Court Orders Palestine Campaign to Stop False Claims Against Cape Union Mart

Philip Krawitz, executive chairperson of Cape Union Mart, walked out of the Western Cape High Court on Friday, 4 September, with a judgment that bars the Palestine Solidarity Campaign from making specific claims about his business and its alleged ties to wrongdoing. The ruling has drawn celebration from South Africa’s Jewish community and opened a wider debate about where lawful protest ends and defamation begins.

Judge Judith Cloete’s order prohibits the PSC from claiming that Krawitz, Cape Union Mart, or its brands fund “genocide”, the Israeli army, or the conflict in Gaza, or that they are killing children or complicit in such killings. The campaign is also barred from calling the K-Way brand “Killers Way” or asserting that Cape Union Mart supports genocide in Gaza or holds any association with the State of Israel. Going forward, protesters must comply with the Regulations of Gathering Act when demonstrating outside stores and cannot block public access to them.

The ruling arrives after two years of sustained protest activity outside Cape Union Mart locations. The PSC has signalled it intends to keep demonstrating, though the legal boundaries around those demonstrations have narrowed considerably.

For Joshua Schewitz, executive director of the South African Zionist Federation Cape Council, the judgment cuts to the heart of what the campaign was built on. “Funding was the reason given to the public for two years of protests outside those stores. That reason has now been tested on oath, and it failed,” he said. He noted that protest action resumed outside stores on Saturday, 5 September, within a day of the ruling, and questioned what rationale remained if the funding allegation no longer stood.

Schewitz also pointed to what the judgment means for other business owners. “Jewish business owners now have clarity. A person’s faith and charitable giving aren’t evidence of wrongdoing, and no business should have to prove its innocence against allegations built on nothing.”

Daniel Bloch, executive director of the Cape South African Jewish Board of Deputies, framed the ruling as an affirmation of basic rights. He argued that Jewish South Africans possess “the same rights as all other South Africans to participate fully in society, to own and operate businesses and organisations, and to maintain their Jewish identity, beliefs, and legitimate connections to Israel without being subjected to targeted harassment, intimidation, or defamatory conduct.” Bloch drew a clear line between legitimate criticism of government policy and targeting individuals through unsupported allegations, adding that the PSC campaign “has highlighted the broader dangers that arise when political activism is accompanied by misinformation or unsubstantiated claims.”

Bafana Modise, spokesperson for South African Friends of Israel, brought the stakes down to the shop floor. “This is a victory for thousands of South Africans who work for Cape Union Mart, safeguarding their jobs. It’s a victory for the Jewish people, to know that South Africa remains a safe place for business and for their families,” he said. He also described it as a win for the broader economy against what he termed “foreign agendas.”

Independent practising attorney David Polovin described the judgment as “an important legal victory and a deeply encouraging moment for South African Jews who identify proudly with Israel.” He stressed that Krawitz had never sought to shut down protest; he had asked only that it be conducted lawfully and without defamation. That distinction, Polovin said, deserved recognition.

Shimron Shapiro, lead attorney at S Shapiro Attorneys, placed the ruling in a broader democratic context. Freedom of expression matters, he said, but “one cannot defame a business or an individual by making serious allegations based on unsubstantiated hearsay.”

Pastor Thom Thamaga from Simunye Israel, who has written extensively about the case, was careful to defend the right to protest while drawing a line around its limits. South Africans must remain free to protest, criticise Israel, support Palestinians, organise boycotts, and express political views. But, he argued, “freedom of expression cannot mean freedom from accountability.” Persistently targeting a business with no proven connection to alleged wrongdoing, he said, “risks ceasing to look like legitimate political protest and beginning to look like harassment.”

Thamaga raised a pointed comparison. “We would rightly reject the targeting of a Muslim-owned South African business because of terrorism committed elsewhere by people claiming to act in the name of Islam. We would call that collective blame and prejudice. The same principle must apply to Jewish South Africans.”

Meanwhile, Bloch signalled that Friday’s ruling is unlikely to be the last word on these questions. The Cape SAJBD is involved in several ongoing legal matters concerning alleged defamation, and he noted that “the principles affirmed in the Cape Union Mart judgment are significant, and may provide important guidance and precedent in our ongoing efforts to protect individuals and organisations where political campaigning crosses the line into unlawful conduct.” The board has advised community members encountering protests to remain calm, avoid confrontation, and, where conduct turns threatening or violent, to document events where safe and report them to the board and relevant authorities.

Whether the PSC reshapes its campaign in response to the ruling, or whether further legal challenges follow, remains the open question hanging over the stores.