We shall not perish1 …….

Israel’s right to exist ……

Preface

This is the second article in the series covering key concepts of Zionism and my critical awareness of
these ideas as I developed from being a Zionist Jewish South African to becoming an anti-Zionist
Jewish South African. The first article in this series introduces who I am and what I have become by
way of a background sketch. It is a useful introduction to the ideas and concepts that I will discuss in
the present article.

The Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement has established itself as part of the
Palestinian struggle for freedom from Israeli apartheid and colonialism. BDS’s three cardinal demands
are an end to the occupation (including dismantling the apartheid wall), full equality for Palestinian
citizens of Israel, and the right of Palestinian Refugees to return to their homes (as stipulated by
United Nations Resolution 194).

The State of Israel regularly responds to its BDS critics and opponents by claiming that they deny its
right to exist and are therefore antisemites (racists). However, none of the 193 sovereign states that
are members of the United Nations has a right to exist.

This article attempts to answer two questions. What is meant by ‘right to exist’; and, what role did it
play in the development of Zionism in my town and my own development as a young Zionist? In doing
this it places the development of these concepts within a framework of ideological struggle. Closely
linked to the right to exist are other concepts, which will form the substance of forthcoming articles.
The next article will cover our critique of the right to exist and my journey towards clarifying the
critique.

The core of political Zionism is a nation state for the Jewish people with a Jewish demographic
majority. Raising critical awareness of key elements of Zionist and anti-Zionist ideologies can
contribute to the struggle for Palestinian freedom and self-determination in a state (or states) where
all have equal civil and national rights. Getting to this will require international solidarity with other
struggles, like the current Black Lives Matter uprisings in the United States, in support of BDS.

The first section of this article describes a framework for making sense of the ideological struggles
between Zionism and its opponents. The second section unpacks the meaning of the terms right to
exist and right to exist as a Jewish state. The third section briefly describes the history of Zionism in
my hometown Paarl and my interpellation as a young Zionist. The next article develops our critique of
these two concepts, right to exist and right to exist as a Jewish state. The next article will also describe
my own journey in the ideological struggle over Jewish and Palestinian rights to historic Palestine.
Both these articles address important issues to lay the basis for forthcoming articles about the
meaning of being Jewish and of antisemitism.

1I remember in 1967 seeing a picture of Israeli Defence Force female soldiers in a photo journal recording the Six Day War –
the caption read “we shall not perish….”, resonating with the holocaust.
Ideology and ideological struggle

It is useful to see Zionist ideology as an objective, logical framework of ideas; and, following Antonio
Gramsci, that political and civil organisations, driven by conflicting class interests, struggle to get their
definitions of the state and of the nation (that they claim to represent the interests of) legitimised,
i.e. accepted as the popular view. These struggles take the form of class
alliances, and in key historical moments there is the formation of blocs of
class interests. Ideologies have elements, core concepts that logically
reinforce each other to give a worldview (weltanschauung). When
historical blocs succeed in getting a particular interpretation as the
dominant view of society, the ideology is hegemonic. When no bloc has
the upper hand, long periods can persist without hegemony.

For most of the first half of the 20th Century neither Zionism nor
Palestinian nationalism was hegemonic. Israeli historian Avi Shlaim argues
Antonio Gramsci. SOURCE - that the 20th Zionist Congress in 1937 marked the emergence of a historical
Alexander White on flickr
bloc that identified partition as a step towards a Jewish nation state, with a
Jewish majority. Since the late-1960s Zionism has become a globally hegemonic ideology. Currently its
key elements are accepted and internalised by the major
global political and economic elites.

Nevertheless, in recent years Zionist ideology has lost

legitimation in key constituencies. This has occurred
concurrently with the counter hegemonic narrative of BDS.
The BDS narrative explicitly challenges the notion that Israel
has the right to exist as an apartheid regime, i.e. as a Jewish
ethno-state, based on original and ongoing dispossession
and subjugation of an indigenous people.

Meaning of the rights

A natural and legal right

The founding document of the state of Israel, its Declaration of Independence, claims that its right to
exist arises from the Balfour Declaration, the mandate of the League of Nations as well as the 1947
United Nations General Assembly (UN GA) Resolution 181, which called for the establishment of a
Jewish state. (UN GA R181 also called for the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state, and it is
invoked as the basis in international law for what has become known as the two state solution). The
key argument here is that UN GA R181 conferred the right of the state to exist by approving the
partition plan of the earlier appointed United Nations Special Committee on Palestine . In Zionist
ideology the right to exist concept is linked to another key concept, Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish
state.
Ethno-nationalism: internationally acceptable

During the 1990’s ‘Peace Process’ (Oslo Accords) Israel required the Palestine Liberation Organisation
(PLO) to acknowledge not simply Israel’s right to exist, but its right to exist as a Jewish state.2
Following the PLO’s conceding in writing to both these points the demands kept appearing, i.e. in
President George Bush’s ‘Roadmap’ peace plan as well as President Obama’s endorsement of this
‘right’ in his speech to the lobby group American Israel Public Affairs Committee in 2011.

Local Zionist organisations, the South African (SA) Jewish Board of Deputies and SA Zionist Federation
argue that Israel is the only Jewish State in the world, vis-à-vis several Muslim theocratic states, and
many states where the majority are Christians, that cover far larger territory and population. The right
to exist as a Jewish state is seen as embodying fair and equal treatment.

Interpellated as a Zionist

I grew up in the Boland town of Paarl (near Cape Town, in South Africa), where during the 1960s I
joined a Zionist youth movement. This represented the start of my journey. Israel’s right to exist and
its right to exist as a Jewish state were cardinal principles legitimizing my Zionist political practices in
the Paarl community.

Introduction to the Paarl Jewish community

The first Jewish people living in Paarl, Western Cape, are

recorded from 1850. In 1893 the Paarl Hebrew
Congregation was founded.3 So the community in Paarl
had developed over a century before I was born and grew
up there.

The Zionist movement developed internationally, in

History of Paarl Jewish community. SOURCE:
chapter1.co.za
support of the Yishuv (the Jewish community in Palestine
prior to the declaration of the state of Israel). Paarl was a
centre that was particularly active in spreading Zionist
ideology, recruiting supporters and raising funds and
other forms of support for the Zionist colonization of
Palestine – and for the State of Israel in its further
judaisation project of the land, Eretz Yisrael. This is
demonstrated by the following brief chronology4 of
Zionist organising and organisations in the history of Paarl.

2 Abunimah, A 2015 The Battle for Justice in Palestine, Afro-Middle East centre, Johannesburg, pages 21 - 25
3 Press, Charles 1993 The Light of Israel – the Story of the Paarl Jewish Community, Jubilee Publications, Paarl, pages 9 -12.
4 Cf. Press, Charles 1993 The Light of Israel – … op. cit., pages 45, 69, 72, 79, 80, 91, 103, 105, 106, 107 and 109.
 Year. Event/Organisation.
1909. A Junior Zionist Society informally established.
1911. Paarl Young Maccabean Society (a Zionist youth movement) formally established.
1932. Chaim Weizmann, to be the first president of the state of Israel, hosted in Paarl at an event
organised by the Paarl Lema’an Zion Society.
1934. Nahum Sokolov (a leading figure in the International Zionist Movement) and Leib Jaffe of Keren
Hayesod (a major Zionist projects’ funding institution) address a mass meeting in Paarl.
1937. Paarl Junior Zionist Society renamed The Paarl Zionist Youth Society.
1938. Ze’ev Jabotinsky (revisionist Zionist leader and founder of the Jewish Defence Organisation, and
later Beitar, Hatzohar and the Irgun Zwei Leumi [The National Military Organisation of the Land
of Israel]) addressed a crowded meeting at Paarl.
1948, 16 May. Special service at the Paarl shul to pray for new Jewish State.
1950. Moshe Sharett, then Israeli Foreign Minister and a future Prime Minister of Israel, addressed a
mass meeting at Paarl.
1950. 30th Anniversary of the Womens International Zionist Organisation (WIZO), celebrated in Paarl.
1953. Menachem Begin (a disciple of Ze’ev Jabotinsky), and future Prime Minister of Israel, addressed
a mass meeting at Paarl.
1954. Josef Sapir, Israeli Transportation Minister, addressed a mass meeting at Paarl, regarding Israel’s
response to Britain’s evacuation of the Suez Canal.
1955. Israeli Brigadier and Deputy-Prime Minister under David Ben-Gurion, Yigal Allon5, addressed a
meeting at Paarl.
1957. Colonel Avraham Yoffe, commander of the Ninth Brigade in the Sinai Campaign, addressed a
country rally at Paarl, titled “Operation Sinai and after”; also, the community entertained the
Minister for Israel in South Africa, Mr Bavly.

The one comprehensive history of Paarl’s Jewish community that I am aware of, by Charles Press,
notes that in the years before the establishment of the State of Israel “only one Jew in Paarl is known
to be anti-Zionist, two belong to the Mizrahi organisation, four are revisionists and the rest are evenly
divided between Zionist Socialists and General Zionists”.6

This didn’t mean that other trends of Jewish identity were absent – they simply never took off, and
Zionism became the hegemonic, arguably sole, identity. For example, prior to the 1930s Reverend
Alfred P Bender (of Cape Town) (leader of the anglicized orthodox rabbinate) was anti-Zionist,
preached loyalty to the Crown, and addressed a meeting at Paarl, but according to Press his approach
received little support from the Paarl community.7

5
Allon served in the Haganah (underground ‘defence’), was commander of the Southern Front during the War of
Independence (‘Nakba’ for Palestinians) (1948) and an experienced field commander in the Israeli army. The blurb of his
book ‘The Making of Israel’s Army’ says it all: “Yigal Allon, Israel’s deputy Prime minister, is also one of the creators of her
armed forces. He grew up in the Haganah, became commander of its striking force, the Palmach, at the age of 26, and
emerged as Israel’s most able military leader in the first Arab-Israeli war of 1948-9”. Cf. Allon, Yigal 1970 The Making of
Israel’s Army, Sphere Books Limited.
6 Press, Charles 1993 The Light of Israel – …. op. cit., page 91.
7 Press, Charles 1993 The Light of Israel – …. op. cit., page 53.
Then there was the Geserd Society, a left-wing Yiddish workers movement, which had a club in Paarl.
In 1932 they hosted Gina Medem in a fund raiser for the Birobidzhan Project in Soviet Russia (Stalin’s
project to settle Jews in their own autonomous territory in the far
eastern region of the Soviet Union). This was subaltern to the
developing identity of the Jewish community as being synonymous
with being Zionist.8 Reflecting this subaltern Jewish identity was one
Lazar Bach, who died in 1941 in a Stalin Gulag. Bach, from a well-
known Paarl family, was a senior member of the Communist Party of
South Africa and was set up by a rival faction that succeeded in getting
him purged and jailed during the time of Stalin’s purges.9

We lived next door to the rabbi of the synagogue, Dr. Levine. As a Anti-Stalinist poster. SOURCE:
young boy I found Dr Levine intimidating, authoritarian and extremely mitchhistory12.weebly.com
judgmental. Press also refers to Dr. Levine as being critical of the (South African) apartheid system.10
At the same time Press’s book is replete with quotations that show Dr. Levine as being an ardent
Zionist. There was at the time a disjuncture between the ways in which South African apartheid was
viewed by Jewish Zionists, and the way in which they viewed Israeli apartheid. In the latter case it did
not even enter their consciousness to contemplate that Zionism as ethno-nationalism, was a
manifestation of apartheid in a different form and a different place, although at the same time as the
National Party was starting to implement it in South Africa. I mention this because there is a deep
disassociation of apartheid from Zionism in the minds of Zionists, a disassociation that permits no
contradiction. This vehement denial persists to this day, in the face of the BDS movement.

The community as context for my interpellation as a Zionist

Ironically, I owe it to Zionism, and my particular insertion into the Zionist movement during the 1960s,
that I found a route to Marx’s and Engels’ historical materialism. I mention this because it provides a
context for explaining my use of the term ‘interpellation’ (in the above sub-heading).

My study of Western Marxism during the 1970s and 1980s was made on the assumption that I was
educating myself about a scientific framework within the context of which scholars could interpret
their research data and thereby advance scientific knowledge about societies, all societies, including
Israeli society and Palestinian society. The Marxist/historical materialist tradition is also concerned
with engaging with a dynamic society in order to influence and shape the way that it changes. The
anti-apartheid student movement, in which I was involved during the 1970s and 1980s, increasingly
drew on concepts from a Marxist perspective of political power and social classes to comprehend and
strategise to challenge apartheid South Africa.11

Theoretical framework

During the 1980s I came across the ideas of Marxist structuralist Louis Althusser, who has been
criticized for being too focused on social structure and neglecting the contradictory processes (i.e.

8 Press, Charles 1993 The Light of Israel – …. op. cit., page 70.
9 Press, Charles 1993 The Light of Israel – …. op. cit., page 84. Bach’s niece, Judy Bach, was a contemporary of mine in Paarl.
It is a commentary on the marginalization of left-wing, internationalist Jewish identity movements, that I never engaged
politically with her in the Paarl context during the 1960s.
10 Press, Charles 1993 The Light of Israel – …. op. cit., page 111.
11 Cf. Moss, Glenn 2014 The New Radicals – A Generational Memoir of the 1970s, Jacana, Auckland Park.
class struggle) that drive capitalist societies to change. Nevertheless, structuralism is a useful antidote
to the current dominant ideology of neo-liberalism, that says that we are all isolated and free
individuals, who can determine our own fates independently of one another. And so, I propose to use
Althusser’s term ‘interpellate’ 12 to analyse my social determination during the 1960s in the areas of
Zionism and political thought processes. In doing so I will draw on theoretical practices in the course
of providing consulting advice to post-apartheid South African governments in respect of urban
development and housing policies. While these issues appear to be far removed from the anti-Zionist
struggle, the theories through which I have come to understand the conundrums of post-apartheid
South African urban development are nevertheless the prism through which I have reengaged in anti-
capitalist critique. My critique of Zionism is enriched within the context of a critique of capitalist
urban development in post-apartheid South Africa.

In critiquing the neo-liberal way of seeing societies13 we need to pose an alternate framework for
understanding societies namely the combination of dominant state policies and strategies and a given
regime of capital accumulation14 that these policies and strategies function to reproduce. Social
reproduction is used in the sense developed by Marxist structuralists15 in the 1970s and 1980s, to
refer to processes like the provision of policing, education, housing, transportation as well as
ideological discourses that give meaning to societies, where the state has performed – and continues
to perform - historical functions, although social reproduction functions also extend beyond the state
to maintain social relations of production. Clearly the state of Israel in its structure and segregationist
functions performs a crucial role in reproducing the system of political marginalistion of Palestinians
and military rule over them in Gaza and the West Bank. Integral to these functions is the separate
identities assigned to Palestinians and Jews.

Althusser used the term ‘interpellate’ to describe the insertion of classes into a conscious
identification of their position within class divided societies. Through institutions like the family,
school, churches, synagogues, as well as the traditions of faith, ethnic and nationalist communities,
different classes are able to collectively identify their role and function in a society. The identification
is coded in a framework of ideas called ideologies. Individuals get inserted into these functions and
roles through the mental and psychological impact of the ideologies dominant in respect of the
particular classes within which they are born and socialized. In addition, there is also an active and
dynamic process that contradicts the meaning of these ideologies, arising within the context of class
struggles.

12 Althusser, Louis 1970 Ideology and Ideological State Apparatus (Notes towards an investigation), in Lenin and Philosophy
and Other Essays.
13 Cf. Hendler, Paul and Pillay, Arumugam 2015 The Urban Network Strategy – The Panacea for Urban and Developmental

Ills?; this is a critique of neo-liberal urban development policies in South Africa, but it first articulates a philosophical basis
that is congruent with the underlying assumptions of this paper.
14 Accumulation is used in its Marxist derivation, to refer to a cycle of processes where money capital is invested in labour

power and materials to produce new commodities, which are then exchanged for money – in this process the owners of
capital are driven to maximise profits and workers to maximise wages; cf. Hendler, Paul 1993, Privatised Housing Delivery,
Housing Markets and Housing Policy: Residential Land Development for Africans in the Pretoria/Witwatersrand/Vereeniging
Region between 1975 and 1991, a thesis submitted to the Faculty of Arts, University of the Witwatersrand, for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy, pages 37 to 47 (unpublished).
15 Like Althusser (see above) and also: Poulantzas Nikos 2000 State, Power, Socialism, Verso Classic, London; Castells,

Manuel, et al 1990 The Shek Kip Mei Syndrome – Economic Development and Public Housing in Hong Kong and Singapore,
Studies in Society and Space, Pion Limited, London.
I will refer to my contradictory development within the ideology of Zionism. For the individual these
are not simply mental or intellectual states of awareness but often primarily affective. To understand
how individuals are in a contradictory dynamic with a dominant ideological interpellation requires a
psychological perspective and I referred to this in the first article in this series, insofar as my own
feelings are concerned. But I think that it is important also to explore these within a particular
psychological framework in order to draw more general conclusions about the psychology of
individual identity.

Key interpellation ideas – holocaust, Israel and ethno-nationalism

I grew up and was part of the Jewish community in Paarl during the 1950s and the 1960s. At the time
the community was approximately 250 families strong – today there are probably less than 20 Jewish
families residing in Paarl.

There were many Jewish neighbours in our neighbourhood, and I often heard Yiddish being spoken16.
That neighbourhood was clustered around the synagogue.17 The community was large enough to
justify having a reverend and a rabbi, all the Jewish festivals were celebrated, and we had Hebrew
school lessons – cheder – every afternoon. My mother observed the Jewish dietary laws by keeping a
strict division between crockery and cutlery for meat (fleishiche) and for milk (milchike) products. We
only ate kosher meat, as I think was the case for most Jewish residents of Paarl at the time.

Beyond the strong sense that we were Jewish, I don’t think that we had a particularly religious
community. The people who seriously prayed in the synagogue you could count on your one hand.
There was usually always a quorum for Friday night services and after we had our barmitzvahs
(confirmation) we were expected to attend Saturday morning services to ensure the necessary seven
males to constitute a minyan (quorum). There were sufficiently religious elders in the community to
have weekday services, but these and the sabbath (shabbat) services were sparsely attended. The
High Holidays (Rosh Hannah [New Year]) and Yom Kippur [Day of Atonement]) were usually very well
attended and then there was often little sitting space in the synagogue.

I was born in 1951, barely 10 years after the

implementation of the Final Solution in the
extermination camps of Europe. I mention this
because this overshadowed our awareness as Jewish
South Africans during those early days of the
apartheid era. I was born three years after the
establishment of the state of Israel. My earliest
memories of the state of Israel are as a seeming
miraculous phoenix rising from the ashes of the
Auschwitz commemoration. SOURCE: vosizneias.com holocaust. I think this was also embedded in the
collective consciousness of the Jewish community in
Paarl. In reflecting back on my childhood and youth I am struck by the absence of an ecumenical spirit

16 “By the First World War more than ninety percent of Paarl’s Jews were Litvaks (Lithuanian Jews with similar religious

customs, folkloric traditions and literary interests). Yiddish was their common language, although the immigrants’ children
were soon fluent in English and Afrikaans” - Press, Charles 1993 The Light of Israel – …. op. cit.
17 Slowly, as the younger generation professionalized, they became upwardly mobile and relocated to the higher value

properties on the slopes of Paarl Mountain. Needless to say, our family was not part of that class formation….
in our community, in its religious and educational institutions. We had no specific lessons or
education in universal Jewish ethics. The closest I came to that was when my mother cut out a piece
from the local Cape Times newspaper, sourced from the Talmud.18 I later learnt that this was a saying
from Rabbi Hillel, one of the earliest Jewish religious sages. In recent years, I read about well-known
Jewish authors (like Judith Butler) who as children and teenagers had studied these universal ethics at
Jewish seminaries. And have tried to develop a view of Jewish identity that is based on universal
human values rather than Zionist nationalism.

Interpellation through the Zionist youth movement.

Press19 notes that “with the movement of population from the smaller towns to the larger urban
centres after the war and throughout the 1950s, the Zionist youth movement at Paarl, known since
1956 as The Paarl Young Israel Society – once one of the strongest of its kind in South Africa – began
to shrink and falter. By the 1960s it had expired almost completely and Paarl like other towns in the
Western Cape looked towards Cape Town for leadership and most Zionist activities and facilities
became centralised there“.

I joined the Zionist Habonim Youth Movement in my teens. Prior

to that I had been a Wolf Cub and thereafter briefly a Boy Scout.
With respect to Habonim I became a madrich (leader) of a local
gedud (branch, equivalent of a scout troop). I embraced the
ideology of Zionism and convinced myself that I would go on
aliyah to Israel after completing my schooling. I became identified
as a committed young Zionist in the town, by the parents of the
children I was recruiting to my gedud, some of whom were
uncomfortable about their children’s future being manipulated
towards living in Israel.20 Dror Habonim logo. SOURCE:
he.wikipedia.org
Even before my teens I was strongly attracted to the ideology of liberalism and by the time of my
teens identified myself as being at the very least critical of apartheid. Zionism articulated itself as a
national liberation movement, and not comparable in any way to apartheid.21 Habonim being the
youth wing of labour Zionism meant that I found a space where I could safely articulate criticisms of
apartheid as well as get access to left-wing writings about socialism. This was the time when I read
about kibbutzim and I trace the roots of my intellectual critique of capitalism to these years. I was
attracted to the ideology of Zionism and read voraciously.

Keep in mind that in the midst of this phase of my life, in June 1967, Israel conquered the West Bank,
the Golan, East Jerusalem and the Sinai Peninsula. The Jewish community in Paarl met in hushed

18 “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?”
19
Press, Charles 1993 The Light of Israel – op. cit., page 104.
20 Many years later, when I was older and with critical distance, I reflected on the fact that even after the holocaust the

significant majority of Jewish people chose not to live in Israel.

21 Which is still the way that liberal Zionists currently articulate their views, although this has become increasingly difficult to

justify in the light of the Apartheid Wall and the Gaza concentration camp since 2006.
tones in the synagogue on the eve of the Six Day War, to provide support for what was felt to be a
struggle against a second genocidal attempt.22

Notwithstanding my superficial ideological commitment to Zionism, I was already plagued by doubts

about the veracity of the idea of “a land without people for a people without land”.23 The seeds of the
contradiction to my interpellation were starting to sprout. They grew haphazardly over the next 40
years until where I today identify myself as an anti-Zionist Jewish South African.

Conclusion

I have reflected on my identity as a Zionist in my teens, using the concept of interpellation.

Interpellation means being hailed, or called as a something, and the calling is usually through a state-
assigned identity. I have also explained that I use the term interpellation within a political and
economic context where the state plays a critical function in creating the conditions for social stability
to enable the economic functionality of capitalism. I will also revert to interpellation as an explanatory
concept when examining the incidence of racialisation of identities in post-apartheid South Africa and
the meaning of the identities of being Jewish and antisemitism in later articles. The South African
context is important for understanding some antisemitic discourses within the Zionist/anti-Zionist
dialectic.

The concept of interpellation does not remove personal, individual freedom of choice but rather is
the context within which choices are made by individuals in their development throughout their lives.
When examining the Zionist/anti-Zionist ideological struggle in South Africa, we will refer to the active
participation by individuals in the process of their being interpellated by the state.

I was born into a strongly Zionist Jewish community at Paarl. My formative years happened in the
context of a society undergoing rapid economic growth and at the same time racial suppression and
class exploitation of the black working class that resulted in severe poverty and unemployment. (The
latter conditions have persisted and even worsened under the post-apartheid regime). The historical
memory of the genocide of the Jews in Europe as well as my experience of local racist policies and
practices, helped to shape my identification as a young Zionist. Central to this identity is the notion of
Israel’s right to exist and right to exist as a Jewish state.

While interpellation is a state-dominated and therefore passive process for the identity being
interpellated, it is also a contradictory process. The contradiction between the expressed universal
right of existence and the denial of the self-same right to Palestinians, struck a chord within me early
in the process of my political conscientisation. This happened at a time of my growing awareness of
the same contradiction within the apartheid society where I was interpellated as a white person.

22
There is strong historical evidence that this war was not forced on Israel but was indeed a war of choice to enable the
conquest of more land, seen as vital for the security and expansion of the borders of the state. Cf. Miko Peled, The
General’s Son – Journey of an Israeli in Palestine, Just World Books; Joseph L Ryan, the Myth of Annihilation and the Six Day
War; and, Mondoweiss interview with Norman Finkelstein.
23 I remember my mother responding to one of my nationalist tirades by saying that “maybe the simple fact is that we took

their land from them…”.

It took me some time before I had developed a conscious critique of the Zionist-claimed rights, and a
still further period elapsed before I put that critical awareness into practice. This is addressed in the
next article.

Paul Hendler, Stellenbosch South Africa, 31 December 2021.