This week’s media review for week ending 17-03-06. Click continue reading to view it.
The SAZF press release from the SAZF deploring the invitation by the SA Government to Hamas to visit SA received huge coverage in the national media, both print and electronic. Further inserts were included in the Daily Dispatch and the Lenasia Times.
Peter Fabricius writing in "Hamas delegation to SA raises some eyebrows" in the Pretoria News discussed the possibility by analysts that it could help the peace process in the Middle East. He continued, "Israel is once again now "aggravated" by South Africa`s intervention. An Israeli official said his government believed no foreign government should give Hamas such international recognition until it has agreed to renounce violence, to recognise all the international agreements the Palestinian Authority has entered into with Israel, and to recognise the right of Israel to exist." The same article appeared in the Cape Argus under the heading, "Timing of visit by Hamas delegation puts SA in tricky position."
The Allister Sparks article in last week's Star was reprinted in the Daily Dispatch under the heading, "Is there an Arab Sharon?" and also in the Cape Times.
Rodney Masinter in the Cape Times in "US and Israel must continue to fight the Hamas threat" detailed the terrorist attacks against the US prior to 9/11. He mentioned the 7 581 terrorist attacks worldwide between 1980 and 2001; and concluded that "to continue the flow of aid to the Palestinian Authority will confer upon Hamas`s leaders a mantle of legitimacy they will use to solidify their hold on power."
Also in the Cape Times, a letter titled "No to these terrorists" accuses Allister Sparks once again of writing "his nonsense about Israel and Hamas … Hamas has said it will not negotiate with Israel and is sworn to its destruction … (and) Israel is planning a war of economic attrition to make the Palestinian state ungovernable by starving it of money and international connections to a point where it can no longer function. Since when does a country that is being bombarded and threatened help the enemy financially?"
The Mail & Guardian published Benjamin Pogrund's response to Chris McGreal, "Israel merits sympathy and support." The piece, while not painting Israel in any rosy colours, certainly laid to rest the accusation that Israel and apartheid SA shared the same evils. He concluded that "Israel deserves criticism for its flaws and mistakes. It also merits sympathy and support in facing unfounded attack."
There were 3 letters in the M&G in response to the McGreal piece. A writer from London asked whether the State of Israel should also adopt suicide as official policy; a writer from Newlands advised SA Jews to watch "Paradise Now" documenting the daily humiliations of Palestinians under occupation; and another letter writer stated that "oppression in SA has come to an end; in Israel/Palestine it is still going on." There was no editorial on the expected deluge of letters from the hostile "Zionists" – perhaps there wasn't a deluge after all, or if there was, perhaps it wasn't hostile, or perhaps the M&G has closed the subject – we'll never know, will we?
The Star's Partick Laurence, in "Invitation raises Jewish brows", discussed the consternation within the SA Jewish community re the administration's invitation to Hamas to visit SA. He said that many feel a visit to SA by Hamas leaders is counter-productive to the peace initiative and to working towards stability in the Middle East. Laurence quoted the SAZF press release which included the three preconditions endorsed by Kofi Annan – renunciation of violence and suicide bombings, acceptance of previously signed agreements between Israel and the Palestinians including the 1993 Oslo Accords and the 2003 Road Map, and recognition of Israel's right to exist - and said that the anxiety created fear that the invitation would diminish pressure on Hamas to fulfil these three prerequisites. Aziz Pahad placed the invitation in the context of "the presidential initiative to share our experiences on the transition of apartheid to democracy with both Palestinians and Israelis." Laurence went on to say that "one way in which SA can allay Jewish anxiety that its Middle East policy is skewed in favour of Arabs and Palestinians is to persuade Hamas to halt its suicide boming attacks on civilians in Israel and to use its influence to induce all radical Muslim forces to adopt a similar moratorium …An Israeli exodus from occupied Palestine is not inconsistent with either the Oslo Accords or the Roadmap for Peace, provided it is based on an internationally recognized agreement that underpins Israeli demands for the security of its people in return for its endorsement of the establishment of a viable Palestinian state." This, he felt, might even lead to the eventual dismantling of the dreaded security fence, the cause of so much contention in the area. Laurence reiterated the major differences between apartheid SA and the Israeli Palestinian situation, especially the "deep-rooted historical link between the Jewish people and the land of Israel, stretching back thousands of years"; saying that a single state solution was a threat to the existence of Israel as a Jewish state, established "in the shadow of the Nazi Holocaust as a refuge and fortress for Jews throughout the world."
In "Iran is not a fruitcake-ocracy" also in the Star, Bruce Anderson (Independent) discussed Iran's nuclear threat to the world which, he said, if unchallenged, "could become a nuclear suicide state that sees the gates of paradise." He described the rich heritage of Iran, the past of which its people are so proud, and the fact that sanctions would not work against a large, powerful, truculent and rich country. Economic sanctions, he said, would create some hardship, but "Shia Islam exalts sacrifice and martyrdom" so would that be wise? His suggestion, given the very frightening scenarios of the future, would be to engage in more diplomacy with Iran, to acknowledge her status as a regional superpower – "Iranians believe that, given their importance as a cradle of civilsation, they are not treated with enough respect" – and to explore all options to avoid a potential West-East nuclear confrontation.
Congratulations on being runner-up in the SA blog awards!
Posted by: redsaid | March 17, 2006 at 12:57