The SA Jewish Report piece “Professor Mendelsohn sues anti-zionist Choritz for defamation”—by Tali Feinberg, published on or about 24–25 June 2026—is a hatchet job on activist Megan Choritz.
Feinberg’s article is more an instrument of lawfare than quality, independent journalism. She emailed Choritz late on Friday afternoon, 19 June 2026: “I am writing an article on the defamation summons served to you this week, and I wanted to give you the opportunity to comment. What are your thoughts on being served this summons, and how are you planning to respond?” Choritz was given until the morning of Tuesday, 23 June to reply—a tight weekend deadline with no specifics offered.
The piece centres overwhelmingly on Professor Adam Mendelsohn. It highlights his court case against UCT “over its anti-Israel resolutions” and, in Feinberg’s framing, presents him as “unafraid of standing up to discrimination”—even as he sues Choritz for defamation.
The defamation claim arises from Choritz’s response to Mendelsohn’s inaugural lecture at UCT, expressed in two formats: a TikTok video and a Substack article. In the video, she labels Mendelsohn “a supporter of Israel’s genocide” and “an Islamophobe,” arguing he should be stopped and deplatformed. In the article, she goes further, asserting that Mendelsohn and his Zionist allies do not merely fear Muslims but hate them—a hatred she says “looks and sounds exactly like antisemitism.”
Choritz has indeed campaigned for activists to peacefully protest the lecture, arguing that to leave it uncontested would legitimise what she views as his hateful, racist views. She also took issue with Mendelsohn’s alleged slurring of anti-Zionists, which she insisted must be challenged.
In response, Mendelsohn’s summons alleges Choritz wrongfully published statements intended to injure his reputation. He seeks R500,000 in damages—R250,000 per claim—plus interest at 10.25% per annum from judgment until payment. He also requests a court-ordered unconditional apology, with legal costs as alternative relief.
Media/Press
When I first read Feinberg’s piece, it brought into sharp focus how the media and the law often work in tandem. I will first discuss the violation of media ethics, then turn to the question of lawfare and SLAPP suits in particular.
The article is fundamentally unbalanced. It is less a news report than a praise song—a hagiography of Professor Mendelsohn—delving into his courage and intellect while offering Choritz little more than a token right of reply. The SAJR and Feinberg also ignored that Choritz has been the subject of vicious ideological attacks and has had to resort to the criminal justice system to obtain protection against threats to her activism.
At the end of the story, Feinberg writes: “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.” This requires further scrutiny.
The correspondence timeline confirms that Choritz was not given a genuine opportunity to respond. Feinberg’s email was generalised and lacked detail—a clear violation of the South African Press Code.
The Press Code is explicit. Clause 1.8 requires journalists to: “seek, if practicable, the views of the subject of critical reportage in advance of publication… Such a subject should be afforded reasonable time to respond; if unable to obtain comment, this shall be stated.”
To achieve fairness, the Code also demands that journalists spell out the specific allegations or evidence they intend to publish, precisely so the subject can offer an informed response. Feinberg did none of this. Her outreach was mere proceduralism—a tick-box exercise—not fairness and balance.
What she asked was impossible to answer meaningfully:
“I am writing an article on the defamation summons served to you this week, and I wanted to give you the opportunity to comment. What are your thoughts on being served this summons, and how are you planning to respond? Many thanks and Shabbat Shalom.”
A defamation summons is a dense, intimidating legal document. For a layperson, it is overwhelming. Asking a blanket question about it—without breaking down the claims, the context, or the history—is unfair in both procedure and substance. It violates the principles of fairness, balance, and the right to be heard.
The summons touches on complex public issues that Mendelsohn himself has engaged with over many years: support for Israel’s actions in Gaza, the nature of Islamophobia, racism, paranoia, and bad faith. By failing to disaggregate these elements, Feinberg made a meaningful response all but impossible. This was not an oversight; it was a design.
The SAJR‘s approach was strategically win-win for them and for Feinberg:
· If Choritz asked for more detail, they could report she “was unable to comment before publication.”
· If she said “no comment,” they could claim she abdicated her right to speak for herself.
· If she gave a substantive reply that did not fit their frame, it could be minimised or tucked away as irrelevant.
Even if Choritz had responded with a forceful rebuttal—”Prof Mendelsohn supports Israel, and Israel is perpetrating a genocide against Palestinian children”—it would not have shifted the overall thrust of the piece. The story was already written. All of this could have been avoided if detailed questions had been honestly posed for her to answer.
This journalism also hides the sustained attacks Choritz has faced because of her anti-Zionist advocacy, and the history of threats that have forced her to turn to the criminal justice system for protection. It does not make it onto the page. Going through the motions of fairness is not fairness. The SAJR should have learnt this lesson by now.
SLAPPed for the truth
The second leg of my concern is that the reporting bears all the hallmarks of a SLAPP suit—an attempt to close down debate on a current issue, not only among Jewish South Africans. Social justice movements have increasingly found themselves resisting such lawsuits. SLAPP—Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation—refers to civil claims brought against activists working on consumer protection, workers’ rights, environmental justice, and other public interest causes, typically by more powerful opponents. The strategy is simple: intimidate opponents, suppress advocacy, and force activists to divert scarce resources away from their work and toward expensive litigation.
The missing links: context and fairness must be remedied
Feinberg’s article also failed to provide crucial context about Mendelsohn’s public positions. He has opposed South Africa’s ICJ case against Israel (Case 192: Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip), which has documented over 74,000 deaths, mostly women and children. In a Business Day article (16 January 2024), Mendelsohn dismissed the ICJ application as a “gamble” rather than a moral or legal obligation—and has publicly denied that Israel is deliberately killing children in Gaza. None of this appeared in the SAJR piece, though it is directly relevant to Choritz’s claims. I will explore these arguments in a follow-up article.
Presumption of innocence
Finally, the journalist had an obligation to make clear that the summons is not a finding of guilt—only an allegation that must be proven in a court of law and with the public at large. The presumption of innocence applies not only in court but in media coverage. Feinberg’s tick-box approach masquerades as fairness and has failed Choritz entirely.
Conclusion
Any legal battle is fundamentally about contested narratives, and it is difficult to separate the law from the politics. But the least we can expect—and should demand—is that the press report fairly, enhance public discourse, and avoid reinforcing sectarianism inside the Jewish community and factionalism at large. The SAJR should know this by now. Unfortunately, once again, it falls short. It has taken a side—and it is not on the side of the media or legal justice, but on the side of the elites, the powerful. Megan deserves better, as we all do.
