I have to question the journalistic integrity of the Mail & Guardian, which chooses to write a totally sensationalist article based on information given to it rather than take the word of the Israeli embassy in Pretoria, which denies what has been reported (“Israeli takeover at Wits sparks fury”, September 6).
The continual reference to “eyewitness accounts” cannot but make any fair-minded and impartial observer cringe at the lowering of standards of this supposedly even-handed and erudite publication. In addition, the language used — more suited to a military incursion than to a perfectly legitimate security exercise to ensure the safety of a high-ranking political figure, no more or less than would be done for any other politician — is inflammatory and so far removed from neutral reporting as to be comparable with that of the lowest tabloid.
Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres is a world-respected figure, a Nobel Peace prize-winner and a man of stature and dignity. He is accepted unquestioningly by governments all over the world; our own Madiba was shown on the television embracing him after their meeting.
Unfortunately, however, the local dissident voices — primarily of radical Muslim students, who are not yet mature enough to know there are more acceptable ways of displaying opposition to the ideals contrary to those they hold dear — necessitated the presence of security personnel on the campus of the College of Education, to ensure that no harm came to this very venerable public figure.
Freedom of expression and freedom to demonstrate peacefully are the cornerstones of our democracy and no one should deny those rights. When, however, the demonstrations become violent, as they did prior to the arrival of Peres; and when objects that can cause physical harm are thrown about by the fiery protesters; and when flags are burned in the road; and when screaming, undisciplined mobs refuse to listen to the state police and have to be forcibly restrained from causing untold damage to persons and property, then appropriate measures have to be taken for security reasons.
I find the remarks made by Vice-Chancellor Norma Reid Birley irresponsible in the extreme. It is true that the booking form omitted the name of the speaker, which was an honest error made by those doing the booking; but it is equally true that the university’s administration was at fault for not insisting on receiving all the information. Why is such a vital piece of information glossed over?
Her comments, that the affair was “a highly planned operation” and that there was a “complete takeover of our campus without our consent or knowledge” completely exonerate that university staff member who failed in his/her duty to follow up the details of the speaker.
One wonders whether that staff member has been identified and chastised, or perhaps lauded for being partially responsible for allowing such a scurrilous article to appear in print.
Demonstrators who create situations needing police intervention must take responsibility for and understand the ramifications of their violent and dissenting behaviour. The tension in SouthAfrica between the Jewish and the Muslim communities based on issues in the Middle East, and based, too, on frightful ignorance of the truth and reality of the situation there, is real and ugly. An article such as this one serves only to inflame the passions even more — and of course to sell papers, which is apparently the direction now taken by the M&G rather than investigating the truth.
It is to be hoped that the new editorial board will adopt a more even-handed and less prejudicial attitude towards this very sensitive and delicate issue. –Bev Goldman, South African Zionist Federation
I support the editorial “Goon brigade” (September 6). I am neither a staff member nor a student of Wits, yet I was allowed on campus last week with no problem since I am not Muslim. A car ahead of me and two cars behind, a PhD student and a staff member of Muslim origin were barred from entering.
I had a rolled-up banner and intended to join 12 students who were sitting near the Linder Auditorium in a peaceful protest. Once unfurled, the banner was declared by the South African Jewish Board of Deputies to be a dangerous weapon. The police then carried out the instructions of Board of Deputies representatives David Saks and Yehuda Kay to evict us from campus.
How could Wits management allow a racist checkpoint to be set up, as well as ban banners on their campus? This is unconstitutional. However, it followed a pattern of Board of Deputies silencing any anti-apartheid Israel voices during the World Summit.
A week earlier Kay had directed his followers at Nasrec to jump on the speakers’ table at a press conference given by Palestinian NGOs, threaten the speakers and put an end to the conference. They had to be removed by police. Two days later someone working in the Jewish National Fund stall shoved me out of the way at a press briefing I convened for the Palestine Hydrology Group, and attempted to intimidate speakers.
Of course, this is natural behaviour for supporters of Israel. There is no freedom of speech inside occupied Palestine. Any Palestinian who dares to argue with an Israeli soldier at a checkpoint faces a beating or arrest, just as students and staff at Wits experienced last week.
It is unacceptable for Wits management to have allowed supporters of apartheid Israel to openly defy the Constitution and recreate a piece of occupied Palestine on a South African campus. No amount of damage control can erase the physical damage done to students, staff and alumni during the ensuing night of police brutality. –Anna Weekes, Palestine Solidarity Committee member
Yehudah Kay of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies is quoted in your report apparently justifying racially-biased security action on the grounds that “there are no Indian-looking Jews”. It would be hard to find a more graphic illustration of why Kay’s organisation brings shame on Jewish South Africans.
For Kay’s information, there are indeed “Indian-looking Jews”. They are “Indian looking” because — surprise, surprise — they hail from India. He might be even more shocked to learn there are also “black looking” Jews — and that they look that way because they are, indeed, black.
Like the rest of what passes for Jewish leadership in this country, Kay’s remark suggests he believes all Jews are white people like him.
Kay and his colleagues seem also to believe that all Jews think alike. If, as his remarks imply, security consisted of ensuring that only Jews attended Peres’s meeting, then it was presumably based on the assumption that all Jews are well disposed to Peres and the Cabinet in which he serves. This is not true — some of us find the occupation of Palestinian territory and Peres’s complicity in it offensive. So ethnically-based security would not have prevented a Jewish opponent of Peres sneaking into the meeting and heckling the minister.
If the South African Jewish “leadership” wishes, like Kay, to continue to believe (as anti-Semites do) that all Jews look and think the same, they are entitled to their delusions. The rest of South Africa needs to know that we Jews are a diverse lot — politically as well as racially — and that some of us feel we have more to offer this country than the sort of tribal bigotry that currently passes for official Jewish opinion here. –Steven Friedman, Johannesburg
What the summit really revealed
The enthusiastic applause afforded to Presidents Robert Mugabe and Sam Nujoma following their speeches at the World Summit on Sustainable Development must leave Western leaders in no doubt as to what the majority of African “liberators” really stand for.
By their actions, these so-called leaders have aligned themselves with the terror tactics employed by Mugabe against the people of Zimbabwe. By so doing they have sanctioned the use of violence, electoral fraud, suppression of democracy and genocide as legitimate practices in the quest for obtaining and retaining power.
But the most significant revelation of this exhibition of solidarity with evil is that it exposes them all as being inherently racist. Their envy of the achievements of the Western countries is tangible, manifesting itself in a tirade of abuse against the United States, Britain and the European Union. Such outbursts are nothing more than a smokescreen to conceal their failure to develop the natural talents of the indigenous people.
What most appalled us was that there was no condemnation from the host chairperson, President Thabo Mbeki, of the barbaric and ill-conceived rhetoric.
Perhaps this revelation will convince the West to act accordingly. This it can do by actively supporting those people who have the welfare of Africa at heart and by relating future aid to the application of democratic principles. –Duran Rapozo (black Zimbabwean) and Dick Paget (white Zimbabwean), Manchester, United Kingdom
This World Summit has been distinguished by a tendency for each nation to consider its own selfish interests — far more so than in Rio. We, the hosts, had the chance to make a difference. After all, we have a track record of excellent negotiation on many topics.
So it was with dismay that I read of Minister of Environment Affairs and Tourism Valli Moosa’s upfront refusal to commit to targets for renewable energy.
Up North they won’t do it because they’re too big to care, and in the South we won’t do it just in case it hurts development. So a crucial environmental issue drops off the table.
Come on, Valli Moosa. We have the technology, we have the skills. And the great thing about targets is that they don’t have to be any particular size. You could have committed to 0,1% improvement, or 0,05%.
Instead what we got was a refusal wrapped in mushy words. Shame on you. — Michael Prytz
Misplaced historical speculation
Michael Kremer and Seema Jayachandran’s argument on “odious debt” (International, August 30) falls short on basic requirements for policy analysis, such as historical and institutional knowledge.
The writers lament that the international community did not impose a “loan embargo” on the South African government (say in 1985), which may have prevented the apartheid regime from surviving nearly “a decade longer, aided by the lifeline of bank loans”. This is misplaced historical speculation, as the events of 1985 match more or less what, with hindsight, they call for.
Here is a short history of how the world financial community pre-empted the writers’ proposals: the government imposed a State of Emergency in 1984. An international outcry followed, which caused Chase Manhattan and other American banks to halt the refinancing of maturing South African debt in July 1985. Absent the required foreign exchange reserves to repay the loans, the authorities declared a debt standstill in August 1985 and started to negotiate the repayment of the debt on a realistic schedule. Consequently, South Africa became a net exporter of capital, a constraint that dominated domestic macroeconomic policy for the remainder of the apartheid government’s period in office.
Further, the disinvestment campaign that followed the events of 1985 meant there was no “lifeline of bank loans” after 1985. Indeed, the opposite is true. The financial sanctions contributed to the pressure that forced the government to the negotiating table. –Stan du Plessis, senior lecturer, department of economics, University of Stellenbosch
Science-based?
The article by David McDonald and John Pape (“Cost recovery is not sustainable”, August 30) refers. I question the statement “The cholera epidemic in KwaZulu-Natal, for example, created in part by the imposition of cost recovery on water …”
I would like to know what evidence the authors can provide for this statement.
It is my understanding that the bulk of the cholera outbreaks have occurred in non-serviced areas where there is no question of cut-offs or free delivery of basic water.
The language of political rhetoric displayed in this article devalues any merit it might have had and discounts any pretence that it is science-based. — Lazer Choritz
In brief
Did he jump? Was he shoved? Who pushed? Who pulled? At least he didn’t apologise. Inside that Barrell churned all the ecstasy and angst of the disillusioned left in search of a meaningful life. I’m gonna miss those Friday therapy sessions with the Ed. — Bruce Cohen, Johannesburg
Sipho Seepe has steadfastly refused to knuckle under the veiled threats to tether criticism by those in power. He has displayed a commendable level of moral courage. We wish him a productive tenure as a Fulbright scholar. — Chris Nteta, Boston, Massachusetts
I think all the letters you have printed have condemned the incorporation of Friday into the main paper. What more do customers have to do to get you to change? — SMJ (Mike) Young, Sedgefield
It’s time for Robert Kirby to go. Not only is he an oxygen thief, he wastes paper. The M&G has to cut losses. Start with Bob. — Cilliers Brink
Please explain Howard Barrell’s sudden resignation and why it failed to elicit one word in your last edition. — David Pienaar See page 3 of the September 6 edition — Ed
Six months to go to disappearance. The website will vanish sooner. — Dave Tootill
The M&G prefers not to listen to readers’ opinions. It seems most readers prefer the “old” format. What other “improvements” are in store for us? –Dennis Gordge
Please include your name and address. Letters must be received by 5pm Monday. Be as brief as possible. The editor reserves the right to edit letters and to withhold from publication any letter which he believes contains factual inaccuracies, or is based on misrepresentation.