| Odense: Somalis vs. Arabs On Wednesday night the Bøgeparken in Vollsmose in Odense was the site for a mass brawl between a group of Somalis and a group of Arabs. "We got a report of shots at 1:08am. When we came out there, about 30 people were in the middle of a big brawl," says Kim Munksgaard of the Fyn police. Nobody was hit by the shots, but a 24 year old Somali man was attacked and hit with bats by six men of Arabic origin, says the police agent. He's now in the Odense University hospital, but is now out of danger. |
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Odense: Somalis vs. Arabs
Muslims: 'It's a slap in the face'
| Muslims: 'It's a slap in the face' "It's a slap in the face of all Moroccan and Muslim Dutch. It's really painful that a party which considers Moroccans and Muslim Dutch as second grade citizens is so popular, although I do understand it. They're kicking against the established order, and are new, many people think that the PVV could manage things better. SMN Chairman Farid Azarkan said, "Moroccan-Dutch are now wondering whether their neighbours and colleagues still see them as fellow citizens of this country, and whether there is a safe future here for them and their children." But he adds, "We must remember that most people in the Netherlands did not vote for the Freedom Party. That is a sign of hope. A very large majority of the Dutch population wants pluriformity and diversity. That is the Netherlands that we are so familiar with: a country of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and solidarity." Driss El Boujoufi, spokesperson for the Union of Moroccan Mosque Organizations in the Netherlands (UMMON), is also concerned. "We respect the results that were arrived at democratically, but mud-throwing at a certain group doesn't contribute to a harmonious society. Muslims are not a negligible group in Dutch society, we hope that PVV voters would also see that." Sources: Elsevier, AD (Dutch), RNW (English) |
County looks for "female, white and non-Muslim" taxi driver
| UK: County looks for "female, white and non-Muslim" taxi driver This article was prepared by the Islam in Europe blog - islamineurope.blogspot.com The Chronicle & Echo revealed yesterday that the council had issued the tender for private firms to bid for the contract, which would require them to transport a vulnerable child to and from school. Yousuf Miah, chairman of Northamptonshire Muslim Council, called for those responsible for the advertisement to "be held to account". He said: "Having made the error, I am pleased to see that the council has swiftly apologised and promised to look into the matter. "This advertisement discriminates on several fronts including gender, race and religion. "I can accept the gender choice in some instances but the other two are outrageous and unacceptable and I see no reason to exclude non-whites or the people of a particular faith. "I would be very keen to see just what the circumstances were to warrant such a specific requirement." He added that the advertisement's specific exclusion of Muslim applicants was very damaging to the council's relationship with the Islam community in Northamptonshire.
Source: Chronicle & Echo |
Monday, June 7, 2010
An Obama flotilla? | Al Jazeera Blogs
An Obama flotilla? | Al Jazeera Blogs: "So much for helping our coverage of�the Netanyahu visit.� I arrived in Washington, DC, last week thinking that would be my mission.� Instead I found myself - like the rest of Washington - reacting to the Flotilla crisis.
�
As I reported, the vast majority of Americans would have seen a highly skewed presentation of those events as reported by the dominant cable news channels.�� TV is the preferred way most Americans get their news each day.� And the effects�that has on US foreign policy is telling.� MJ Rosenberg at Media Matters Action Network summed it up�best. 'The one sided cable coverage of the whole flotilla incident,' he said, 'leads people out there to basically say Israel is right, Israel has always been right, and leads them not to put any pressure on Congress or the President to do anything about this."
http://islaamdoon.blogspot.com/
�
As I reported, the vast majority of Americans would have seen a highly skewed presentation of those events as reported by the dominant cable news channels.�� TV is the preferred way most Americans get their news each day.� And the effects�that has on US foreign policy is telling.� MJ Rosenberg at Media Matters Action Network summed it up�best. 'The one sided cable coverage of the whole flotilla incident,' he said, 'leads people out there to basically say Israel is right, Israel has always been right, and leads them not to put any pressure on Congress or the President to do anything about this."
http://islaamdoon.blogspot.com/
The myth of Israeli morality - Focus - Al Jazeera English
The myth of Israeli morality - Focus - Al Jazeera English: "The Israeli attack on the international aid flotilla - killing nine and injuring dozens more - is not the first example of non-violent resistance by Palestinians and their supporters being met by force.
Israel has, in fact, at different times reacted with repression or even extreme violence to cultural and political manifestations of Palestinian identity.
But the flotilla carnage is the first direct and officially declared attack by the Israeli army on foreign activists - taking Israel's reaction to solidarity activities to a new and unprecedented level.
Israeli claims that Turkish activists 'resisted' its takeover of the ships do not change the reality that the Israeli army performed an illegal armed operation against activists who challenged the siege of Gaza - not with weapons, but by trying to deliver food and medical supplies to the besieged Palestinian population.
Israeli impunity has already been shown in the cases of Western peace activists Rachel Corrie and Tom Hurndell who were killed while peacefully protesting against Israeli army actions against Palestinian citizens."
Israel has, in fact, at different times reacted with repression or even extreme violence to cultural and political manifestations of Palestinian identity.
But the flotilla carnage is the first direct and officially declared attack by the Israeli army on foreign activists - taking Israel's reaction to solidarity activities to a new and unprecedented level.
Israeli claims that Turkish activists 'resisted' its takeover of the ships do not change the reality that the Israeli army performed an illegal armed operation against activists who challenged the siege of Gaza - not with weapons, but by trying to deliver food and medical supplies to the besieged Palestinian population.
Israeli impunity has already been shown in the cases of Western peace activists Rachel Corrie and Tom Hurndell who were killed while peacefully protesting against Israeli army actions against Palestinian citizens."
Saudi Arabia foils 220 terror acts
Saudi Arabia foils 220 terror acts
Second Deputy Premier and Interior Minister Prince Naif receives Sheikh Saif bin Zayed Al-Nahyan, deputy premier minister of Interior of the United Arab Emirates, at the Conferences Palace in Jeddah Sunday evening. During the meeting both the leaders discussed topics of common interest between the two countries (SPA)
By MUHAMMAD HUMAIDAN | ARAB NEWS
Published: Jun 7, 2010 00:42 Updated: Jun 7, 2010 00:42
JEDDAH: Second Deputy Premier and Interior Minister Prince Naif has commended the country's security forces for their braveness in confronting domestic terrorism.
"Thanks to Almighty Allah, our brave security men have confronted the deviant groups and their criminal deeds in a scientific and practical manner and successfully stopped 220 criminal attempts and arrested its perpetrators and their supporters," Naif said while receiving Minister of Commerce and Industry Abdullah Zainal Alireza and Council of Saudi Chambers of Commerce and Industry Chairman Saleh Kamel at his office late Saturday.
Prince Naif wondered how a Saudi citizen could be against his homeland and fellow countrymen or justify the killing of innocent people.
"How can a Saudi in a foreign country set off a bomb and kill innocent people?" Prince Naif asked.
The prince warned that Saudi Arabia was still a target. "So we are going ahead with the same strength and determination to confront them," the prince said, stressing that the citizen is always the first defense against terrorism.
London-based Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper reported Sunday that Hailah Al-Qusayyer, a woman terror suspect arrested in Buraidah recently, was the most active Al-Qaeda operative in the Kingdom. She recruited a number of women and children for the terror outfit. It was in a bid to seek her release that Saeed Al-Shahri, the Saudi Al-Qaeda commander in Yemen, issued a threat to kidnap and assassinate Saudi princes, security officers and ministers a few days ago, the report said. She also called for the abduction of Christians in the Kingdom. Hailah, who is in her late 30s, was a known preacher while pursuing studies at Qassim University.
"The two explosive belts that were found with the two youths, Yusuf Al-Shahri and Raed Al-Harbi, who figured in the list of 85 wanted terror suspects, when they were arrested close to the Yemen border in Jazan province in October, were meant for Hailah. She had two men ready for suicide operations and they were just waiting for the belts," the report said.
It was also reported that Hailah had organized a function at her home in honor of the young man who blew himself up at the residence of Prince Muhammad bin Naif, assistant minister of interior for security affairs, in Jeddah in August.
In the meeting Prince Naif had with the ministers, he also stressed the role of businessmen in creating job opportunities for young men, particularly for those who return from abroad after higher studies. He called on businessmen to work in coordination with various ministries to create jobs.
The prince demanded that businessmen not hike the prices of goods and said they should be content with a reasonable profit margin.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
'The beginning of the end for Israel'
'The beginning of the end for Israel': "The former speaker of Iran's Parliament, Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel, says the Israeli assault on the Freedom Flotilla is 'just the beginning of the end for Israel.'
He made the remarks on Saturday during a meeting with Press TV correspondent Hassan Ghani, a Freedom Flotilla activist who was recently released by the Israelis."
http://islaamdoon.blogspot.com/
He made the remarks on Saturday during a meeting with Press TV correspondent Hassan Ghani, a Freedom Flotilla activist who was recently released by the Israelis."
http://islaamdoon.blogspot.com/
'Israelis threw 4 injured into the sea'
'Israelis threw 4 injured into the sea'
Sat, 05 Jun 2010 23:37:12 GMT
 |
Pro-Palestinian protesters simulate the funeral of an activist in a demonstration against Israel's attack on the Gaza-bound Freedom Flotilla in Barcelona. |
Activist Idris Simsek, who was on board one of the six ships of the Freedom Flotilla during the Israeli attack, claims that four wounded activists were thrown into the sea.
The Israeli troops also put immense psychological pressure on the activists of the Freedom Flotilla, the Turkish daily Today's Zaman quoted Simsek as saying in an article published on Saturday.
Simsek said they expected some harassment from the Israeli forces but did not expect an armed attack.
He went on to say that he witnessed that the person who waived the white flag to surrender was shot by the Israeli troops.
Erol Demir, another activist who was on the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara, said there is film footage of the chaos and the carnage on the ship and stated that the footage will show the real face of the Israeli military to the entire world.
"They even shot those who surrendered. Many of our friends saw this. They told me that there were handcuffed people who were shot," he added.
Hakan Albayrak, a journalist from the Turkish daily Yeni Safak who was also on the ship, said, "It was an outright massacre what Israel did out there. They attacked us in international waters… We had no weapons. I think we lost more people."
The Israeli military attacked the Freedom Flotilla in international waters in the Mediterranean Sea early on May 31, killing nine Turkish citizens on board the six ships and injuring about 50 other people.
The fate of three other Freedom Flotilla activists is still unknown.
Israel also arrested nearly 700 activists from 42 countries on board the ships of the Freedom Flotilla, which was attempting to break the siege of Gaza in order to deliver 10,000 tons of humanitarian assistance to the long-suffering people of the territory.
SG/HGL
The Israeli troops also put immense psychological pressure on the activists of the Freedom Flotilla, the Turkish daily Today's Zaman quoted Simsek as saying in an article published on Saturday.
Simsek said they expected some harassment from the Israeli forces but did not expect an armed attack.
He went on to say that he witnessed that the person who waived the white flag to surrender was shot by the Israeli troops.
Erol Demir, another activist who was on the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara, said there is film footage of the chaos and the carnage on the ship and stated that the footage will show the real face of the Israeli military to the entire world.
"They even shot those who surrendered. Many of our friends saw this. They told me that there were handcuffed people who were shot," he added.
Hakan Albayrak, a journalist from the Turkish daily Yeni Safak who was also on the ship, said, "It was an outright massacre what Israel did out there. They attacked us in international waters… We had no weapons. I think we lost more people."
The Israeli military attacked the Freedom Flotilla in international waters in the Mediterranean Sea early on May 31, killing nine Turkish citizens on board the six ships and injuring about 50 other people.
The fate of three other Freedom Flotilla activists is still unknown.
Israel also arrested nearly 700 activists from 42 countries on board the ships of the Freedom Flotilla, which was attempting to break the siege of Gaza in order to deliver 10,000 tons of humanitarian assistance to the long-suffering people of the territory.
SG/HGL
US Jewish opinion and the ‘Beinart moment’
By NEIL BERRY | ARAB NEWS
US Jewish opinion and the 'Beinart moment'
The controversial book, The Israel Lobby, in which the political scientists, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, argued that US foreign policy has been hijacked by organized Zionism went strangely unnoticed by the leading journal of American intellectual opinion, the New York Review of Books.
Yet in its June 10 issue the paper carries an article that could scarcely have been written, let alone published, but for the seminal impact of Mearsheimer and Walt's work.
Kindling anew controversy over the role of the Israel lobby in American public life, Peter Beinart's article The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment was already the subject of intense debate when the monstrous Israeli attack on the Gaza aid convoy triggered worldwide outrage and made more bitterly contentious than ever the issue of the United States' endless indulgence of the Jewish State.
Beinart's essay is remarkable for being the work of a Jewish journalist who formerly supported the chief manifestation of the US Israel lobby, the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Invoking the findings of Republican pollster Frank Luntz, Beinart points out that most non-Orthodox younger American Jews feel much less attached to Israel than their elders, with many professing a near total absence of positive feelings toward Israel. The students interviewed by Luntz were believers in open debate who were skeptical about military force and committed to human rights. They had not realized they were supposed to suspend those values in the case of Israel. The only kind of Zionism that appealed to them was one that recognized the dignity and capacity for peace of Palestinians, and they were not slow to condemn an Israeli government that did not share their values.
Beinart points to a widening gulf in the US between Orthodox Zionists devoted to Israel and liberal secular Jews like Luntz's students who uphold human rights for people of every description. If ever fewer American Jewish liberals are Zionists and ever fewer Zionists are liberals, he writes, it is because 'official' American Jewry have declined to foster a Zionism that challenges Israel's behavior in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and toward its own Arab citizens.
Beinart insists that saving "liberal Zionism" in the United States — and thus saving liberal Zionism in Israel — is the great American Jewish challenge of this era. Yet instead of talking frankly about its delinquencies, the US Jewish establishment accords blind loyalty to the right-wing Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, acquiescing in its routine portrayal of Jews as history's permanent victims, forever confronted by the possibility of fresh Holocaust. It likewise endorses without question the Netanyahu government's evident belief that to act ethically and respect the lives and human rights of Palestinian people (and even of their supporters) is a luxury that Israel cannot afford.
"The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment" has incensed Jewish conservative opinion in the US but is being hailed by Jewish liberals as an epoch-making event. The progressive Jewish blogger, Philip Weiss, who runs the invaluable anti-Zionist website Mondoweiss, believes that at a stroke Beinart has shifted the "center" of US Jewish debate about the Palestine-Israel conflict decisively to the left. Comments posted on his site indicate that Beinart has spelled out what great numbers of liberal Jews in the US have been saying privately for years. Weiss himself speaks of the "Beinart moment," of "space opening up to acknowledge what Israel is and allow Jews in the United States and beyond to embrace 'liberal' values."
Still, for all that Beinart's article constitutes a major breakthrough in terms of public debate, the Israel lobby remains a hugely powerful force at all levels of American political life, along with the Zionist mentality that inspires it. Even as the article appeared, US President Barack Obama's Jewish chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, was in Israel celebrating his son's bar mitzvah, a visit which not only underscored the symbiotic relationship that exists between the US and Israeli political establishments but epitomized their shared insensitivity to Arab opinion, including as it did a proprietary sight-seeing trip to the occupied Golan Heights. It is true that in deference to Washington settlement building in East Jerusalem has been temporarily frozen (Emanuel met with unbridled contempt from the Israeli right). Yet the peace process itself seems in danger of being frozen in perpetuity. The Obama administration is unlikely to say anything that could occasion negative Israeli reactions before the mid-term American elections in November, the favorable outcome of which for Obama and the Democratic Party depends in no small degree on retaining the goodwill of the party's Zionist sponsors.
The truth is that so long as the US Israel lobby holds the sway that it does, episodes like the "Beinart moment" will have no more than symbolic significance. In May, the New Yorker magazine featured a voluminous profile of the billionaire American Jewish media mogul, Haim Saban. A munificent donor to the Democratic Party (he is intimate with Bill and Hilary Clinton and has stayed in the White House), the Egyptian-born Saban describes himself as a 'one-issue' man, and his one issue is Israel and its welfare. An Israel lobby in his own person, this citizen of both the US and Israel bankrolls the Washington think-tank, the Saban Institute, and notwithstanding his trumpeted commitment to peace he personifies the kind of Zionism that is ferociously intolerant of criticism of the Jewish state. For some time yet, there may be further advances with respect to permissible US public criticism of Israel, without substantive progress taking place when it comes to effectual pressure being put on Israel by its most powerful ally.
The real breakthrough will only occur if and when Washington speaks out against Israel in language as unequivocal as that of Peter Beinart. Such a development may not be imminent, but in view of the changing climate of opinion among American Jewry and growing global revulsion at Israel's behavior, it may no longer be the stuff of fantasy.
US Jewish opinion and the 'Beinart moment'
The controversial book, The Israel Lobby, in which the political scientists, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, argued that US foreign policy has been hijacked by organized Zionism went strangely unnoticed by the leading journal of American intellectual opinion, the New York Review of Books.
Yet in its June 10 issue the paper carries an article that could scarcely have been written, let alone published, but for the seminal impact of Mearsheimer and Walt's work.
Kindling anew controversy over the role of the Israel lobby in American public life, Peter Beinart's article The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment was already the subject of intense debate when the monstrous Israeli attack on the Gaza aid convoy triggered worldwide outrage and made more bitterly contentious than ever the issue of the United States' endless indulgence of the Jewish State.
Beinart's essay is remarkable for being the work of a Jewish journalist who formerly supported the chief manifestation of the US Israel lobby, the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Invoking the findings of Republican pollster Frank Luntz, Beinart points out that most non-Orthodox younger American Jews feel much less attached to Israel than their elders, with many professing a near total absence of positive feelings toward Israel. The students interviewed by Luntz were believers in open debate who were skeptical about military force and committed to human rights. They had not realized they were supposed to suspend those values in the case of Israel. The only kind of Zionism that appealed to them was one that recognized the dignity and capacity for peace of Palestinians, and they were not slow to condemn an Israeli government that did not share their values.
Beinart points to a widening gulf in the US between Orthodox Zionists devoted to Israel and liberal secular Jews like Luntz's students who uphold human rights for people of every description. If ever fewer American Jewish liberals are Zionists and ever fewer Zionists are liberals, he writes, it is because 'official' American Jewry have declined to foster a Zionism that challenges Israel's behavior in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and toward its own Arab citizens.
Beinart insists that saving "liberal Zionism" in the United States — and thus saving liberal Zionism in Israel — is the great American Jewish challenge of this era. Yet instead of talking frankly about its delinquencies, the US Jewish establishment accords blind loyalty to the right-wing Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, acquiescing in its routine portrayal of Jews as history's permanent victims, forever confronted by the possibility of fresh Holocaust. It likewise endorses without question the Netanyahu government's evident belief that to act ethically and respect the lives and human rights of Palestinian people (and even of their supporters) is a luxury that Israel cannot afford.
"The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment" has incensed Jewish conservative opinion in the US but is being hailed by Jewish liberals as an epoch-making event. The progressive Jewish blogger, Philip Weiss, who runs the invaluable anti-Zionist website Mondoweiss, believes that at a stroke Beinart has shifted the "center" of US Jewish debate about the Palestine-Israel conflict decisively to the left. Comments posted on his site indicate that Beinart has spelled out what great numbers of liberal Jews in the US have been saying privately for years. Weiss himself speaks of the "Beinart moment," of "space opening up to acknowledge what Israel is and allow Jews in the United States and beyond to embrace 'liberal' values."
Still, for all that Beinart's article constitutes a major breakthrough in terms of public debate, the Israel lobby remains a hugely powerful force at all levels of American political life, along with the Zionist mentality that inspires it. Even as the article appeared, US President Barack Obama's Jewish chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, was in Israel celebrating his son's bar mitzvah, a visit which not only underscored the symbiotic relationship that exists between the US and Israeli political establishments but epitomized their shared insensitivity to Arab opinion, including as it did a proprietary sight-seeing trip to the occupied Golan Heights. It is true that in deference to Washington settlement building in East Jerusalem has been temporarily frozen (Emanuel met with unbridled contempt from the Israeli right). Yet the peace process itself seems in danger of being frozen in perpetuity. The Obama administration is unlikely to say anything that could occasion negative Israeli reactions before the mid-term American elections in November, the favorable outcome of which for Obama and the Democratic Party depends in no small degree on retaining the goodwill of the party's Zionist sponsors.
The truth is that so long as the US Israel lobby holds the sway that it does, episodes like the "Beinart moment" will have no more than symbolic significance. In May, the New Yorker magazine featured a voluminous profile of the billionaire American Jewish media mogul, Haim Saban. A munificent donor to the Democratic Party (he is intimate with Bill and Hilary Clinton and has stayed in the White House), the Egyptian-born Saban describes himself as a 'one-issue' man, and his one issue is Israel and its welfare. An Israel lobby in his own person, this citizen of both the US and Israel bankrolls the Washington think-tank, the Saban Institute, and notwithstanding his trumpeted commitment to peace he personifies the kind of Zionism that is ferociously intolerant of criticism of the Jewish state. For some time yet, there may be further advances with respect to permissible US public criticism of Israel, without substantive progress taking place when it comes to effectual pressure being put on Israel by its most powerful ally.
The real breakthrough will only occur if and when Washington speaks out against Israel in language as unequivocal as that of Peter Beinart. Such a development may not be imminent, but in view of the changing climate of opinion among American Jewry and growing global revulsion at Israel's behavior, it may no longer be the stuff of fantasy.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Buroa Presidential Election Rally held at Kheyria Square on 104/06/2010
Buroa Presidential Election Rally held at Kheyria Square on 104/06/2010
Flotilla journalist recounts ordeal
Flotilla journalist recounts ordeal
Thu, 03 Jun 2010 05:07:06 GMT
 |
A Press TV journalist detained on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla describes mistreatment of activists attacked on the aid convoy and his own ordeal in Israeli custody.
Still suffering from a lack of sleep, Hassan Ghani explained how Israeli navy forces suddenly encircled the Turkish-flagged vessel he was traveling on and launched an attack on the aid Flotilla.
"We were some 90 miles off the Israeli coast and we were by no means within the so-called military exclusion area, which was originally 20 miles but later extended to 68 miles," Ghani told Press TV on Thursday.
He described measures taken by the campaigners onboard the ships for repelling the invaders, saying water hoses were used to drive back the Israelis.
Meanwhile, helicopters belonging to the Israeli army landed on the deck and a number of frigates approached the vessel from either side.
Ghani added that Israeli commandos, each armed with at least two weapons, landed on the ship eventually.
"They came down and we heard gunfire... at this stage we did not know if they were rubber bullets or live ammunition but we heard gunfire," he said, adding that the activists used objects at hand and mostly their bare hands to defend themselves.
The soldiers tried to open fire with their machine guns when they faced resistance from activists who held them back from approaching the cameras broadcasting the course of events live from the main deck.
The Press TV correspondent added that the volunteers successfully disarmed some of the soldiers, taking away their guns with bare hands, when the Israeli side started using live bullets causing fatalities.
"A man was shot right in the head," Ghani said, explaining that the murder indicated the soldiers had enough time to aim and that the decision to shoot was not made on impulse or out of fear.
According to Ghani, the gunfire continued for quite some time even after the activists had raised their white flags.
Rejecting Israeli media reports about the alleged use of guns by the activists, Ghani said the only weapons carried by the volunteers were those seized from the Israeli soldiers. The guns were taken and their bullets were removed from the weapons and preserved to be used as evidence later, he explained.
Ghani and his companions were held under gun point and constant threats for some 12 hours in the ship, with their hands tied tight behind their backs. He said his hands were tied so tight that the blood circulation stopped in his right hand.
The soldiers took the entire luggage onboard and went through it all while forcing the activists to lie on the deck. The belongings of those on the ship were smashed and thrown all around, he said.
"We were treated like animals, we were told when to sit when to stand up," he recalled. "Nobody was allowed to stand up, nobody was allowed to go to the toilet," he said, adding that the Israeli forces would refuse permission until after the civilians had begged and pleaded several times.
"Then we were taken to the port of Ashdod, where we were all taken down. We were not allowed to take any sort of personal belongings."
Upon their arrival, the activists were forced to sign a statement in Hebrew which the volunteers did not understand. The international campaigners were interrogated and then sent to different Israeli prisons.
Prior to their departure, they were given another paper and were pressured to confirm that they agreed to being deported from Israel on charges of illegal entry — this is while the Israeli army had forcefully brought them in.
Those campaigners from countries which do not recognize Israel were bused away to Jordan while others were sent to Istanbul on Turkish airline planes.
Ghani said a number of volunteers refused to leave Israel and said they decided to file a complaint and defend their cases in an Israeli court.
However, their resistance was met with violence from the Israeli side and they were severely beaten and dragged to the bus to the airport, and eventually forced to get on the plane.
Throughout their detention, the activists were not allowed to contact a lawyer or call their families, in contrast to the Israeli prison law.
MRS/CS/MB
Still suffering from a lack of sleep, Hassan Ghani explained how Israeli navy forces suddenly encircled the Turkish-flagged vessel he was traveling on and launched an attack on the aid Flotilla.
"We were some 90 miles off the Israeli coast and we were by no means within the so-called military exclusion area, which was originally 20 miles but later extended to 68 miles," Ghani told Press TV on Thursday.
He described measures taken by the campaigners onboard the ships for repelling the invaders, saying water hoses were used to drive back the Israelis.
Meanwhile, helicopters belonging to the Israeli army landed on the deck and a number of frigates approached the vessel from either side.
Ghani added that Israeli commandos, each armed with at least two weapons, landed on the ship eventually.
"They came down and we heard gunfire... at this stage we did not know if they were rubber bullets or live ammunition but we heard gunfire," he said, adding that the activists used objects at hand and mostly their bare hands to defend themselves.
The soldiers tried to open fire with their machine guns when they faced resistance from activists who held them back from approaching the cameras broadcasting the course of events live from the main deck.
The Press TV correspondent added that the volunteers successfully disarmed some of the soldiers, taking away their guns with bare hands, when the Israeli side started using live bullets causing fatalities.
"A man was shot right in the head," Ghani said, explaining that the murder indicated the soldiers had enough time to aim and that the decision to shoot was not made on impulse or out of fear.
According to Ghani, the gunfire continued for quite some time even after the activists had raised their white flags.
Rejecting Israeli media reports about the alleged use of guns by the activists, Ghani said the only weapons carried by the volunteers were those seized from the Israeli soldiers. The guns were taken and their bullets were removed from the weapons and preserved to be used as evidence later, he explained.
Ghani and his companions were held under gun point and constant threats for some 12 hours in the ship, with their hands tied tight behind their backs. He said his hands were tied so tight that the blood circulation stopped in his right hand.
The soldiers took the entire luggage onboard and went through it all while forcing the activists to lie on the deck. The belongings of those on the ship were smashed and thrown all around, he said.
"We were treated like animals, we were told when to sit when to stand up," he recalled. "Nobody was allowed to stand up, nobody was allowed to go to the toilet," he said, adding that the Israeli forces would refuse permission until after the civilians had begged and pleaded several times.
"Then we were taken to the port of Ashdod, where we were all taken down. We were not allowed to take any sort of personal belongings."
Upon their arrival, the activists were forced to sign a statement in Hebrew which the volunteers did not understand. The international campaigners were interrogated and then sent to different Israeli prisons.
Prior to their departure, they were given another paper and were pressured to confirm that they agreed to being deported from Israel on charges of illegal entry — this is while the Israeli army had forcefully brought them in.
Those campaigners from countries which do not recognize Israel were bused away to Jordan while others were sent to Istanbul on Turkish airline planes.
Ghani said a number of volunteers refused to leave Israel and said they decided to file a complaint and defend their cases in an Israeli court.
However, their resistance was met with violence from the Israeli side and they were severely beaten and dragged to the bus to the airport, and eventually forced to get on the plane.
Throughout their detention, the activists were not allowed to contact a lawyer or call their families, in contrast to the Israeli prison law.
MRS/CS/MB
Turkey will 'never forgive' Israel - Europe - Al Jazeera English
[http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/06/20106312530449379.html]
Turkey will 'never forgive' Israel - Europe - Al Jazeera English: "The Turkish president has said�that Israel's military raid on civilian aid ships bound for the Gaza Strip has caused 'irreparable' damage to his country's relations with Israel, and will 'never' be forgiven.
'From now on, Turkish-Israeli ties will never be the same. This incident has left an irreparable and deep scar,' Abdullah Gul said in a televised speech on Thursday, as thousands gathered in the streets of Istanbul to pay their respects to the humanitarian activists killed during the raid."
--
Posted By Samotalis to SAMOTALIS at 6/04/2010 03:58:00 AM
Letter From Israel: The Flotilla in the Israeli Press
Letter From Israel: The Flotilla in the Israeli Press
By RAN HA COHEN
In Antiwar.com, Ran Ha Cohen takes a look at how the Israeli media covered the assault on the "Freedom Flotilla" in his Letter From Israel.
Not many atrocities can be less controversial than Israel's attack on the Turkish-based flotilla heading to Gaza on Sunday night. Like Somali pirates, Israel attacked the boats in international waters. Like the darkest regimes, Israeli forces opened fire on unarmed civilians who had not posed a threat to anybody, except to the siege that Israel imposes on Gaza. Condemnation of what the Turkish prime minister rightly termed "an act of state terrorism" has been global, except for the shameful mumbling of the American government (but what can you expect from the complicit?).
In any normal place, you would expect masses to take to the streets and protest. Indeed, precisely this happened all over the globe. Not in Israel. A few hundred people did demonstrate in Tel Aviv and in several other towns, but then again a few hundred gathered to throw eggs at the Turkish Embassy. On the internal front, the Israeli government has nothing to worry about.
How is this consensus achieved? How can you turn millions of fairly educated citizens into silent lambs, or worse, into supporters of their own state's terrorism? If we concentrate on the short term, leaving aside, for the sake of brevity, decades of indoctrination, one can spot a few themes in the Israeli propaganda, which emerged during the first hours after the incident.
Recurrent Themes
The first theme was "weapons." The peace activists were quickly portrayed by Israel as "armed." The details changed with the minute: some media channels claimed they snatched a gun from an Israeli soldier, others said an empty ammunition magazine was found on board, others simply repeated the words "armed" or "carrying weapons" without bothering to explain. The adjective "cold" disappeared from the Hebrew dictionary: every knife, stick, stool, or cushion turned their holders into dangerous killers — especially when facing Israel's elite soldiers, who entered the boat peacefully and bare-handed (except for their unmentioned pistols, revolvers, hand grenades, tear gas, shockers, noise bombs, smoke bombs, protective vests, etc., etc.).
Soon after, an Israeli military spokesperson came out with the most lunatic theme of all: "Lynching." The Israeli soldiers, so official Israel shamelessly claimed, had to save themselves from being lynched by the activists. This is a direct continuation of the previous theme: when unarmed demonstrators are turned into armed killers, when armed elite soldiers kidnapping a boat become benevolent guests, one can describe the former as "lynching" the latter.
One has to be quite insane to describe armed soldiers as being lynched by unarmed civilians; it's an insult not only to intelligence, but to the soldiers themselves. This is why an alternative theme was introduced: "Battle." The confrontation on the boat has been explicitly termed "a battle," as if the poor Israeli Army (vessels, helicopters, electronic thwarting, etc.) was facing a raging Turkish battalion. Obviously, all three themes — "weapons," "lynching," and "battle" — imply the Israeli soldiers were obliged to open fire; they were the victims of the ruthless attack of the Turkish grand armada.
A fourth theme was "trap" (or "ambush"). This, again, enables Israel to portray those who set the trap — the flotilla — as aggressors, while the Israeli Army was, quite unfortunately, a passive, innocent victim of the hostile conspiracy.
Let's see how Tuesday's Israeli newspapers recycled these propaganda themes.
Tabloid One
The right-wing daily Ma'ariv put its headline in the middle of a blurred photo supplied by the Israeli Army, worded "the harsh attack on the fighters: cudgels, axes, and a fighter thrown off the deck." So now we know who the real victims are. The headline read: "The Failure (nine demonstrators killed, global rage, mumbling government, and exchange of accusations at the top) — And The Heroism (in spite of the intelligence failure and the hard violence, the commando fighters managed to take over the ships)." Criticizing the government is instrumental only to uniting behind the army, and the soldiers who spilled civilian blood are not less than "heroes." At the bottom of the page there were two interchangeable pictures, one showing demonstrators tearing an Israeli flag, the other depicting police arresting a demonstrator next to a great fire. Titles, respectively or otherwise: "Turkey is boiling" and "The [Israeli-Arab] Section Runs Wild." Both subtitles mentioned "Palestinian and Hamas flags everywhere," "torn Israeli flags," "furious mob," "Molotov cocktails, fire, and injured policemen."
Once again, note who's the aggressor and who's the victim in this story. None of Israel's newspapers, by the way, reported the demonstrations against the operation within Israel; at best, "riots" in Israeli-Arab towns were reported.
In addition, Ma'ariv gave six opinion and analysis columns, all starting on page 1. A whole spectrum of opinions. Journalist Ben Kaspit, under the hyper-critical title "Absolute Stupidity," opened his column with the following sentence: "First of all, let it be clear: We are on the right side in this story." The Israeli Daniel Pipes, demagogue Ben-Dror Yemini, scolded what he termed "A Leadership of Fools" for its "defeat in a battle against a ship of Hamasniks" — thus the activists were portrayed as Hamas terrorists and Israel's piratical invasion as a battle, in line with official propaganda. Ofer Shelach, a critical columnist, added a new aspect to the soldiers' victimhood: "From this day, the hands of the best unit in this army, whose combatants honestly join it in order to defend the state of Israel, are smeared with civilians' blood." That's as far as criticism goes. Beneath him, Alan Dershowitz urged "Do Not Rush to Pass Judgment," then immediately rushed to pass judgment that attacking the vessels outside Israel's territorial waters was a legitimate act. What can you expect from this discredited joker? Still, Dershowitz's imperative was polite compared to the two Israeli columnists beneath him, who directly commanded the readers to "Salute and Shut Up!": "The pictures will not persuade the hypocritical world, but they should persuade every Zionist Israeli, right or left, to thank the fighters...." At the bottom, journalist Shalom Yerushalmi made political calculations. "But what about the lynching?" you may ask. Don't worry: Ma'ariv's page 1 ended with a big headline at the very bottom: "Netanyahu: 'Israeli Soldiers Were Defending Themselves From a Lynching.'" All the propaganda themes are here.
Tabloid Two
The right-wing daily Yediot Achronot took a completely opposite line, as far as placing the "lynching" theme is concerned. Here it wasn't at the bottom, but at the very top of the page: "The Ambush: 'We Felt Like in a Lynching,' the Fighters Said." The big headline was a single word: "The Trap," theme number four. Within a big picture taken by Reuters (euphemistic wording for the kidnapping: "the marine commando boats escort one of the ships") three smaller pictures were printed: one worded "a soldier thrown off the deck," one worded "the weapons: knives and sticks," and a third one depicting a green cloth with Arabic inscription, upon which two dozen knives were scattered, some of them small kitchen knives; no wording, no credit. Ma'ariv had the same picture on page 8, with credit to "IDF spokesperson," who probably put the green cloth as a suggestive background.
Seven columnists made it to the front. Journalist Nahum Barnea said the "takeover" ended in "frustration": "Israel yesterday made an effort to prove that the people awaiting the commando on board were not human rights activists but violent thugs. I assume this is true. Still, the question is why Israel gave those thugs precisely what they wanted." Journalist Sima Kadmon paraphrased an Israeli cliché: "Where are the days when we were a bit less righteous but a bit wiser," implying the action was perfectly right but simply unwise. Extremely militaristic journalist Alex Fishman said the same differently: "the takeover was right and necessary, and will be right and necessary next time too." Analyst Sever Plotzker urged Defense Minister Ehud Barak to resign, not failing to name the true agent behind the maritime bloodbath: "the trap of Hamas provocation." Senior columnist and political adviser Eitan Haber opened on a good note: "one could have tried to solve this problem peacefully." Reading the rest of his article (page 8), one learns that he had been consulted in advance, but "I had no doubt that my suggestion as for how to deal with the flotilla of villains would be rejected." Haber's concern is in no way moral: he is just worried about Israel losing Turkey as an ally. Next, journalist Amnon Avramovitz explained that Netanyahu was repeatedly "unlucky," and, last but not least, right-wing columnist Hanoch Daum concluded: "It wasn't Israel that initiated the confrontation at sea, it wasn't Israel that attacked fighters with cold and warm weapons. And it's not Israel that should be held accountable. It's Hamas' fault. Instead of rejecting the world's ludicrous claims, we all start a session of self-accusation."
Quality Paper
How about Ha'aretz, Israel's liberal quality daily? The headline revealed the focus: "IDF's Failed Action Creates International Mess." Underneath it, four small pictures, one taken by the army — "throwing a soldier off the deck," the very same as in both tabloids (but decently smaller) — one by Reuters (same as in Yediot), one taken by the Israeli police, and one showing the defense minister with two uniformed generals. Quite unlike the tabloids, the word "lynch" here is neither at the top nor at the bottom, but in the small print in the center of the page: "Defense minister ... said yesterday the soldiers confronted extreme violence, and justified the decision to open fire in order to protect the fighters who, they said, were facing the risk of lynching." Four op-eds reached the front page of the Hebrew print edition: the editorial, columnists Ari Shavit and Amos Harel, and writer David Grossman. The former two can be found in English on the Internet; the latter two are missing as I write this. All of them were critical to some extent: the editorial demanded an investigation; Shavit drew an unoriginal historical analogy to the raid on the Exodus ship; Harel wrote that the army representatives had no real difficulty explaining the action to the Israeli public: given the "extreme violence" they met, the soldiers "had no other choice," being "exposed to injury and surrounded by a violent mass hitting them with sticks; under these circumstances, no wonder they fired live ammunition to defend themselves." What all three columns, though, highly regretted was the damage to Israel's image. Not a word about morality or legitimacy: it's Israel's image which is at stake. Because of this single flaw, the world might err to think that Israel is no longer the peace-seeking, law-abiding, sane, moderate, and benevolent country it actually is.
The one mild exception was David Grossman, who used the word "crime" for the crime, and even though he too recycled the "trap" metaphor, he did distinguish between the "small, fanatic Turkish organization" behind the flotilla and the "hundreds of activists for freedom and justice" on board. Grossman also equated the action carried out outside Israel's territorial water to an act of piracy. He saw the action in the broader context of Israel's "outrageous" siege on Gaza, and his final paragraph can summarize not only his, but my own column as well:
"More than anything else, this crazy operation is evidence for the place that Israel has reached. There is no point in elaborating. Whoever has eyes in his head sees and feels it. No doubt, within hours some swift minds would find a way to turn the (natural, justified) feelings of guilt of many Israelis into a vociferous accusation against the entire world. The shame, however, would be more difficult to come to terms with."
— Dr. Ran Ha Cohen is a university teacher in Israel, known for his strong criticism of Israel's policies. He grew up in Israel, but was born in the Netherlands
By RAN HA COHEN
In Antiwar.com, Ran Ha Cohen takes a look at how the Israeli media covered the assault on the "Freedom Flotilla" in his Letter From Israel.
Not many atrocities can be less controversial than Israel's attack on the Turkish-based flotilla heading to Gaza on Sunday night. Like Somali pirates, Israel attacked the boats in international waters. Like the darkest regimes, Israeli forces opened fire on unarmed civilians who had not posed a threat to anybody, except to the siege that Israel imposes on Gaza. Condemnation of what the Turkish prime minister rightly termed "an act of state terrorism" has been global, except for the shameful mumbling of the American government (but what can you expect from the complicit?).
In any normal place, you would expect masses to take to the streets and protest. Indeed, precisely this happened all over the globe. Not in Israel. A few hundred people did demonstrate in Tel Aviv and in several other towns, but then again a few hundred gathered to throw eggs at the Turkish Embassy. On the internal front, the Israeli government has nothing to worry about.
How is this consensus achieved? How can you turn millions of fairly educated citizens into silent lambs, or worse, into supporters of their own state's terrorism? If we concentrate on the short term, leaving aside, for the sake of brevity, decades of indoctrination, one can spot a few themes in the Israeli propaganda, which emerged during the first hours after the incident.
Recurrent Themes
The first theme was "weapons." The peace activists were quickly portrayed by Israel as "armed." The details changed with the minute: some media channels claimed they snatched a gun from an Israeli soldier, others said an empty ammunition magazine was found on board, others simply repeated the words "armed" or "carrying weapons" without bothering to explain. The adjective "cold" disappeared from the Hebrew dictionary: every knife, stick, stool, or cushion turned their holders into dangerous killers — especially when facing Israel's elite soldiers, who entered the boat peacefully and bare-handed (except for their unmentioned pistols, revolvers, hand grenades, tear gas, shockers, noise bombs, smoke bombs, protective vests, etc., etc.).
Soon after, an Israeli military spokesperson came out with the most lunatic theme of all: "Lynching." The Israeli soldiers, so official Israel shamelessly claimed, had to save themselves from being lynched by the activists. This is a direct continuation of the previous theme: when unarmed demonstrators are turned into armed killers, when armed elite soldiers kidnapping a boat become benevolent guests, one can describe the former as "lynching" the latter.
One has to be quite insane to describe armed soldiers as being lynched by unarmed civilians; it's an insult not only to intelligence, but to the soldiers themselves. This is why an alternative theme was introduced: "Battle." The confrontation on the boat has been explicitly termed "a battle," as if the poor Israeli Army (vessels, helicopters, electronic thwarting, etc.) was facing a raging Turkish battalion. Obviously, all three themes — "weapons," "lynching," and "battle" — imply the Israeli soldiers were obliged to open fire; they were the victims of the ruthless attack of the Turkish grand armada.
A fourth theme was "trap" (or "ambush"). This, again, enables Israel to portray those who set the trap — the flotilla — as aggressors, while the Israeli Army was, quite unfortunately, a passive, innocent victim of the hostile conspiracy.
Let's see how Tuesday's Israeli newspapers recycled these propaganda themes.
Tabloid One
The right-wing daily Ma'ariv put its headline in the middle of a blurred photo supplied by the Israeli Army, worded "the harsh attack on the fighters: cudgels, axes, and a fighter thrown off the deck." So now we know who the real victims are. The headline read: "The Failure (nine demonstrators killed, global rage, mumbling government, and exchange of accusations at the top) — And The Heroism (in spite of the intelligence failure and the hard violence, the commando fighters managed to take over the ships)." Criticizing the government is instrumental only to uniting behind the army, and the soldiers who spilled civilian blood are not less than "heroes." At the bottom of the page there were two interchangeable pictures, one showing demonstrators tearing an Israeli flag, the other depicting police arresting a demonstrator next to a great fire. Titles, respectively or otherwise: "Turkey is boiling" and "The [Israeli-Arab] Section Runs Wild." Both subtitles mentioned "Palestinian and Hamas flags everywhere," "torn Israeli flags," "furious mob," "Molotov cocktails, fire, and injured policemen."
Once again, note who's the aggressor and who's the victim in this story. None of Israel's newspapers, by the way, reported the demonstrations against the operation within Israel; at best, "riots" in Israeli-Arab towns were reported.
In addition, Ma'ariv gave six opinion and analysis columns, all starting on page 1. A whole spectrum of opinions. Journalist Ben Kaspit, under the hyper-critical title "Absolute Stupidity," opened his column with the following sentence: "First of all, let it be clear: We are on the right side in this story." The Israeli Daniel Pipes, demagogue Ben-Dror Yemini, scolded what he termed "A Leadership of Fools" for its "defeat in a battle against a ship of Hamasniks" — thus the activists were portrayed as Hamas terrorists and Israel's piratical invasion as a battle, in line with official propaganda. Ofer Shelach, a critical columnist, added a new aspect to the soldiers' victimhood: "From this day, the hands of the best unit in this army, whose combatants honestly join it in order to defend the state of Israel, are smeared with civilians' blood." That's as far as criticism goes. Beneath him, Alan Dershowitz urged "Do Not Rush to Pass Judgment," then immediately rushed to pass judgment that attacking the vessels outside Israel's territorial waters was a legitimate act. What can you expect from this discredited joker? Still, Dershowitz's imperative was polite compared to the two Israeli columnists beneath him, who directly commanded the readers to "Salute and Shut Up!": "The pictures will not persuade the hypocritical world, but they should persuade every Zionist Israeli, right or left, to thank the fighters...." At the bottom, journalist Shalom Yerushalmi made political calculations. "But what about the lynching?" you may ask. Don't worry: Ma'ariv's page 1 ended with a big headline at the very bottom: "Netanyahu: 'Israeli Soldiers Were Defending Themselves From a Lynching.'" All the propaganda themes are here.
Tabloid Two
The right-wing daily Yediot Achronot took a completely opposite line, as far as placing the "lynching" theme is concerned. Here it wasn't at the bottom, but at the very top of the page: "The Ambush: 'We Felt Like in a Lynching,' the Fighters Said." The big headline was a single word: "The Trap," theme number four. Within a big picture taken by Reuters (euphemistic wording for the kidnapping: "the marine commando boats escort one of the ships") three smaller pictures were printed: one worded "a soldier thrown off the deck," one worded "the weapons: knives and sticks," and a third one depicting a green cloth with Arabic inscription, upon which two dozen knives were scattered, some of them small kitchen knives; no wording, no credit. Ma'ariv had the same picture on page 8, with credit to "IDF spokesperson," who probably put the green cloth as a suggestive background.
Seven columnists made it to the front. Journalist Nahum Barnea said the "takeover" ended in "frustration": "Israel yesterday made an effort to prove that the people awaiting the commando on board were not human rights activists but violent thugs. I assume this is true. Still, the question is why Israel gave those thugs precisely what they wanted." Journalist Sima Kadmon paraphrased an Israeli cliché: "Where are the days when we were a bit less righteous but a bit wiser," implying the action was perfectly right but simply unwise. Extremely militaristic journalist Alex Fishman said the same differently: "the takeover was right and necessary, and will be right and necessary next time too." Analyst Sever Plotzker urged Defense Minister Ehud Barak to resign, not failing to name the true agent behind the maritime bloodbath: "the trap of Hamas provocation." Senior columnist and political adviser Eitan Haber opened on a good note: "one could have tried to solve this problem peacefully." Reading the rest of his article (page 8), one learns that he had been consulted in advance, but "I had no doubt that my suggestion as for how to deal with the flotilla of villains would be rejected." Haber's concern is in no way moral: he is just worried about Israel losing Turkey as an ally. Next, journalist Amnon Avramovitz explained that Netanyahu was repeatedly "unlucky," and, last but not least, right-wing columnist Hanoch Daum concluded: "It wasn't Israel that initiated the confrontation at sea, it wasn't Israel that attacked fighters with cold and warm weapons. And it's not Israel that should be held accountable. It's Hamas' fault. Instead of rejecting the world's ludicrous claims, we all start a session of self-accusation."
Quality Paper
How about Ha'aretz, Israel's liberal quality daily? The headline revealed the focus: "IDF's Failed Action Creates International Mess." Underneath it, four small pictures, one taken by the army — "throwing a soldier off the deck," the very same as in both tabloids (but decently smaller) — one by Reuters (same as in Yediot), one taken by the Israeli police, and one showing the defense minister with two uniformed generals. Quite unlike the tabloids, the word "lynch" here is neither at the top nor at the bottom, but in the small print in the center of the page: "Defense minister ... said yesterday the soldiers confronted extreme violence, and justified the decision to open fire in order to protect the fighters who, they said, were facing the risk of lynching." Four op-eds reached the front page of the Hebrew print edition: the editorial, columnists Ari Shavit and Amos Harel, and writer David Grossman. The former two can be found in English on the Internet; the latter two are missing as I write this. All of them were critical to some extent: the editorial demanded an investigation; Shavit drew an unoriginal historical analogy to the raid on the Exodus ship; Harel wrote that the army representatives had no real difficulty explaining the action to the Israeli public: given the "extreme violence" they met, the soldiers "had no other choice," being "exposed to injury and surrounded by a violent mass hitting them with sticks; under these circumstances, no wonder they fired live ammunition to defend themselves." What all three columns, though, highly regretted was the damage to Israel's image. Not a word about morality or legitimacy: it's Israel's image which is at stake. Because of this single flaw, the world might err to think that Israel is no longer the peace-seeking, law-abiding, sane, moderate, and benevolent country it actually is.
The one mild exception was David Grossman, who used the word "crime" for the crime, and even though he too recycled the "trap" metaphor, he did distinguish between the "small, fanatic Turkish organization" behind the flotilla and the "hundreds of activists for freedom and justice" on board. Grossman also equated the action carried out outside Israel's territorial water to an act of piracy. He saw the action in the broader context of Israel's "outrageous" siege on Gaza, and his final paragraph can summarize not only his, but my own column as well:
"More than anything else, this crazy operation is evidence for the place that Israel has reached. There is no point in elaborating. Whoever has eyes in his head sees and feels it. No doubt, within hours some swift minds would find a way to turn the (natural, justified) feelings of guilt of many Israelis into a vociferous accusation against the entire world. The shame, however, would be more difficult to come to terms with."
— Dr. Ran Ha Cohen is a university teacher in Israel, known for his strong criticism of Israel's policies. He grew up in Israel, but was born in the Netherlands
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
US kills al-Qaeda 'number three' - CENTRAL/S. ASIA - Al Jazeera English
The US government has said that it killed Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, an Egyptian man described as al-Qaeda's "number three" official.
Al-Qaeda confirmed al-Yazid's death in a message posted on internet forums on Monday
Read More:
US kills al-Qaeda 'number three' - CENTRAL/S. ASIA - Al Jazeera Englishhttp://islaamdoon.blogspot.com/
Israel's 'friends' also to blame - Focus - Al Jazeera English
erhaps now Americans will understand the true nature of the Israeli occupation.
It has never been about security. Not for one day. It has been about land and power. And this is where it has led. And we have made it possible.
Since at least the mid-1970s, only one country has had the power to force Israel to give up its dreams of permanent occupation of the West Bank: The US.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)