Mindless vilification
The opprobrium heaped on Ronnie Kasrils by the Zionist lobby (Letters, September 8) has a lengthy pedigree. Writing in 1970s Britain, Labour MP Christopher Mayhew and journalist Michael Adams provide an insightful analysis of Zionist rancour in their book Publish It Not (The Middle-East Cover-Up). Particularly ludicrous and threadbare is the accusation of “self-hating Jew”.
They write: “The Zionists reserve their most bitter and relentless attacks for critics of Israel who are Jewish. These brave critics play a role of particular value and importance in the Arab-Israeli conflict, not least because they serve as a striking reminder to the Arabs that their enemy is not the Jewish people but a political movement, Zionism, which many courageous and thoughtful Jews strenuously oppose.”
British Jewish journalist Marion Woolfson, who dared criticise Zionism, recounts her experience: “No British newspaper would publish what I had written. I was bombarded with highly emotional, illogical and often threatening or obscene letters and telephone calls from Zionists. I was called a ‘Jew-baiter’, a ‘Nazi’, and an ‘anti-Semite’ … Some suggested that I … must be a goy (gentile) who married a Jew … I was told that it was a ‘duty’ to stop a Jewess from damaging the cause of Israel. I had a swastika painted on my gate.”
Can the Zionist zealots not realise that their mindless vilification engenders what they (rightly) fear: anti-Semitism even among those favourably disposed towards the Jewish people? — Laurence Berman, Pretoria
Kasrils is entitled to his views, extreme though they seem to some. But do they not create problems for the South African government in its efforts in the Middle East? I would be surprised if the Israeli government has not conveyed its strong official displeasure. — Pieter Wolvaardt, Grahamstown
Answering Kasrils, Joel Pollak (September 8) compares Iran with Nazi Germany because of its objective of regional domination. What, then, of the United States, bent on global domination?
Suggesting Iran’s name implies anti-Semitism is hogwash — it has been used for millennia. Was Afghanistan’s national airline named Ariana — the same word — out of anti-Jewish sentiment?
Pollak claims “Hizbullah, Hamas, Syria and Iran have long sponsored terror in the region and across the globe”. What of British and US terrorism in the region, and across the globe, for decades? Remember Iran’s struggling democratic efforts after the war, when those powers toppled elected premier Mohammed Mossadegh and installed the puppet Shah? — Babak Fakhamzadeh, Johannesburg
Pollak accuses Kasrils of crowing about Israel being equated with Nazis. In fact, Kasrils was quoting the lament of Israeli agriculture minister Aharon Cizlang in 1948, which followed a letter to The New York Times by a group of Jewish intellectuals, including Albert Einstein, equating events in Israel with Nazism and fascism.
Pollack also makes several ad hominem attacks on Kasrils which provide absolutely no reason to reconsider the latter’s arguments. I seriously considered the possibility that the pro-Israel letters and Pollack’s diatribe were a clever plot by Hizbullah to make supporters of Israel look totally foolish. — Alan Holton, Western Cape
The tone of most reponses to Kasrils smacked of a lynch-mob. I would never have believed M&G readers could descend to that level, blindly accepting whatever Israel does and labelling all who do not follow suit fascists and anti-Semites. — Terence Beard
While the apologists for Israel are screaming for Kasrils’s head, what is still left unacknowledged is the fact that the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers did not threaten the Israeli state, and the massive response was not self-defence but an act of vicious aggression. — Doug Downie, Grahamstown
Pollak is to be congratulated for a balanced reply to a poor, supercilious article. I was filled with disgust at Kasrils’s ignorance of the basic facts. — Shimon Z Klein, Bat Chefer, Israel
While it’s great to know so many foreigners read the M&G, I’ve not seen so many short-circuits in logic and ad hominem attacks on one page in a long time.
Many respondents employ the “You’re either with us or the terrorists” manipulative binary logic used by George Bush to garner support for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Can these readers not recognise that Zionism is an ideology that uses certain interpretations of Judaism for specific political ends? Jews should be able to criticise it, while remaining true to their religious identity and ethical convictions. — Adam Haupt, Cape Town
The carefully selected quotes on the letters page were obviously chosen to show up the response to Kasrils in the worst possible light. It is inconceivable that there wasn’t one sensible utterance worth publishing.
By publishing predictably one-sided, inaccurate articles like that of Kasrils you achieve exactly what you set out to do — inflame passions. This enables you to “legitimately” react via an editorial portraying the M&G as the misunderstood victim of a vindictive Jewish readership.
To claim some semblance of fairness you published Pollak — but given far less space than this collection of nonsense. Why can’t the M&G be fair to Israel? — Howard Yuter, Pretoria
Israel’s defenders miss the point when they complain that the M&G‘s coverage of the Lebanon war — and the prominence given to Kasrils — is one-sided. Of course it is! The paper is proud to practise advocacy journalism. It does not chase the chimera of objectivity.
The problem is that Zionists are moved not an inch by the paper’s relentless condemnation of Israel, while Hizbullah sympathisers do not need it to tell them Israel is a depraved, ruthless monster. This is the hazard of advocacy journalism: shouting into an echo chamber. What is the point of “advocacy” if you prompt nobody to reflect on their commitments?
Perhaps the M&G believes it can reach readers who — like myself — have no allegiance. But I cannot take seriously commentary so partisan that it fails to address the Human Rights Watch charge that Hizbullah used civilians as human shields. I find the M&G no more persuasive than Israel’s craven apologists in the US media.
Why can a paper that consistently offers incisive, intelligent commentary on South African domestic affairs not rise above polemics on this issue?
Do the editors perhaps calculate that, by adopting an ostentatiously radical position on a matter of little practical importance to many South Africans, they win credibility on domestic matters that really count?
Could their worst fear be that the M&G‘s progressive criticism of the ANC’s betrayal of the poor, and of government corruption, will be conflated with Tony Leon’s carping? The antidote: push a position on Lebanon as far as possible removed from his.
That sounds like a conspiracy theory — but I cannot think of any other explanation for the righteous vacuity of the M&G‘s position. — Michael Osborne, Cape Town
So it’s separate but equal, prof!
Professor Malegapuru Makgoba’s call for a differentiated higher education for our country (September 8) has echoes of the apartheid past, when our social engineers spoke of separate but equal facilities.
Makgoba makes several comparisons with universities in the West. Coming from a man who expects whites (and by implication, Indians like me) to sing and dance like Lebo Mathosa in order to be good South Africans, this un-African perspective is quite puzzling.
He forgets that we’ve just emerged from apartheid and that a university education up to the highest level is the prerogative of all who aspire to it.
To speak of our higher education institutions as the top five or the “only six classical universities”, based solely on their research output, perpetuates a hierarchy and compares apples with bananas.
I’m not advocating academic mediocrity and a culture of non-research. But I am against the “othering” of universities outside the big five or six. I was at Vista, a formerly disadvantaged university, where we taught, did research and engaged in community work.
All universities should be given the chance to develop their capacities (which Makgoba, to his credit, supports) but without the stigma of being labelled second-grade in comparison to formerly advantaged institutions.
We are talking about developing human potential here, not big game hunting for the top five animal trophies in Africa. — Harry Sewlall, department of English studies, Unisa
Church heals Aids, cancer
I fail to understand why the Mail & Guardian reporters Kwanele Sosibo, Percy Zvomuya and Vuyo Sokupa are accusing our Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (“Pay the Lord!”, September 8). They are misinformed, or went into the church service with a fixed mindset.
If the church was only after money, as you seem to believe, it would not be growing like wildfire. It is the fastest growing church, not only in South Africa but also in the whole world. The reason it demolished its church building in Plein Street, Johannesburg, is that it was becoming too small for its many members.
If the pastors and bishops were only interested in money, they would not build churches but pocket the money and let people be squeezed into small buildings. This church is here to save souls.
People are being healed in the church, but no reporter writes about that. They are being healed of Aids, cancer, diabetes, epilepsy and other so-called incurable diseases, not through the power of the pastor or bishops, but through the power of God. With God, nothing is impossible.
Your reporters criticise the payment of tithes — but this comes from God, not the Universal Church. The book of Malachi says: “Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house.” Giving has always been there, from the time of Moses (Exodus 35: 4-9). Even our lord Jesus watched those putting their offerings into the temple treasure (Mark 12: 41-44). You only give according to what you have.
People question why the church uses olive oil. They ignore the book of James, which makes it clear that those who are sick should call the elders of the church to anoint them so that they are healed. It is true, as you report, that the pastors of the Universal Church are very young. But it is they who volunteered — they were not forced.
They know very well that being a pastor is no bed of roses. Unlike other churches, Universal Church is open every day from as early as five in the morning until nine at night. — Edward Phofa, UCKG member, Katlehong
Figure of speech
In his poetic response to Zizi Kodwa, Njabulo Ndebele (September 1) fails to appreciate that the idiom of “hitting the dog” should not be taken literally. So many figures of speech use animals that if they were taken at face value, the SPCA would be in court every day.
The good professor should acknowledge that our media is so littered with anonymous sources that one-sided views are propagated without anyone taking accountability. If the messenger plays hide and seek, then we must “hit the dog until the owner or handler comes out into the open”.
I agree with Kodwa that 2007 must be “the year of the handler”, when people are brave enough to express their own views. — Phillip Musekwa
Unethical
Brett Goldin, the murdered actor, was a friend and colleague of mine who attended the same drama school as me. As a trained professional actor and a member of the actors’ union, PAWE, I find e.tv, SABC and M-Net’s casually persistent screening of the Liberty Life insurance advert featuring him unprofessional and unethical.
That a local multimillion-rand financial corporation and local broadcasters should so unconcernedly screen a commercial using someone who was so hideously murdered does, however, show commendable honesty in expressing a perverse valuation of human life as subordinate to financial gain. — Darron Araujo
In brief
Douglas Gibson is a great liability to the DA, as shown by his crass actions at President Thabo Mbeki’s residence. He thinks opposition politics means showing contempt for government representatives. He is confrontational and self-centred, which is the main reason most black people feel alienated from DA policies. — Patrick Rampai, Johannesburg
Considering the xenophobia other Africans encounter in South Africa, Percy Zvomuya must be commended for contributing to positive images of foreigners. His “Jo’burg Kwasa Kwasa” (August 25) was an invaluable attempt to edify South Africans on the myriad wonderful cultural traditions which now make up our cultural landscape. — Richard Ferraris
Carlos Parreira’s appointment as national coach is proving extremely costly for South Africa. He seems to be dictating the terms, and in addition to his whopping salary, has asked to hire three of his assistants. This is a slap in the face for local coaches. He must have a South African assistant for succession purposes. — Sipho Ngwetsheni, Mogale City
As a medical doctor working at one of the South Africa’s busiest public hospitals, I agree the health minister overemphasises nutrition in treating HIV/Aids. But your editor underemphasises personal responsibility. I cannot see why my hard-earned tax money should subsidise a massive orgy. If the public chooses to behave immorally, they should deal with the consequences. — L Benjamin