Full Analysis Summary
South Africa visa withdrawal
South Africa's Department of Home Affairs announced it has withdrawn a 90-day visa exemption for Palestinian passport holders.
The decision followed investigations that uncovered "mysterious" charter flights from Israel that brought hundreds of Palestinians into the country, according to Anadolu Ajansı.
The government said the exemption was being abused by Israeli actors linked to efforts to relocate Gaza residents.
It pointed to two recent charters that carried 153 and 176 Palestinians.
The government also promised to allow bona fide visitors and to process any asylum claims from those who arrived on the charters.
Coverage Differences
Emphasis and framing
Anadolu Ajansı (West Asian) frames the story primarily as an abuse of a visa policy and a migration-control response by South Africa, focusing on the investigations and the numbers on the charters. Al-Jazeera Net (West Asian) adds political context by reporting reported links to an Israeli–Estonian front and explicitly notes South Africa’s view that Israeli actions in Gaza amount to genocide and that it has taken the case to the International Court of Justice. The two sources therefore differ in emphasis: Anadolu Ajansı emphasizes administrative abuse and border control, while Al-Jazeera foregrounds political and legal accusations tied to Gaza.
South Africa asylum response
South African officials said they will assess asylum claims from those who were flown in.
Al Jazeera reports the government will process asylum applications from 153 Palestinians who arrived on one charter and said those who do not apply will remain covered by the 90-day exemption.
Anadolu Ajansı described the suspension as aimed at stopping further suspicious flights while keeping travel open for genuine visitors and handling asylum claims lodged by arrivals on the charters.
Coverage Differences
Detail and policy application
Al-Jazeera Net (West Asian) specifies that South Africa "will assess asylum claims from 153 Palestinians" and notes the administrative outcome for those who do not apply; Anadolu Ajansı (West Asian) similarly reports the suspension’s intent but frames it more as a stop-gap to halt further flights while allowing bona fide travel and asylum processing. The two sources align on the policy steps but Al-Jazeera provides the explicit asylum-count detail tied to one charter.
Coverage of suspicious flights
Al-Jazeera cites reporting in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that the suspicious flights were organised by an association run by an Israeli–Estonian national that served as a front for an Estonian consulting firm.
It also situates the flights in a wider political context by noting they coincide with remarks by Israeli ministers about displacing Palestinians from Gaza.
Al-Jazeera frames this backdrop as the context in which South Africa has accused Israel of genocide at the International Court of Justice.
By contrast, Anadolu Ajansı focuses more narrowly on the discovered charters and the Home Affairs response and does not relay the Haaretz allegation or the ICJ framing in the same terms.
Coverage Differences
Narrative and sourced allegations
Al-Jazeera Net (West Asian) reports a sourced allegation from Haaretz about the flights being organised by an Israeli–Estonian association serving as a front, and it explicitly connects the flights to Israeli ministers’ remarks and South Africa’s genocide accusation at the ICJ. Anadolu Ajansı (West Asian) reports the discovery of the charters and the withdrawal of the exemption and quotes officials and critics but does not include the Haaretz allegation or the ICJ linkage in the same explicit way. Thus Al-Jazeera foregrounds alleged coordination and legal-political claims; Anadolu Ajansı foregrounds administrative findings and domestic criticism.
Controversy over visa policy
Critics in South Africa condemned the withdrawal as collective punishment.
Anadolu Ajansı quotes Roshan Dadoo of the South African BDS Coalition calling the suspension a form of collective punishment and noting activists had campaigned for the visa-on-arrival policy.
South Africa’s move is contested domestically between officials who say they are stopping an orchestrated abuse of the exemption and activists who say the policy change penalises Palestinians fleeing Israeli action in Gaza that South Africa has described as genocide.
Coverage Differences
Tone and domestic response
Anadolu Ajansı (West Asian) reports direct critic quotes such as Roshan Dadoo’s framing of the suspension as a form of collective punishment and highlights activists’ prior campaigning; Al-Jazeera Net (West Asian) emphasizes the government’s reasoning and the legal-political context of South Africa’s broader stance on Israeli actions in Gaza, including the genocide accusation. The difference is that Anadolu foregrounds criticism and civil-society concerns, while Al-Jazeera situates the administrative decision within a larger international-legal argument.
Coverage of South Africa case
Two West Asian outlets report the same core event: South Africa withdrew the 90-day exemption after Israeli-linked charter flights brought hundreds of Palestinians.
Anadolu Ajansı centers its coverage on the administrative probe, passenger numbers, and domestic criticism of the policy.
Al-Jazeera foregrounds sourced allegations of organised flights and explicitly links the case to statements by Israeli ministers and South Africa's genocide accusation filed at the ICJ.
Both sources agree on the factual withdrawal but differ in how much they attribute coordinated intent and in the legal-political context they assign to the flights.
Overall, the reporting blends administrative migration control measures with politically charged accusations.
Coverage Differences
Overall framing and severity
Both sources agree on the core facts about the withdrawal and the existence of suspicious charter flights (Anadolu Ajansı). Al-Jazeera Net adds additional sourced allegations from Haaretz and explicitly links the flights to statements and legal action characterising Israel’s conduct in Gaza as genocide. Anadolu Ajansı does report domestic criticism and the numbers on the charters but does not foreground the Haaretz allegations or the ICJ framing in the same explicit terms. This creates a difference in tone and severity across the two West Asian outlets.