Readers' Letters, June 15, 2003, Al-Jazeerah.info

 

ÇáÌÒíÑÉ

News Archives 

Arab Cartoonists

Columnists

Documents

Editorials 

Opinion Editorials

letters to the editor

Human Price of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine

Islam

Israeli daily aggression on the Palestinian people 

Media Watch

Mission and meaning of Al-Jazeerah

News Photos

Peace Activists

Poetry

Book reviews

Public Announcements 

   Public Activities 

Women in News

Cities, localities, and tourist attractions

 

 

 

 

Dear editor,

Were the Jews denied access to the Wailing Wall during the period when

Jerusalem was under Jordanian control? I wrote a piece in Counterpunch

(www.counterpunch.org) on June 12 (The Tragic Legacy of the Six Day War), which

prompted a Jewish reader to ask me this question.

A friend of mine in the Bay Area tells me that he visited Masjid al-Aqsa in

April 1967 and he saw Jews worshipping at the Wall, but others tell me that

the Jews were denied access.

If the Jews were denied access, why was that the case?

Ahmad Faruqui

 

Editor: When Israel was declared on May 14/15, 1948, the Israeli Army, the Haganah, was already in full war against the Palestinian people to evict them from their villages and towns. Neighboring Arab states entered Palestine in an attempt to stop the eviction of refugees. They were defeated. By the end of the war, Israel had annexed much more territories that the 1947 Partition Resolution allowed. In particular, it annexed the Galilee, Auja area, and large parts of the West Bank and Gaza territories. These were supposed to be the territories of the Arab state of Palestine (See the map in the Documents section).

The 1948 war resulted in hostility between Israel and its neighboring Arab states because of the eviction of refugees and preventing them from going back to their villages and towns after the war, because of annexing the Palestinian Arab territories to Israel, and because the Arab state of Palestine was not established.

The UN mediated between Israel and its neighboring Arab states during talks held in Rhodes, Greece, in 1949. These talks resulted in signing armistice agreements between Israel and each of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. The agreements were mainly about identifying the de facto borders after the war. However, these were considered truce (Hudna) borders. This meant that they were not accepted permanently by Arabs. In a way, these were not peace agreements or treaties. That is why Arab states did not recognize Israel's existence or its borders.

Despite that, there was some sort of communication between Israel and its neighboring Arab states, particularly through the UN and its agency known as UNRWA, which served as a relief and works agency for Palestine refugees. Some employees of the agency crossed the borders regularly.

Jordan in particular promised to allow a limited number of Jewish worshippers, probably around 30 people every time, to cross from West Jerusalem to East Jerusalem for prayers at the Whaling Wall. I'm not sure about the regulariy and frequency of the occurances. But they were arranged with great care and without arousing any attention from Palestinians or Arabs and Muslims at large because the two countries were still at an official state of war.  So, you can say that some Jews were allowed to pray there even during these dangerous times.
 

 


 

I am very pleased to see the publication of your site in English and just read your mission statement and wish you all the best of good fortune in realising it. I recommend that you try to publicise this mission statement somehow in the internet and mainstream media and hope that you can fulfil it. Ever since the 2000 US election I have turned to European media for news coverage and also frequently went to your previous Al-Jazeerah site during the recent insanity in Iraq since again, regional coverage on this side of 'the pond' was so universally biased and inept. Bias is perhaps inevitable, especially during a time of confusion and conflict, but the overall ineptitude, i.e. inability to explain or research the facts of what is going on, points to a far deeper problem, namely that our democracies exists mainly as such only in name, not function, so that much of our society, and therefore its foreign policies and so on, our based on myths and lies, that in too many cases the perpetrators themselves believe as truth, and in many other cases are the result of deliberate manipulation. Any news organisation such as yourself that tries to present what is actually going on is of great service to this troubled and marvellous world we all share. As long as the vision and mission are sincerely held in your hearts, tehn outer success or failure are irrelevant and you will be achieving victory.
 
Again, I say: 'GOOD LUCK!!"
 
Yours,
 
Ashley Howes,
Cape Breton, Canada

 

 


 

Sharon and his neo-con cabal backers

 

In a fit of instant reaction, US President George W. Bush, might have come down heavily on Ariel Sharon's outrageous move to sanction extra-judicial killing of Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantissi even as Bush has been claiming a big victory in Aqaba as a milestone on his roadway to peace, but it made no difference to Sharon.  Sharon was still in full command of the US-Israel 'partnership' and went ahead to take care of 'Israel's security needs' by sending in helicopter gunships into Gaza and Occupied West bank, to take out as many Hamas operatives as possible, in a preemptive series of planned murder attacks. The death tally for Palestinians has to match the Israeli casualties on that Bus blast on Jaffa Road, as demanded by an eye for an eye justice. The peace can take its own time. Israel is not in a hurry. They have waited 2000 years.

A similar parallel is visible back in the States itself. Though the neo-con cabal has been fully exposed in media and each and every member is identified by the investigative media; for the neo-com, it is business as usual. Hardly a day passes, when protests against the hijacking of the US Presidency, by a group of highly manipulative Jewish- American activists is not registered in the media. The cabal is in full command of its sanctified agenda to usher is a New American Century --- democracy in the US be damned as a luxury the opportunists can not allow the people of the US to enjoy.

Chief instrument of the execution of all such fascist agenda is American Enterprise Institute. President Bush and other officials are forced to appear at its meetings, to give out a signal of legitimacy to a wholly undemocratic power center. Last night, BBC's Hard Talk anchor Tim Sebastian was in DVC (digital video conference) contact with Ms. Danielle Pletka, Vice President for Foreign and Defence Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, who kept a robust defence of US stand on Iraq's dubious 'liberation' and vexed eloquent on how the reconstruction of Iraq is the main priority, though the other participant of the debate British MP Jeffery kept on the characterizing of US move on Iraq as nothing but a new phase of colonialism. Ms. Pletka simply ignored the 'accusation' and kept up her refrain, that Iraq will be reconstructed, by its own people apparently as chosen by the US, and through own resources, apparently as appropriated by the US. The ! best part was, that she was taking all the snipes by the British MP, with full display of her very expansive smile, to which the MP rightly objected. This was not a matter to be smiled about. A whole nation and its people are being enslaved; probably the first in a series of other weak states with huge resources.

India should take note and brace itself for a sinister trap to be once again colonise India, as the 'jewel in the crown' of the US President. The blame will go down in history on that ambitious Hindutva extremist, L. K. Advani, who had been the behind the scene supporter of the neo-con cabal.  Indian people should not forget they are part of a 'living history' that will be taught in class-rooms when their progeny will once again rise to thwart a second colonial power, and that battle may last longer than the 62 years history of Indian National Congress independence campaign.

 

GHULAM MUHAMMED, MUMBAI, INDIA 

 

 

 

 

 


 

American multi-nation negotiation request revealed as North Korean Ambush

 

Tokyo – Sources within the Japanese parliament have confirmed US intentions to sandbag North Korea’s development of nuclear deterrents using backdoor politics at the proposed meeting between North and South Korea, Japan and the United States.

   The plan stipulates the realization of the proposed multi-national talks to be chaired by US representation where a majority vote process would be implemented to ensure the ceasing of any future nuclear activities within North Korea.

   Confirmed discussions between American and Japanese delegates concerning the developmental status of North Korean nuclear Arms resulted in a heated dialog in which the Japanese spokesperson strongly disagreed with the American proposal to obtain a unanimous resolution for pre-emptive strike authorization based on North Korea reaching specific benchmarks in their nuclear development program at the proposed talks.

   When questioned about his reaction, the Japanese representative replied, “The benchmarks cited by the US representative have already been achieved. We are not prepared to support any US-proposed initiative which would likely result in devastating consequences for both South Korea and Japan.”

 

Andrew Maclaren

 

 


 

 

US threatens to boycott Belgium over war crimes law

Ian Black in Brussels and Ewen MacAskill

The Guardian

Friday, June 13, 2003

http://www.guardian.co.uk/nato/story/0,12667,976499,00.html

 


 

IOL Unveils Threads Of Iraqi Resistance

By Ali Halni, IOL Baghdad Correspondent

Islam Online

June 12, 2003

http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2003-06/12/article13.shtml

 

 


 

Sent by HRIP International

 
 
 

AFTER THE STORM : Covering the war

The Asahi Shimbun


In Iraq, Japanese TV networks drew from a mind-boggling array of sources and got even closer to the action. Still, critics are wondering if they got the whole picture. `I couldn't get a real feel for the value of people's lives.'HIROMI IMAIZUMI An NTV reporter ``embedded'' with a U.S. artillery unit during the Iraq war

With the dust nearly settled in Iraq, attention in Japan is shifting to how the media-especially television-covered a war that in some places offered unprecedented access to the front line.

The fundamental questions seem to be: How much of this war did we really see, and how much should be seen?

Big television networks are producing programs looking back at their coverage of the conflict, and viewers' opinions are flooding in.

On May 11, Nippon Television Network (NTV) ran a 90-minute late-night panel featuring reporters who covered the war, production staff, academics and analysts. Two central issues were how appropriate it was to show corpses and whether coverage relied too much on U.S. military briefings.

In response to the show, NTV was swamped with 8,740 e-mail messages and other viewer responses.

Japan Broadcasting Corp. (NHK) also plans to re-examine its war coverage in a special program, though it has yet to set the date. The May issue of the network's monthly report on broadcast research, published by the NHK Broadcasting Culture Research Institute, analyzed how differently Japan, the United States and the Middle East covered the same war.

The July issue is expected to examine details such as where news reports originated.

Debate, of course, is not limited to the TV set. Upcoming symposiums include a June 21 gathering cohosted by a media research group and a federation of commercial broadcast workers unions, as well as a public discussion planned by the social sciences faculty at Hosei University late this month. Both events are in Tokyo.

No matter what the medium, media experts appear to agree that a distinguishing feature of this war's coverage was the nearly constant flow of on-the-spot footage. During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, CNN was in effect the sole source of live coverage. This time around, Japanese networks picked up feeds ranging from Iraqi national television to the FOX News Network, known for its pro-White House coverage.

NTV, for instance, relied heavily on round-the-clock television and wire dispatches from The Associated Press and Reuters as well as footage from the United States' NBC and Arab network Al-Jazeera, in addition to its own crew in the Middle East. The station also turned to the BBC from time to time for footage.

Other networks took similar steps to make sure they could tap into a wide range of sources.

NHK had as many as 82 foreign media organizations piping footage to its programs.

Fuji Television Network, a commercial network based in Tokyo, signed contracts with five foreign stations to provide footage, including Abu Dhabi Television of the United Arab Emirates, to supplement Fuji TV's several overseas bases.

``We aired live reports by our correspondents while selecting images sent by foreign media for our programs,'' recalled Sumio Hasegawa, who heads Fuji TV's foreign news department.

``Our primary duty was to show our viewers the newest information and let them make their own judgments.''

Despite the tsunami of images, he admitted that ``it was difficult to provide comprehensive reporting on the war.''

That paradox was perhaps most embodied by the controversial ``embedding'' of Japanese reporters with the U.S. military, in which correspondents were allowed to travel with specific units wherever they went. While being fused to units enabled reporters to get closer to the action, it also meant they became dependent on the subject of their reporting for their very survival.

Despite criticism of such reporting as press tours run by the military, NHK, NTV and Fuji TV all decided to embed reporters and camera crews so they could get original first-hand reports.

``I was allowed to interview anyone within the unit to which I was assigned, and freely entered meetings on war affairs, which I reported in our programs,'' said Hideki Yui, 33, an NHK reporter who was embedded. But since he was constantly on the move with his unit, he added, he could not stop to shoot footage of bodies he saw on the side of the road.

NTV's Hiromi Imaizumi, 40, who was attached to an artillery unit, watched the soldiers firing at distant targets but could never see where the shells landed.

``I couldn't get a real feel for the value of people's lives,'' Imaizumi said.

Spending a long time with troops in such close quarters, moreover, made it difficult for her to press them about the lives they might be taking from afar.

Fuji TV's Masami Ogawa, 33, said, ``When it was time to attack, many soldiers said they wanted to keep firing away, but when things calmed down, they said they questioned the validity of the war.''

Summing up the war coverage, NHK's Yui said, ``The significance of the word `war' is now different to me.''

Ogawa said he still keeps in touch with U.S. soldiers he befriended during the war, while Imaizumi is penning a book on her experiences due to hit stores in July.

Akihiro Nonaka is a member of Asia Press International, a group of freelance journalists. Nonaka, who has a wide range of experience covering wars, stressed the importance of reporters placing what they see with their own eyes within the bigger picture.

``It is the duty of the journalist to get close to the action. Being embedded with the military was naturally a good way to do that, and even though information was controlled, there are things that you can see and feel only when you are on the spot,'' Nonaka said.

He noted, however, that most of the coverage on Japanese TV was of war updates released by the U.S. military, sprinkled with feel-good reports on the morale of U.S. troops. Nothing, he commented, was reported on what Iraqi soldiers were feeling, something that could have been followed up on later.

``A war correspondent must be aware of positioning what he or she sees within the context of the entire war. It is important to train reporters to assume such a stance,'' Nonaka said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Earth, a planet hungry for peace

 

The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers (Ran Cohen, pmc, 5/24/03).
The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers in the West Bank (Ran Cohen, pmc, 5/24/03).

 

 

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's.

editor@aljazeerah.info