| Counterfeiters in Egypt send fake shekels to Gaza Posted: 07 Dec 2011 08:50 PM PST Palestine Press Agency has an article about the problem of counterfeit currency in Gaza. The reporter posed as a currency exchanger and became friendly with a Gazan contact, as he asked for a quantity of shekels. The counterfeit money comes in all denominations, from 100 shekel notes down to fake 5 shekel coins! A Palestinian Arab in el-Arish creates the fake money and transports them through Gaza tunnels. The reporter couldn't get the counterfeit shekels the first day because Hamas was watching, bit a few days later they smuggled them in through normal goods smuggled through the tunnels - in this case, in paint cans. Gazan intermediaries keep in touch with the Egyptian side through SMS. Most of the people involved do not know each other so if they are caught the operation can remain intact. The forged cash is then spent in Gaza City markets where the shop-owners get duped. 
|
| Stunning academic study: Reuters engages in anti-Israel propaganda Posted: 07 Dec 2011 02:54 PM PST From PRWeb: Roosevelt University academic study documents systematic use of propaganda by world's largest news agency.
A study published in the November/December issue of the Journal of Applied Business Research finds that Reuters coverage of the Middle East conflict is systematically tainted by propaganda and influences readers to side with the Palestinians and Arab states against the Israelis.
Researcher Henry Silverman of Roosevelt University analyzed a sample of fifty news-oriented articles published on the Reuters.com websites for the use of classic propaganda techniques, logical fallacies and violations of the Reuters Handbook of Journalism, a manual of guiding ethical principles for the company's journalists.
Across the articles, over 1,100 occurrences of propaganda, fallacies and handbook violations in 41 categories were identified and classified.
In the second part of the study, a group of thirty-three university students were surveyed, before and after reading the articles, to assess their attitudes and motivation to support one or the other belligerent parties in the Middle East conflict, i.e., the Palestinians/Arabs or the Israelis. The study found that on average, subject sentiment shifted significantly following the readings in favor of the Arabs and that this shift was associated with particular propaganda techniques and logical fallacies appearing in the stories.
"Governments have long used propaganda to whip up public support during wartime and to demonize enemies", says Silverman. "Reuters is adopting these same techniques to covertly shape audience perceptions and opinion in violation of its corporate governance charter." Silverman points out that this is particularly troubling since "the news agency promotes itself as a paragon of accurate and impartial reporting and its stories are read by millions of people who are led to believe they are being provided objective facts". The entire study is most interesting. It uses previously established, fairly rigorous criteria as to what constitutes "propaganda." It chose 50 articles about the conflict published by Reuters between May 31 and August 31, 2010 (during and after the Mavi Marmara incident.) Here is how the study describes its analysis methods of the articles, with a detailed example: Across the fifty articles in the data sample, ECA reveals 1,104 occurrences of reporting/ethical failures, i.e., propaganda devices, logical fallacies, and violations of the Reuters Handbook of Journalism, with a mean of 22.08 reporting/ethical failures per article. The propaganda device of asymmetrical definition occurs most frequently with a total of 129 instances followed by the propaganda device of card stacking with 94 occurrences. The logical fallacy occurring most frequently is appeal to pity and the Handbook violation occurring with the greatest frequency is that of a failure to uphold social responsibility.
An asymmetrical definition is a type of suggestion where the audience is misled via the propagandist's use of a word or phrase bearing a meaning different than that the audience would normally attribute to it (Smith, 1989). Reuters repetitive use of this technique can be seen in 16 of the sample articles published in June which focus on the story of a Turkish-led flotilla apprehended at sea while attempting to break the Israeli weapons blockade of the Gaza Strip. The flotilla consisted of six vessels, three of which were carrying construction materials and humanitarian aid for Palestinian Arabs (Palestinians) in Gaza. Five of the ships were boarded and subsequently impounded by the Israeli navy without loss of life or serious injury but the sixth ship, the Mavi Marmara, was the scene of violent clashes between passengers armed with cold weapons, e.g., knives and iron bars, and Israeli forces, armed with paintball guns and pistols.12 Although it went unreported by Reuters, inspection of the Mavi Marmara cargo hold immediately following the incident revealed no humanitarian aid on board the ship.13 Yet, in over a dozen stories in the data sample, Reuters conflates the Mavi Marmara with the other vessels, repeatedly using the word "aid" to describe the ship, its cargo, and its purported mission, i.e., to bring humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza.
In a story published on June 4, 2010 for example, Reuters correspondent Tom Perry and then-Jerusalem Bureau Chief Alastair Macdonald write:
Israel is unlikely to heed calls to lift the blockade of the Gaza Strip but is bloody seizure of a Turkish aid ship has caused international anger and American dismay that is forcing it to seek conciliatory moves.
Israel's leaders have been unrepentant. Prime Minister Netanyahu accused Europeans of hypocrisy over efforts to stop Iranian arms reaching Gaza's Hamas Islamist rulers.
But even with vital ally the United States criticizing the harm the blockade is doing to the 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza, and President Barack Obama calling the killing of nine men, including an American, a tragedy, Netanyahu is seeking points where concessions can soak up some of the pressure.
Perry and Macdonald's de facto editorial piece, which is identified in the headline as "Analysis" rather than with the more traditional and transparent term "Op-Ed" adopted by most media firms for stories where subjective content appears, is laden with propaganda devices and violations of the Reuters Handbook of Journalism.
First, by mischaracterizing the Mavi Marmara as an "aid ship", asymmetrical definition is being deployed to suggest a role for the ship distinctly different from the role it actually undertook and ultimately played in the incident. Although it is remotely possible Perry and Macdonald are utilizing the word "aid" to mean assistance in a socio-political sense, i.e., calling attention to the circumstances of Palestinians living in Gaza, readers are clearly and overtly being given the false impression that the Mavi Marmara carried humanitarian aid when it did not.
The statement, "Israel's leaders have been unrepentant" reflects both the propaganda device of innuendo and the use of loaded words, a violation of Reuters Handbook, as the language implicitly conveys a judgment of wrongdoing and moral condemnation of Israel's government officials for the incident which had neither been alleged nor proven by any juridical body.
"The harm the blockade is doing to the 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza" reflects 1) an assertion; 2) exaggeration; 3) card stacking; and 4) atrocity propaganda respectively, as the phrase is 1) unproven; 2) inflates the impact of the "blockade" to encompass the entire population in Gaza; 3) omits mention of the fact that Egypt too, had been embargoing the Gaza Strip; and 4) alludes to the "blockade" as a war atrocity by virtue of its alleged deleterious effect on the civilian population, without mentioning that all manner of humanitarian goods had been regularly transiting through the Israeli land border with the Gaza Strip.17
Perry and Macdonald then cite President Barack Obama "calling the killing of nine men, including an American, a tragedy". What Obama actually said in the relevant interview with CNN one day prior to the publication of the Reuters story was the following:
What's important right now is that we break out of the current impasse, use this tragedy as an opportunity so that we figure out how can we meet Israel's security concerns, but, at the same time, start opening up opportunity for Palestinians, work with all parties concerned, the Palestinian Authority, the Israelis, the Egyptians, and others. And I think Turkey can have a positive voice in this whole process, once we've worked through this tragedy, and bring everybody together to figure out, how can we get a two-state solution where Palestinians and the Israelis can live side-by-side in peace and security.18
Note that Obama characterizes as a "tragedy" the incident generally, i.e., the violence and casualties on both sides, not the [Israeli] killing of nine men, including an American as Perry and Macdonald misstate. This reporting failure is, at a minimum, an uncorrected error and improper use/lack of quotes, both violations of the Reuters Handbook. More likely, given the easily accessible record of the President's televised comments just a day earlier, the mischaracterization reflects a historical reconstruction, i.e., intentional fabrication, on the part of Perry and Macdonald. One other of the many examples given to illustrate a specific propaganda technique: Employing a propaganda device known as symbolic fiction, Sawafta and Hamilton cite a study by an Israeli non-government organization:
A report this week by Israeli human rights group B'Tselem says more than 300,000 Israelis now live on 42 percent of the West Bank, land where Palestinians want to establish their future country in a "two-state solution" with Israel. The B'Tselem study does not say this. Rather, the report indicates that Jewish communities reside upon less than 1 percent of this disputed territory. There is an allegation that due to the classification of a portion of the territory as "state land" by Israel, 42 percent of it is controlled by Israeli Jewish councils.47 Even this claim however, has been rejected by the Chairman of the Council of Jewish Communities who puts the figure at 9 percent. Following presentation of this fiction, Sawafta and Hamilton again violate Reuters' fairness doctrine by failing to provide space for any Israeli official to respond to the fictionalized claim in their story. The survey given after the volunteers read the stories asked two very simple questions. 1) After reading this article, I feel more sympathetic or favorable towards:
Arabs/Palestinians--O--------------O---------------O---------------O--------------O-Israelis
2) After reading this article, I am more motivated to take some supportive action on behalf of:
Arabs/Palestinians--O--------------O---------------O---------------O--------------O-Israelis The results? For both survey questions, there is a large and extremely significant difference between the mean subject response prior to undertaking the readings and the mean response following the individual readings. ...Subjects take a largely neutral view of the belligerents going into the study (untransformed mean 3.18) but substantially shift their view in favor of the Arabs/Palestinians over the course of the readings (untransformed mean 2.17). Similarly, prior to the readings subjects are nearly dead neutral on whether they feel motivated to take supportive action on behalf of one or the other belligerent parties (untransformed mean 3.12) but over the course of the readings, subjects feel significantly more motivated to take supportive action on behalf of the Arabs/Palestinians (untransformed mean 2.35).
Consistent with the findings of Likert (1932), Rosenthal (1934), and other researchers employing linear scales to measure the effect of propaganda on audience attitudes and behavior, Reuters' stories are clearly influencing reader sentiment, in this case by shifting it favorably toward the Arabs/Palestinians and away from the Israelis. The paper goes on to note that the higher the "propaganda" rating of the piece, the more the subjects shifted their opinions towards the Palestinian Arab side of the story. This is stunning. While I can see how it may be possible for the researchers to be less than perfectly objective in categorizing phrases in different subjective buckets, the major result is that Reuters stories cause readers to act in ways consistent to having been subjected to anti-Israel propaganda. While there have been a number of attempts to quantify bias in specific media outlets, this is the most objective and scientific study I have seen in for the Middle East conflict. It proves, as much as something like this can be proven, that Reuters is systematically and institutionally biased against Israel. It would be most enlightening to see a comparison of different news sources using these same techniques over the same time period. 
|
| Reuters vs. the truth Posted: 07 Dec 2011 01:30 PM PST Reuters has an article implying that Israel is a reckless ally, prone to doing dangerous acts without informing the US ahead of time: The Obama administration does not know Israel's intentions regarding potential military action against Iran, and the uncertainty is stoking concern in Washington, where the preferred course for now is sanctions and diplomatic pressure.
Although Israel remains one of the United States' closest allies and the two countries' officials are in regular contact, U.S. officials have a "sense of opacity" regarding what might prompt an Israeli military strike on Iranian nuclear sites, and about when such an attack might occur, according to a senior U.S. national security official.
Two key U.S. senators acknowledged on Tuesday that there are gaps in U.S. knowledge about Israeli leaders' thinking and intentions.
"I don't think the administration knows what Israel is going to do. I'm not sure Israel knows what Israel is going to do ... That's why they want to keep the other guys guessing. Keep the bad guys guessing," said Democratic Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Senator John McCain, the senior Republican on the committee, echoed Levin's view: "I'm sure (administration officials) don't know what the Israelis are going to do. They didn't know when the Israelis hit the reactor in Syria. But the Israelis usually know what we're going to do."
General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Reuters in an interview he did not know whether the Jewish state would give the United States notice ahead of time if it decided to act.
A former U.S. government official said: "There are plenty of instances when the Israelis have undertaken action without informing the United States first. So not always should we assume a level of coordination (between Washington and Israel) in advance on all issues."
Bruce Riedel, a former senior CIA expert on the Middle East who has advised Obama, said, "Israel has a long history of conducting military operations from Baghdad to Tunis without giving Washington advance notice."
Riedel said the White House wants to send Israel a strong message that the United States does not expect to be blindsided by its ally. "Obama wants Bibi to understand unequivocally he does not want a repeat performance in Iran," he said, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by his nickname.
The Obama administration suspects that Israeli leaders have marked out for themselves certain "red lines" related to Iranian nuclear progress which could trigger Israeli military action if they are crossed, one U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
But Obama administration policymakers are plagued by a "sense of opacity" in their understanding of where the Israeli red lines are drawn, the official added. Reuters of course does not consider how Washington is treating Israel while Iran moves forward with its nuclear weapons program. TNR has an interesting article about just that topic: Over the weekend I had the privilege of sitting in on the 8th annual Saban Forum, a high-level, Brookings-sponsored dialogue between Israeli and American officials (current and former) along with journalists, intellectuals, and representatives from other countries in the Middle East. ...I came away from the two days with a dark and disturbing conclusion: There is a gulf between Israel and the United States that could have momentous consequences in 2012. When American officials declare that all options are on the table, most Israelis do not believe them. They have concluded, rather, that when the crunch comes (and everyone thinks it will), the United States will shy away from military force and reconfigure its policy to live with a nuclear-armed Iran. This is an outcome that no Israeli government can tolerate. For Israel, the Palestinian issue is an identity question: What kind of country will Israel be and what kind of life will Israelis lead? But the Iranian issue is an existential question: Will Israel and Israelis survive?
In his opening remarks, the Secretary of Defense restated President Obama's declared position on Iran's nuclear ambitions that "we have not taken any option off the table." During the question period, however, he offered a long list of reservations against the military option: Some of the targets are very difficult to get at, and even a successful attack would set back the Iranian program by no more than two years. The Iranian regime, now approaching pariah status, would be able to mobilize renewed support at home and abroad. U.S. interests in the Middle East would be subject to retaliation. The fragile economies of the United States and Europe would be gravely disrupted. And worst of all, the ensuing conflagration could "consume the Middle East in a confrontation and a conflict that we would regret." Whatever Panetta's intention, Israelis heard those remarks as a declaration of his opposition to the use of force against Iran, even if that country was on the verge of producing nuclear weapons. (The administration's reluctance to go along with sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran—a matter Israelis raised repeatedly during the meeting—only adds to its credibility problem.)
During a break, I button-holed a knowledgeable, highly respected former Israeli official and asked whether he thought that the military option was still on the table for the United States. No, he replied, the United States had shifted to a containment strategy two years ago. Another former official, equally knowledgeable and respected, shook his head in dissent. No, he said, it was one year ago. While I didn't meet all the Israelis in attendance, I talked with quite a few and didn't encounter a differing view. And it was not a hard-line group: Supporters of Prime Minister Netanyahu were in a distinct minority in the Israeli delegation, a fact that occasioned humor on both the Israeli and American sides.
...Of course, Israel's beliefs about American intentions toward Iran may well be mistaken. But it is a fact that they hold those beliefs and will continue to do so unless the Obama administration can persuade them that the use of military force remains a live option. In other words, if Israel believes the US will truly do everything necessary to stop Iranian nuclear weapons from being developed, it has no reason to hide anything from the US. But if the US is actively opposing military action, the indication is that it opposes Israeli military action as well, so cooperating with the US would (from Israel's perspective) endanger Israels' very existence. Reuters reporters are of course not quite educated enough to understand this. And their quote of McCain is interesting. He says that the US did not know in advance of Israel's bombing of Syria's secret nuclear reactor. In fact, the US was informed ahead of time. Senior U.S. officials said the U.S. military was not involved in the attack, and the U.S. government, although informed in advance, did not approve it.
"Israel made the decision to attack," a senior administration official said. "It did so without any so-called green light from us. None was asked for and none was given." Also notable is that the attack on the Syrian reactor was not done when Netanyahu was in office - but Olmert. (h/t R-MEW, JW) 
|
| Torture, rape and organ theft in the Sinai Posted: 07 Dec 2011 12:00 PM PST From Al Masry al Youm: Horrific accounts of torture, rape and organ theft are continuing to emerge from Egypt's Sinai desert, seven rights organizations said last week in a press statement.
 Human trafficking networks operating in northern Sinai detain migrants and hold them in what the rights organizations describe as "torture camps" until relatives pay a ransom.
The statement says that despite the "chilling evidence of horrors" inflicted on refugees — mostly fleeing Eritrea and Sudan — in detention, little has been done to rescue them.
Smuggling networks are "still up and running and hundreds of refugee hostages are being tortured by human traffickers in Sinai," with the objective of obtaining tens of thousands of dollars in random money for their release.
Authorities have struggled to maintain control of North Sinai since Egypt's revolution began in January and the security vacuum has been exploited both by radical Islamists who have taken up arms, and some Bedouins who are cashing in on a lucrative human trafficking trade, smuggling migrants across the border to Israel.
The statement provides grim details of refugees' experiences while being held hostage in Sinai. These details have emerged while refugees are still in detention, via satellite phones provided by their captors to call relatives and demand ransom money.
Five groups of hostages are currently being held.
One group of 165 Eritrean refugees is under the control of a group of eight traffickers led by an individual known as Abu Musa. This group is not in Sinai but the Delta governorate of Mansoura, and has been held for several months in a bunker, according to the report.
One refugee told the Hotline for Migrant Workers, one of the groups behind the statement, that smugglers beat and electroshock their victims in order to raise ransom money — set at US$30,000. He added that the group has not left the bunker since they arrived, but that the women are taken out every night and raped.
Five prisoners died as a result of electrocution in one week, the statement says.
Members of another group of 59 people told the Italian Agenzia Habeshia, another of the seven rights groups, that two of their members are in late-term pregnancy, and one, who is seven-months pregnant and was kidnapped from Sudan, has been raped "many times."
When she was unable to pay the smugglers in Sudan the $3,000 they were demanding for her release she was sold to other smugglers.
"The current smugglers are demanding $23,000 and have made it clear that if she does not come up with the money by the time of her delivery, she will be forced to pay an additional $23,000 for the infant," the statement says.
Several details are known about members of the smuggling operation, it says, including the names of several prominent members whose names are often repeated by victims.
One member, Abu Musa, is believed to work with the assistance of an Eritrean living in Israel, while another, Abu Abdalla, works closely with an Eritrean man known as Cornell, who is "responsible for collecting ransom money sent to Egypt by hostages' relatives and for managing a network of collaborators in Israel," the statement says.
In Khartoum, an Eritrean man called Angosom has kidnapped hundreds of Eritreans from refugee camps in Sudan and Ethiopia and sold them to human traffickers in Egypt.
The Arabic edition of Al-Masry Al-Youm reported last month an even more sinister dimension to Sinai's human trafficking industry. Traffickers are stealing the organs of the refugees they kidnap, it reported, adding that there were violent confrontations in central Sinai as the Tayaha tribe accused members of the Nakhalwa tribe of stealing organs. 
|
| Max Blumenthal fabricates a quote (updated) Posted: 07 Dec 2011 10:40 AM PST I had been reading on Twitter that an article by rabid Israel hater and serial liar Max Blumenthal contained a blockbuster quote that could not be verified - and now Jeffrey Goldberg has proven it: A couple of Goldblog readers alerted me to a Max Blumenthal story in which Karen Greenberg, the director of the Fordham School of Law's Center on National Security, is quoted accusing Israel of teaching American interrogators the dark art of torture:
"After 9/11 we reached out to the Israelis on many fronts and one of those fronts was torture," Greenberg told me. "The training in Iraq and Afghanistan on torture was Israeli training. There's been a huge downside to taking our cue from the Israelis and now we're going to spread that into the fabric of everyday American life? It's counter-terrorism creep. And it's exactly what you could have predicted would have happened." I was surprised to read this, because, though I don't know Karen Greenberg personally, I do know of her reputation for seriousness, and I was surprised she would make such an explosive charge without offering evidence that Israel was involved in such training.
Well, I called Greenberg, and it turns out that she, too, was surprised, because she said she never told Max Blumenthal any such thing. Here's what she told me: "I never made such a statement. I've never seen any proof of this. I told him I had heard a story out there about this issue, but that he should look into it and see if he could find evidence, because I have no proof of this charge. You have to be particularly careful when it comes to torture, you have to be careful not to overreach. He was looking for corroboration but I told him I didn't have any." The Greenberg quote was the linchpin of the entire article - the necessary missing piece Max needed to make his circumstantial case blaming Israel for US police actions at Occupy protests - and Blumenthal just made it up.
Blumenthal has written for the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, the Independent and other major news sites. They should definitely think twice before accepting anything from him again. And, of course, Al Akhbar should fire him according to their own editorial policies which demand "high standards of factual accuracy, source accountability, and proper accreditation." UPDATE: Mother Jones also spoke to Greenberg who similarly denied having said that. The article finds other mischaracterizations in the Blumenthal piece. Blumenthal, meanwhile, stands by his quote of Greenberg, even after her denial. He assumes that the mighty Zionist forces have forced her to retract, I guess by threatening Israeli torture techniques. Blumenthal claims that the Greenberg quote was peripheral to his piece. Of course, that is not true. No one denies that Israelis have been training a number of police departments in the US in counter-terrorism techniques; that is well known. Blumenthal's most sensational accusation was that Israel taught US police torture techniques - based on the fabricated quote from Karen Greenberg - and his broad implication, with zero proof, that local US cops were using methods they learned from Israel in the crackdown on the "occupy" protesters. Even in the unlikely case that Blumenthal quoted her correctly, it is clearly out of context and her denial carries far more weight than Blumenthal's original quote. The fact that he refuses to correct it, or even to modify it to include her clarifying remarks, shows how unimportant the truth is to Blumenthal. He had a great quote and he will stand by it, even if he has no proof of it. He also implies that Urban Shield is where Israelis teach their techniques to the police. But according to their website, it is where Israelis are learning their techniques - along with teams from Bahrain, Jordan, Singapore, Canada, Croatia, Qatar and the UAE. 
|
| PA stops cancer patients from being treated in Israel Posted: 07 Dec 2011 09:25 AM PST From PCHR: The Ministry of Health in Ramallah issued a decision decreasing transfers of patients to Israeli hospitals starting from 02 November 2011, and the Department of External Treatment in Gaza has been committed to this decision. The decision is attributed, according to sources of the Ministry, to the high costs of treatment in Israeli hospitals. These sources pointed out that this decision had been studied and discussed in the Ministry of Health for years, but it was delayed due the need of some patients, especially those suffering from serious or incurable diseases in need of treatment in advanced health facilities, and because Israeli hospitals are closer to the Gaza Strip than Egypt and Jordan.
This decision has led to stopping dozens of transfers of patients who suffer from serious diseases, 90% of them cancer patients, whose treatment is not available in the Gaza Strip. It has also endangered the lives of dozens of patients who are in critical conditions and whose transfer to Egyptian hospitals is not possible due to the long distance. Furthermore, not all medical treatment for their diseases is available in hospitals in Jerusalem or the West Bank. Two children died as they urgently needed advanced medical treatment, but the Ministry of Health transferred them to hospitals that cannot treat their diseases. Those hospitals apologized for not admitting them, and the Ministry of Health did not transfer them to Israeli Hospitals. The PA manages to find money to pay families of terrorist "martyrs" and prisoners, and for TV shows filled with incitement against Jews and Israel, but money for patients with life-threatening diseases just dries up. Although PCHR doesn't say this, there is very possibly another reason why the Palestinian Authority doesn't want patients in Israeli hospitals: because it provides good PR for Israel, and that is anathema. Arab leaders - including the current PA leaders - have been treating Palestinian Arabs as stateless pawns for years just to make Israel look bad. Why would it surprise anyone that they might choose to let a few of their people die to avoid having their lives saved by the hated Zionists? (h/t David G) 
|
| Islamic cleric bans women touching bananas and cucumbers Posted: 07 Dec 2011 08:14 AM PST From Bikya Masr: An Islamic cleric residing in Europe said that women should not be close to bananas or cucumbers, in order to avoid any "sexual thoughts."
The unnamed sheikh, who was featured in an article on el-Senousa news, was quoted saying that if women wish to eat these food items, a third party, preferably a male related to them such as their a father or husband, should cut the items into small pieces and serve. He said that these fruits and vegetables "resemble the male penis" and hence could arouse women or "make them think of sex."
He also added carrots and zucchini to the list of forbidden foods for women.
The sheikh was asked how to "control" women when they are out shopping for groceries and if holding these items at the market would be bad for them. The cleric answered saying this matter is between them and God.
Answering another question about what to do if women in the family like these foods, the sheikh advised the interviewer to take the food and cut it for them in a hidden place so they cannot see it.
The opinion has stirred a storm of irony and denouncement among Muslims online, with hundreds of comments mocking the cleric.
One reader said that these religious "leaders" give Islam "a bad name" and another commented said that he is a "retarded" person and he must quit his post immediately. No word on whether men may touch cantaloupes or watermelons. Then again, perhaps Muslim men shouldn't be handling guns either. (h/t DoZ) 
|
| Israel kills Islamic Jihad rocket launcher Posted: 07 Dec 2011 07:00 AM PST From YNet: Israeli aircraft attacked terror cells in two separate locations in north Gaza overnight Wednesday. Palestinian sources said one of the cells, which belonged to Islamic Jihad's armed wing, was holed up in a building in Gaza City's Zeitun neighborhood, not far from the border fence separating Israel from the Hamas-ruled territory.
According to the sources, one cell member was killed and two others were wounded – one of them seriously – in the strike.
The IDF Spokesperson's Office said the terror cells were preparing to launch rockets towards Israeli army forces. The office said IDF forces who took part in the strike identified hits and thwarted the rocket fire. In case you were worried that the victim was an innocent civilian, the Islamic Jihad newspaper Palestine Today helpfully provides us with a photo and video of the dead man, Aeraar Ismail, 22: The EXIF information for the photo shows it was created by a Nikon D90 DSLR camera. Sounds like the impoverished terrorists in Gaza spare no expense for good camera equipment. And it looks like the dead man is indeed him: Here's the video, hilariously looped: According to the YouTube caption, this video was taken in the former Jewish community of Nahal Oz. 
|
| Assad: The buck stops...elsewhere Posted: 07 Dec 2011 05:37 AM PST This morning, ABC will air an exclusive interview with Bashir Assad. Syria allowed Barbara Walters to interview the dictator. Why Walters? Because she already has a Vogue-ish track record. And she is the go-to interviewer to help celebrities rehabilitate their reputations, since she will never embarrass her guests. For example, in March, Walters gushed about how great the Assads are on her TV show The View: According to YNet, in this interview Assad tries to duck responsibility for the thousands of murders committed in recent months by the Syrian security forces: Syrian President Bashar Assad has denied responsibility for the killing of thousands of anti-government protesters. In an interview with ABC News, to be aired Wednesday, Assad said he does not control the forces implementing his country's brutal crackdown.
During the interview, the Syrian ruler said that although he is president he does not "own the country, so they're not my forces."
In his first interview with an American news outlet since the violent crackdown began in March, Assad said there was "a big difference" between having "a policy to crack down and having mistakes committed by some officials." There's a leader for you - blaming his army and saying that he cannot control them. Maybe Syria hired a PR firm for this interview as well. The timing of Walters' March interview was suspiciously close to the infamous Vogue article, which makes one wonder whether a paid PR firm got ABC News to create a puff piece for the ruthless dictator last spring - and whether ABC is doing the same today. 
|
| Salafist Egyptians talk about Jizya and Israel Posted: 07 Dec 2011 02:41 AM PST From Eric Trager at TNR: At one of my polling place visits, a van full of women that had been brought to vote for Nour called me over to extol the Nour Party's virtues. "They are good people and serve the community," said Nour al-Hoda Desouki, excitedly holding a Nour party sample ballot. "We are a conservative people but we'll talk to you." But her good deed couldn't go unpunished. A Nour representative swiftly approached my translator and told us to stop talking to women.
 Still, I humored the Salafists. If they were truly "open to anything," would they support allowing Egyptian hotels to continue serving alcohol to tourists? "In my opinion, no," said Mehdi, the Nour activist handing out party programs by the polling station. "Because it's forbidden."
"But the people who drink aren't Muslims," my translator, himself a committed Muslim, interjected.
"They have to respect the country," Mehdi replied. "Like in Germany, people respect the country and have to speak German. You have to respect the country you're in, even if you disagree."
Well, what would be your policy towards Christians? Would you force them to pay the jizya – the special tax that Muslim rulers historically imposed on non-Muslim minorities to pay for Islamic wars? "They already pay it through their taxes," Sherif, another local Nour coordinator, said. "Each society has its own revenue sources—in Islam, it's zakat for Muslims and jizya for non-Muslims. Even they have to serve in the community, whether they're Christians or Jews. They pay jizya because we offer security."
Finally, I turned to foreign policy. What is your view of Camp David, I asked. "I heard about Camp David when I was a kid and I heard from people and our scholars that it is unjust for us," Sherif said. "But I never read it. I don't want war with Israel. So Israel must leave the part that it took from me." Which part? "Israel should withdraw from all of Palestine—not just the West Bank or Gaza." I gave him a confused look. "I never denied that some Jews lived there before." On that note, I said goodbye.
As we headed back to the cab, our driver—who had sat in for that last part—nodded approvingly. "They're really good people," he said. Though he's not an Islamist himself, he had voted for Nour earlier in the week. Why? "They're honest." Translating Jihad quotes El Fagr: A candidate for the salafi Nour Party, Ahmad 'Umran, expressed his surprise at being asked, "Who are you, and what is your role in politics?" He responded by saying, "They act as if we came from Mars and just landed here."
He added, "The Copts should not forget that we were the ones who freed them from the hands of the Romans, and that jizya is only half a dinar, which is taken from the rich and given to their poor." This came during the Friday sermon at the Mosque of the Court in the city center of Abnub. (h/t Anna Ekstrom, jzaik) 
|
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה