot of people.” 

The statement must refer to the person or company directly or indirectly. In Choritz’s content, “the professor is named, so this requirement is met”, says Sadleir. 

The third requirement is that it must be defamatory. “To say that somebody supports ‘genocide’ and is an Islamophobe ‒ no question that’s defamation.” 

Sadleir explains that the person defending the comments needs to prove that what they’ve said is true and of benefit to the public. “It’s not just what’s interesting to the public, it’s actual public benefit.” 

“It’s not for the professor to come and show that what has been said about him is not true,” says Sadleir. “The onus is on Choritz to explain and show proof that what she said is true, and I think that that’s going to be difficult to prove.” 

She says that Choritz styled what she said as factual, so she would have to prove truth and public benefit. “The other [possible] defence is fair comment, but she would have to show that what she said is an opinion, and I don’t think she styled it like that. She would have to show that it’s her opinion based on a true event, and that she’s not motivated by malice. I think she will struggle to do that.” 

Sadleir says social media might feel like an unregulated space, but the same laws apply. 

Cape South African Jewish Board of Deputies (Cape SAJBD) executive director Daniel Bloch says that while the courts will determine the merits of this case, “we support the principle that all individuals are entitled to the protection of their reputation and dignity under the law. Those who unlawfully defame others should be held accountable through the appropriate legal processes.” 

He says that in recent years, some Jewish antizionists have been “prominent voices in targeting members of the Jewish community, communal institutions, and organisations through harmful allegations”. 

Regardless of who makes such allegations, “when statements are alleged to be false and defamatory, those affected are entitled to seek appropriate legal remedies through the courts”, says Bloch. 

The Cape SAJBD condemns all forms of hatred, intimidation, and discrimination. “We remain committed to promoting respectful public discourse and to ensuring that disagreements, including those relating to the Middle East, are conducted within the bounds of the law and with respect for the rights and dignity of all people.” 

Mendelsohn told the SA Jewish Report he is unable to comment. 

The SA Jewish Report also asked Choritz to comment, but didn’t receive a response by the time of going to press.