Jordan & Syria Day of Rage Feb 5

Feb 5th is the Day of Rage for both Syria and Jordan

Erekat's Quote Of The Day

Erekat: I’m lying, I’ve been lying for the last weeks. Yossi Gal: Between jogging? Erekat: No, no, lying, lying. I was in Cairo, I was in Jordan, I was in America. Everybody is asking me what is going on Israel, what is Olmert going to do? Gal: And you are telling everyone we are on the verge of success. Erekat: And I always tell them this is an internal Israeli matter, a domestic Israeli matter and I keep lying. If somebody sneezed in Tel-Aviv, I get the flu in Jericho, and I have to lie. So that’s my last week- all lies. Gal: As a professor of negotiations, you know that white lies are allowed now and then. Erekat: I’m not complaining, I’m admitting – and sometimes I don’t feel like lying. Gal: Well, around this table we won’t be lying.

The Palestinian Papers: Erekat's contempt for Islamic Charities

By September 17, 2009, Erekat was bragging to U.S. officials that the PA had complete control over “zakat” committees, or Muslim charities, in the West Bank, as well as the weekly Friday sermons. Related Qurei to Israel: "Occupy the crossing" Top PA negotiator offers to allow Israel to reoccupy the Philadelphi corridor on the Gaza-Egypt border. Ali Abunimah: Cutting off a vital connection Palestinian officials were often more concerned with applying pressure to Hamas than easing a humanitarian crisis. “We have invested time and effort and even killed our own people to maintain order and the rule of law,” Erekat said. “The Prime Minister is doing everything possible to build the institutions. We are not a country yet but we are the only ones in the Arab world who control the Zakat and the sermons in the mosques. We are getting our act together.” In 2007, Reuters reported that Fatah was “increasing pressure on ‘zakat’ charity committees that support the network of Islamic schools and health clinics which helped fuel Hamas's rise to power.” On one occasion, the news service reported, 20 gunmen stormed a dairy funded by such a zakat committee but were ultimately persuaded to leave. http://arikatmail.tumblr.com/ http://freeglobalinformation.wordpress.com/ http://freedomforjordan.blogspot.com/

The Palestinian Papers: Erekat's contempt for Hamas

By September 17, 2009, Erekat was bragging to U.S. officials that the PA had complete control over “zakat” committees, or Muslim charities, in the West Bank, as well as the weekly Friday sermons. Related Qurei to Israel: "Occupy the crossing" Top PA negotiator offers to allow Israel to reoccupy the Philadelphi corridor on the Gaza-Egypt border. Ali Abunimah: Cutting off a vital connection Palestinian officials were often more concerned with applying pressure to Hamas than easing a humanitarian crisis. “We have invested time and effort and even killed our own people to maintain order and the rule of law,” Erekat said. “The Prime Minister is doing everything possible to build the institutions. We are not a country yet but we are the only ones in the Arab world who control the Zakat and the sermons in the mosques. We are getting our act together.” In 2007, Reuters reported that Fatah was “increasing pressure on ‘zakat’ charity committees that support the network of Islamic schools and health clinics which helped fuel Hamas's rise to power.” On one occasion, the news service reported, 20 gunmen stormed a dairy funded by such a zakat committee but were ultimately persuaded to leave. http://arikatmail.tumblr.com/ http://freeglobalinformation.wordpress.com/ http://freedomforjordan.blogspot.com/

War Of The Leaks

Wikileaks responds to Aljazeera’s Palestinian Papers with the Israeli leaks:Here is a sample of a wikileak discussing what Fayyad is saying to the Israelis and the US about the PA’s crackdown on the resistance movements in Jenin and Nablus:

The culture of violence in Palestinian society is waning, PM Fayyad said, and “the PA has responded to the public’s need for security despite the abuse we have suffered from (Palestinian) extremists.” Fayyad said Israeli Defense Minister Barak has not delivered on positive comments in their meetings with Secretary Rice. He said there are more obstacles to movement in the West Bank than ever before, and more incursions in Nablus and Jenin than before the PA’s security campaigns. He said the GOI should work with the PA on prisoner releases rather than only freeing prisoners for Hamas and Hizbullah

Palestinian leaders weak – and increasingly desperate

guardian.co.uk Leaked documents show PA and PLO leaders pleading with dismissive US officials in face of Israel's unyielding negotiators The overwhelming impression that emerges from the confidential records of a decade of Middle East peace talks is of the weakness and desperation of Palestinian leaders, the unyielding correctness of Israeli negotiators and the often contemptuous attitude towards the Palestinian side shown by US politicians and officials. It is a picture that graphically illustrates the gradual breakdown of a process now widely believed to have reached a dead end. The documents reveal Palestinian Authority leaders often tipping over into making ingratiating appeals to their Israeli counterparts, as well as US leaders. "I would vote for you," the then senior Palestinian negotiator, Ahmed Qureia (also known as Abu Ala), told Tzipi Livni, Israel's foreign minister, during talks at the King David hotel in Jerusalem in June 2008, as she was preparing for elections in her Kadima party. Given the choice, Livni shot back, "you don't have much of a dilemma." Qureia's comment echoed earlier private remarks by the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), to Ariel Sharon in a June 2005 meeting at the then Israeli prime minister's residence which would have caused outrage if they had been made known at the time. Having listened to Sharon berate him for failing to crack down on the "terrorist infrastructure" of Hamas and Islamic jihad, Abbas was recorded as noting "with pleasure the fact that Sharon considered him a friend, and the fact that he too considered Sharon a friend", adding that "every bullet that is aimed in the direction of Israel is a bullet aimed at the Palestinians as well". In March 2008, the documents show that Qureia greeted the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, with the words: "You bring back life to the region when you come." But as the 2007-08 Annapolis negotiations led nowhere and the government of Binyamin Netanyahu successfully resisted US pressure to halt settlement building in the occupied territories during 2009-10, Palestinian negotiators are shown adopting an increasingly injured and despairing tone with US officials, as they seek to demonstrate the scale of concessions they have made to no avail. In an emotional – and apparently humiliating – outburst to Barack Obama's Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, in Washington in October 2009, the senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat complained that the Ramallah-based Palestinian leadership wasn't even being offered a "figleaf". He said: "Nineteen years of promises and you haven't made up your minds what you want to do with us ... We delivered on our road map obligations. Even Yuval Diskin [director of Israel's internal security service, Shabak] raises his hat on security. But no, they can't even give a six-month freeze to give me a figleaf." All the US government was interested in, Erekat went on, was "PR, quick news, and we're cost free", ending up with the appeal: "What good am I if I'm the joke of my wife, if I'm so weak?" A few months later, in January 2010, Erekat returned to a similar theme with the US state department official David Hale, saying he was offering Israel "the biggest Yerushalayim in Jewish history" (using the Hebrew name for Jerusalem), a "symbolic number of refugees' return, demilitarised state ... What more can I give?" But as became clear even under the earlier, less hardline Israeli government of Ehud Olmert, the scale of concessions offered by Erekat and other Palestinian Authority negotiators – far beyond what the majority of the Palestinian public would be likely to accept – was insufficient for Israeli leaders. During the most intensive recent negotiations, before and after George Bush's Annapolis conference, the documents show the Israelis conducting themselves in a businesslike manner. In an attempt to show her good faith, Livni is recorded confirming what Palestinians have always accused Israeli governments of doing: creating facts on the ground to prevent the possibility of a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. At a west Jerusalem meeting in November 2007, she told Qureia that she believed Palestinians saw settlement building as meaning "Israel takes more land [so] that the Palestinian state will be impossible"; that "the Israel policy is to take more and more land day after day and that at the end of the day we'll say that is impossible, we already have the land and we cannot create the state". She conceded that it had been "the policy of the government for a really long time". At the end of 2007, though, "it is still the policy of some of the parties but not the government". But when Palestinian leaders balked at the prospect of an entirely demilitarised state, Livni made clear where the negotiating power lay. In May 2008, Erekat asked Livni: "Short of your jet fighters in my sky and your army on my territory, can I choose where I secure external defence?" "No," Livni replied. "In order to create your state you have to agree in advance with Israel – you choose not to have the right of choice afterwards." By the following year, Erekat appeared to have accepted that choice. "The Palestinians know they will have a country with limitations," he told Mitchell. "They won't have an army, air force or navy." A string of other major concessions had been made, but the issues were no further forward. "They need decisions," Erekat pleaded. Increasingly, PA leaders resorted to warning US officials that if they failed to deliver an agreement with Israel, the door would be opened to Hamas and Iran. In October 2009, Erekat told Mitchell: "In no time you will have Aziz Dweik as your partner," referring to the Hamas speaker of the Palestinian parliament, who constitutionally assumes the role of Palestinian president when the job is vacant. PA leaders repeatedly threatened to abandon attempts to negotiate a two-state solution in favour of a one-state option. At the same meeting, Erekat declared that if the settlement of the West Bank continued, "we will announce the one state and the struggle for equality in the state of Israel". But the documents show US officials unmoved by such claims. Why were the Palestinians "always in a chapter of a Greek tragedy", secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, asked at a meeting with Erekat in Washington in the autumn of 2009. Her predecessor, Rice, had been even more dismissive. In July 2008 during talks with Palestinian leaders over compensation for refugees who fled or were forced from their homes when Israel was established in 1948, she said: "Bad things happen to people all around the world all the time." If the Palestinians kept insisting that Israel could not keep the large settlements of Ma'ale Adumim (near Jerusalem) and Ariel (in the heart of the West Bank), Rice told them: "You won't have a state". No Israeli leader could accept a deal "without including them in an Israeli state". As to the most neuralgic issue – Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount holy sites in Jerusalem – she declared: "If we wait until you decide sovereignty ... your children's children will not have an agreement."

Palestinian leaders weak – and increasingly desperate

The overwhelming impression that emerges from the confidential records of a decade of Middle East peace talks is of the weakness and desperation of Palestinian leaders, the unyielding correctness of Israeli negotiators and the often contemptuous attitude towards the Palestinian side shown by US politicians and officials. It is a picture that graphically illustrates the gradual breakdown of a process now widely believed to have reached a dead end. The documents reveal Palestinian Authority leaders often tipping over into making ingratiating appeals to their Israeli counterparts, as well as US leaders. "I would vote for you," the then senior Palestinian negotiator, Ahmed Qureia (also known as Abu Ala), told Tzipi Livni, Israel's foreign minister, during talks at the King David hotel in Jerusalem in June 2008, as she was preparing for elections in her Kadima party. Given the choice, Livni shot back, "you don't have much of a dilemma." Qureia's comment echoed earlier private remarks by the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), to Ariel Sharon in a June 2005 meeting at the then Israeli prime minister's residence which would have caused outrage if they had been made known at the time. Having listened to Sharon berate him for failing to crack down on the "terrorist infrastructure" of Hamas and Islamic jihad, Abbas was recorded as noting "with pleasure the fact that Sharon considered him a friend, and the fact that he too considered Sharon a friend", adding that "every bullet that is aimed in the direction of Israel is a bullet aimed at the Palestinians as well". In March 2008, the documents show that Qureia greeted the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, with the words: "You bring back life to the region when you come." But as the 2007-08 Annapolis negotiations led nowhere and the government of Binyamin Netanyahu successfully resisted US pressure to halt settlement building in the occupied territories during 2009-10, Palestinian negotiators are shown adopting an increasingly injured and despairing tone with US officials, as they seek to demonstrate the scale of concessions they have made to no avail. In an emotional – and apparently humiliating – outburst to Barack Obama's Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, in Washington in October 2009, the senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat complained that the Ramallah-based Palestinian leadership wasn't even being offered a "figleaf". He said: "Nineteen years of promises and you haven't made up your minds what you want to do with us ... We delivered on our road map obligations. Even Yuval Diskin [director of Israel's internal security service, Shabak] raises his hat on security. But no, they can't even give a six-month freeze to give me a figleaf." All the US government was interested in, Erekat went on, was "PR, quick news, and we're cost free", ending up with the appeal: "What good am I if I'm the joke of my wife, if I'm so weak?" A few months later, in January 2010, Erekat returned to a similar theme with the US state department official David Hale, saying he was offering Israel "the biggest Yerushalayim in Jewish history" (using the Hebrew name for Jerusalem), a "symbolic number of refugees' return, demilitarised state ... What more can I give?" But as became clear even under the earlier, less hardline Israeli government of Ehud Olmert, the scale of concessions offered by Erekat and other Palestinian Authority negotiators – far beyond what the majority of the Palestinian public would be likely to accept – was insufficient for Israeli leaders. During the most intensive recent negotiations, before and after George Bush's Annapolis conference, the documents show the Israelis conducting themselves in a businesslike manner. In an attempt to show her good faith, Livni is recorded confirming what Palestinians have always accused Israeli governments of doing: creating facts on the ground to prevent the possibility of a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. At a west Jerusalem meeting in November 2007, she told Qureia that she believed Palestinians saw settlement building as meaning "Israel takes more land [so] that the Palestinian state will be impossible"; that "the Israel policy is to take more and more land day after day and that at the end of the day we'll say that is impossible, we already have the land and we cannot create the state". She conceded that it had been "the policy of the government for a really long time". At the end of 2007, though, "it is still the policy of some of the parties but not the government". But when Palestinian leaders balked at the prospect of an entirely demilitarised state, Livni made clear where the negotiating power lay. In May 2008, Erekat asked Livni: "Short of your jet fighters in my sky and your army on my territory, can I choose where I secure external defence?" "No," Livni replied. "In order to create your state you have to agree in advance with Israel – you choose not to have the right of choice afterwards." By the following year, Erekat appeared to have accepted that choice. "The Palestinians know they will have a country with limitations," he told Mitchell. "They won't have an army, air force or navy." A string of other major concessions had been made, but the issues were no further forward. "They need decisions," Erekat pleaded. Increasingly, PA leaders resorted to warning US officials that if they failed to deliver an agreement with Israel, the door would be opened to Hamas and Iran. In October 2009, Erekat told Mitchell: "In no time you will have Aziz Dweik as your partner," referring to the Hamas speaker of the Palestinian parliament, who constitutionally assumes the role of Palestinian president when the job is vacant. PA leaders repeatedly threatened to abandon attempts to negotiate a two-state solution in favour of a one-state option. At the same meeting, Erekat declared that if the settlement of the West Bank continued, "we will announce the one state and the struggle for equality in the state of Israel". But the documents show US officials unmoved by such claims. Why were the Palestinians "always in a chapter of a Greek tragedy", secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, asked at a meeting with Erekat in Washington in the autumn of 2009. Her predecessor, Rice, had been even more dismissive. In July 2008 during talks with Palestinian leaders over compensation for refugees who fled or were forced from their homes when Israel was established in 1948, she said: "Bad things happen to people all around the world all the time." If the Palestinians kept insisting that Israel could not keep the large settlements of Ma'ale Adumim (near Jerusalem) and Ariel (in the heart of the West Bank), Rice told them: "You won't have a state". No Israeli leader could accept a deal "without including them in an Israeli state". As to the most neuralgic issue – Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount holy sites in Jerusalem – she declared: "If we wait until you decide sovereignty ... your children's children will not have an agreement."

Lebanon's Sunni religious leaders warn Hezbollah not to ignore their sect's opinion

By The Associated Press (CP) – BEIRUT — Lebanon's Sunni Muslim religious leaders warned Hezbollah on Sunday not to ignore their sect's opinion ahead of key parliamentary talks to pick a new prime minister. The Shiite Hezbollah and their allies said they won't name caretaker prime minister Saad Hariri to form a new Cabinet during two days of consultations that begin Monday. They have not publicly said whom they will name instead. The clerics, led by Grand Mufti Mohammed Rashid Kabbani, the Sunnis' spiritual leader in Lebanon, said after a meeting they support Hariri because he represents majority of Sunnis. "We warn against ignoring the Sunni majority and the parliament majority," the leaders said in a statement. "We also warn against the dangers of an imposed government." Ministers from Hezbollah and its allies toppled Hariri's government on Jan. 12 after walking out because of disagreements over a U.N.-backed tribunal investigating the 2005 assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri, Saad Hariri's father. Sunday's announcement came two days after a potential kingmaker in Lebanese politics threw his support behind Hezbollah, giving the militant group a major boost. Walid Jumblatt, the influential leader of the Druse sect, refused to say exactly how many lawmakers are with him. The support of at least 65 lawmakers is required to form a government in Lebanon's 128-seat Parliament. Hezbollah and its allies already claim 57 seats. Saad Hariri has 60. The announcement is the latest twist in a political crisis pitting the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hezbollah against the western-backed Hariri, who said this week he will seek the premiership again. Lebanon's crisis stems from a U.N. tribunal investigating Rafik Hariri's assassination. Many fear Hezbollah will react violently if its members, as is widely expected, are named in the court's sealed indictment. The indictment was filed last week but its contents likely will not be made public for weeks. Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah is scheduled to speak about the latest political developments later Sunday. http://arikatmail.tumblr.com/ http://freeglobalinformation.wordpress.com/ http://freedomforjordan.blogspot.com/

Lawyers condemn 'abuse' of suspected WikiLeaker Bradley Manning

Lawyers condemn 'abuse' of suspected WikiLeaker Bradley Manning American soldier's lawyers say holding him in maximum security and putting him on suicide watch breaches his rights The lawyer for Bradley Manning, the army private suspected of leaking hundreds of thousands of documents to WikiLeaks, has filed a complaint that he is being unfairly treated at the marine base jail in Virginia. David Coombs, Manning's lawyer, said that holding him in maximum custody over the last five months and placing him on suicide watch amounted to abuse. Coombs called for his removal from such tight monitoring. The complaint was filed on Wednesday and on Thursday the marines downgraded his classification from suicide watch to prevention of injury. But Coombs argues that prevention of injury is not significantly different in practical terms and is seeking his removal from maximum security. Coombs, writing on his office website, said that on Wednesday, against the recommendation of two forensic psychiatrists, the commander of the Quantico jail, James Averhart, listed Manning as a suicide risk, which meant he was confined to his cell 24 hours a day. "He was stripped of all clothing with the exception of his underwear. His prescription eyeglasses were taken away from him. He was forced to sit in essential blindness with the exception of the times that he was reading or given limited television privileges. During those times, his glasses were returned to him," Coombs wrote. Manning, aged 23, who had been based in Iraq, was transferred to Quantico on July 29 last year. He is facing court-martial later this year and faces a heavy prison sentence if found guilty of leaking classified material. Coombs said that the downgrading of Manning from suicide watch to prevention of injury does not make much practical difference and that he remains under close scrutiny. The guards check him every five minutes during the day and Manning is required to respond, Coombs said. "At night, if the guards cannot see him clearly, because he has a blanket over his head or is curled up towards the wall, they will wake him in order to ensure that he is okay," Coombs said. He is not allowed to do exercises in his cell, only during the one hour a day when he goes from his cell to an empty room with some gym equipment. First Lieutenant Scott Villiard, a spokesman for Quantico, told the Washington Post: "The most important thing is that we're not treating Private Manning any differently from anyone else that would be in the same classification. Whether it's maximum custody or prevention of injury, he's being treated the same as anybody else." There was "a responsibility to make sure that these detainees are safe, secure and make it to trial," Villiard said. Manning had been placed in maximum custody because, the authorities said, his escape could pose a risk to life, property or national security. For latest news and opinion check out: http://arikatmail.tumblr.com/ http://freeglobalinformation.wordpress.com/ http://freedomforjordan.blogspot.com/.

Lawyers condemn 'abuse' of suspected WikiLeaker Bradley Manning

American soldier's lawyers say holding him in maximum security and putting him on suicide watch breaches his rights The lawyer for Bradley Manning, the army private suspected of leaking hundreds of thousands of documents to WikiLeaks, has filed a complaint that he is being unfairly treated at the marine base jail in Virginia. David Coombs, Manning's lawyer, said that holding him in maximum custody over the last five months and placing him on suicide watch amounted to abuse. Coombs called for his removal from such tight monitoring. The complaint was filed on Wednesday and on Thursday the marines downgraded his classification from suicide watch to prevention of injury. But Coombs argues that prevention of injury is not significantly different in practical terms and is seeking his removal from maximum security. Coombs, writing on his office website, said that on Wednesday, against the recommendation of two forensic psychiatrists, the commander of the Quantico jail, James Averhart, listed Manning as a suicide risk, which meant he was confined to his cell 24 hours a day. "He was stripped of all clothing with the exception of his underwear. His prescription eyeglasses were taken away from him. He was forced to sit in essential blindness with the exception of the times that he was reading or given limited television privileges. During those times, his glasses were returned to him," Coombs wrote. Manning, aged 23, who had been based in Iraq, was transferred to Quantico on July 29 last year. He is facing court-martial later this year and faces a heavy prison sentence if found guilty of leaking classified material. Coombs said that the downgrading of Manning from suicide watch to prevention of injury does not make much practical difference and that he remains under close scrutiny. The guards check him every five minutes during the day and Manning is required to respond, Coombs said. "At night, if the guards cannot see him clearly, because he has a blanket over his head or is curled up towards the wall, they will wake him in order to ensure that he is okay," Coombs said. He is not allowed to do exercises in his cell, only during the one hour a day when he goes from his cell to an empty room with some gym equipment. First Lieutenant Scott Villiard, a spokesman for Quantico, told the Washington Post: "The most important thing is that we're not treating Private Manning any differently from anyone else that would be in the same classification. Whether it's maximum custody or prevention of injury, he's being treated the same as anybody else." There was "a responsibility to make sure that these detainees are safe, secure and make it to trial," Villiard said. Manning had been placed in maximum custody because, the authorities said, his escape could pose a risk to life, property or national security.

Free Bradley Manning-The Wikileaks Whistle Blower

January 21, 2011 Bradley Manning 'abused' - lawyers Ewen MacAskill Amer i can sol dier's lawyers say hold ing him in max i mum secu ri ty and putting him on sui cide watch breach es his rights The lawyer for Bradley Man ning, the army pri vate sus pect ed of leak ing hun dreds of thou sands of doc u ments to Wik iLeaks, has filed a com plaint that he is being unfair ly treat ed at the marine base jail in Vir ginia. David Coombs, Man ning's lawyer, said that hold ing him in max i mum cus tody over the last five months and plac ing him on sui cide watch amount ed to abuse. Coombs called for his removal from such tight mon i tor ing. The com plaint was filed on Wednes day and on Thurs day the marines down grad ed his clas si fi ca tion from sui cide watch to pre ven tion of injury. But Coombs argues that pre­ven tion of injury is not sig nif i cant ly dif fer ent in prac ti cal terms and is seek ing his removal from max i mum secu ri ty. Coombs, writ ing on his office web site, said that on Wednes day, against the rec om men­da tion of two foren sic psy chi a trists, the com man der of the Quan ti co jail, James Aver­hart, list ed Man ning as a sui cide risk, which meant he was con fined to his cell 24 hours a day. "He was stripped of all cloth ing with the excep tion of his under wear. His pre scrip­tion eye glass es were taken away from him. He was forced to sit in essen tial blind ness with the excep tion of the times that he was read ing or given lim it ed tele vi sion priv i leges. Dur ing those times, his glass es were returned to him," Coombs wrote. Man ning, aged 23, who had been based in Iraq, was trans ferred to Quan ti co on July 29 last year. He is fac ing court-martial later this year and faces a heavy prison sen tence if found guilty of leak ing clas si fied mate r i al. Coombs said that the down grad ing of Man ning from sui cide watch to pre ven tion of injury does not make much prac ti cal dif fer ence and that he remains under close scruti­ny. The guards check him every five min utes dur ing the day and Man ning is required to respond, Coombs said. "At night, if the guards can not see him clear ly, because he has a blan ket over his head or is curled up towards the wall, they will wake him in order to ensure that he is okay," Coombs said. He is not allowed to do exer cis es in his cell, only dur ing the one hour a day when he goes from his cell to an empty room with some gym equip ment. First Lieu tenant Scott Vil liard, a spokesman for Quan ti co, told the Wash ing ton Post: "The most impor tant thing is that we're not treat ing Pri vate Man ning any dif fer ent ly from any one else that would be in the same clas si fi ca tion. Whether it's max i mum cus­tody or pre ven tion of injury, he's being treat ed the same as any body else." There was "a respon si bil i ty to make sure that these detainees are safe, secure and make it to trial," Vil liard said. Man ning had been placed in max i mum cus tody because, the author i ties said, his escape could pose a risk to life, prop er ty or nation al secu ri ty.

No Change in Jordan's Torture Policy

According to Human Rights Watch there is no significant change in Jordan's torture policy, Or as HRW put it: Torture, which independent prison inspections conducted by the United Nations and Human Rights Watch in 2006, 2007, and 2008 found to be routine and widespread, continues. Positive initiatives, such as training programs run by the National Center for Human Rights and other groups to raise awareness about torture among law enforcement officials, are far from sufficient considering Jordan’s lack of both political will and effective mechanisms to bring perpetrators to justice. http://arikatmail.tumblr.com/ http://freeglobalinformation.wordpress.com/ http://freedomforjordan.blogspot.com/

Saudi Meddling in Lebanon

By: Marwan Arikat . Since When The Saudi Régime Has Become The Guardian Of Sunni Muslims?    As Far As We Know, Saudi Arabia Is Participating In The Siege And The Starvation Of The Palestinians In The Gaza Strip Where 99% of The Population Are Sunni Muslims.    In Addition, The Hamas Government In Gaza Is The Only Democratically Elected Government In The Arab World, Where The Legislation Is Based On Pure Sunni Islamic Interpretation Of The Quran And Sunnah.   Yet, The Saudi Kingdom Is Conspiring With The US, Europe, Israel And All The Arab Dictatorships Except Syria, To Remove The Elected Government In Gaza. So Why In Lebanon, The Saudi Régime Is Interfering In Lebanese Domestic Affairs And The Saudi Kingdom Justifies Its Meddling In Lebanese Affair " In Order It To Protect The Interests Of The Lebanese Sunni Population"?   And Out Of All The Qualified Sunnis In Lebanon, Why Does The The Saudi Monarchy Insist On Backing Saad Al Hariri As Prime-Minister Of Lebanon?  Is It Because The Slain Father Of Saad Al Hariri Has A Saudi Citizenship And Was Intimately Close To The Saudi Royal Family And His Son, Saad Al Hariri Was Born In Saudi Arabia?   Or Is It Because Saad Al Hariri With All His Wealth, Can Mobilize The Sunni Community Against The Shiite Hezbollah Whose Loyalty Is To The Ayatollah Régime In Iran? The Saudis Have Always Tried To Eliminate The Pro-Tehran Forces In Lebanon And Other Arab And Muslim Countries.   The Saudis Are Pushing The Sunni Population To Engage In A Sectarian War With The Shiites, Which Will Be a Gift To The Enemies Of Lebanon, Like Israel And The US, Who Want The Lebanese Resistence To Get Distracted By A Civil War And Internal Conflicts, Thus Allowing The Israelis to Attack The Resistence From Behind To Make Up For Their Defeat In 2006. Sunnis Should Not Allow The Saudis To Drag Them Into Another Civil War, And They Should Pick A Different Leader To Represent Them, Other Than Hariri, Whose Loyality Is To Saudi Arabia And The US. Please visit the following sites for News, Opinions and Analysis:  http://arikatmail.tumblr.com/ http://freeglobalinformation.wordpress.com/ http://freedomforjordan.blogspot.com/

Saudi Meddling in Lebanon

By: Marwan Arikat Since When The Saudi Régime Has Become The Guardian Of Sunni Muslims?    As Far As We Know, Saudi Arabia Is Participating In The Siege And The Starvation Of The Palestinians In The Gaza Strip Where 99% of The Population Are Sunni Muslims.    In Addition, The Hamas Government In Gaza Is The Only Democratically Elected Government In The Arab World, Where The Legislation Is Based On Pure Sunni Islamic Interpretation Of The Quran And Sunnah.   Yet, The Saudi Kingdom Is Conspiring With The US, Europe, Israel And All The Arab Dictatorships Except Syria, To Remove The Elected Government In Gaza. So Why In Lebanon, The Saudi Régime Is Interfering In Lebanese Domestic Affairs And The Saudi Kingdom Justifies Its Meddling In Lebanese Affair " In Order It To Protect The Interests Of The Lebanese Sunni Population"?   And Out Of All The Qualified Sunnis In Lebanon, Why Does The The Saudi Monarchy Insist On Backing Saad Al Hariri As Prime-Minister Of Lebanon?  Is It Because The Slain Father Of Saad Al Hariri Has A Saudi Citizenship And Was Intimately Close To The Saudi Royal Family And His Son, Saad Al Hariri Was Born In Saudi Arabia?   Or Is It Because Saad Al Hariri With All His Wealth, Can Mobilize The Sunni Community Against The Shiite Hezbollah Whose Loyalty Is To The Ayatollah Régime In Iran? The Saudis Have Always Tried To Eliminate The Pro-Tehran Forces In Lebanon And Other Arab And Muslim Countries.   The Saudis Are Pushing The Sunni Population To Engage In A Sectarian War With The Shiites, Which Will Be a Gift To The Enemies Of Lebanon, Like Israel And The US, Who Want The Lebanese Resistence To Get Distracted By A Civil War And Internal Conflicts, Thus Allowing The Israelis to Attack The Resistence From Behind To Make Up For Their Defeat In 2006. Sunnis Should Not Allow The Saudis To Drag Them Into Another Civil War, And They Should Pick A Different Leader To Represent Them, Other Than Hariri, Whose Loyality Is To Saudi Arabia And The US. http://arikatmail.tumblr.com/ http://freeglobalinformation.wordpress.com/ http://freedomforjordan.blogspot.com/

Saudi Meddling in Lebanon

By: Marwan Arikat Since When The Saudi Régime Has Become The Guardian Of Sunni Muslims?    As Far As We Know, Saudi Arabia Is Participating In The Siege And The Starvation Of The Palestinians In The Gaza Strip Where 99% of The Population Are Sunni Muslims.    In Addition, The Hamas Government In Gaza Is The Only Democratically Elected Government In The Arab World, Where The Legislation Is Based On Pure Sunni Islamic Interpretation Of The Quran And Sunnah.   Yet, The Saudi Kingdom Is Conspiring With The US, Europe, Israel And All The Arab Dictatorships Except Syria, To Remove The Elected Government In Gaza. So Why In Lebanon, The Saudi Régime Is Interfering In Lebanese Domestic Affairs And The Saudi Kingdom Justifies Its Meddling In Lebanese Affair " In Order It To Protect The Interests Of The Lebanese Sunni Population"?   And Out Of All The Qualified Sunnis In Lebanon, Why Does The The Saudi Monarchy Insist On Backing Saad Al Hariri As Prime-Minister Of Lebanon?  Is It Because The Slain Father Of Saad Al Hariri Has A Saudi Citizenship And Was Intimately Close To The Saudi Royal Family And His Son, Saad Al Hariri Was Born In Saudi Arabia?   Or Is It Because Saad Al Hariri With All His Wealth, Can Mobilize The Sunni Community Against The Shiite Hezbollah Whose Loyalty Is To The Ayatollah Régime In Iran? The Saudis Have Always Tried To Eliminate The Pro-Tehran Forces In Lebanon And Other Arab And Muslim Countries.   The Saudis Are Pushing The Sunni Population To Engage In A Sectarian War With The Shiites, Which Will Be a Gift To The Enemies Of Lebanon, Like Israel And The US, Who Want The Lebanese Resistence To Get Distracted By A Civil War And Internal Conflicts, Thus Allowing The Israelis to Attack The Resistence From Behind To Make Up For Their Defeat In 2006. Sunnis Should Not Allow The Saudis To Drag Them Into Another Civil War, And They Should Pick A Different Leader To Represent Them, Other Than Hariri, Whose Loyality Is To Saudi Arabia And The US.

Saudi Meddling in Lebanon

By: Marwan Arikat Since When The Saudi Régime Has Become The Guardian Of Sunni Muslims?    As Far As We Know, Saudi Arabia Is Participating In The Siege And The Starvation Of The Palestinians In The Gaza Strip Where 99% of The Population Are Sunni Muslims.    In Addition, The Hamas Government In Gaza Is The Only Democratically Elected Government In The Arab World, Where The Legislation Is Based On Pure Sunni Islamic Interpretation Of The Quran And Sunnah.   Yet, The Saudi Kingdom Is Conspiring With The US, Europe, Israel And All The Arab Dictatorships Except Syria, To Remove The Elected Government In Gaza. So Why In Lebanon, The Saudi Régime Is Interfering In Lebanese Domestic Affairs And The Saudi Kingdom Justifies Its Meddling In Lebanese Affair " In Order It To Protect The Interests Of The Lebanese Sunni Population"?   And Out Of All The Qualified Sunnis In Lebanon, Why Does The The Saudi Monarchy Insist On Backing Saad Al Hariri As Prime-Minister Of Lebanon?  Is It Because The Slain Father Of Saad Al Hariri Has A Saudi Citizenship And Was Intimately Close To The Saudi Royal Family And His Son, Saad Al Hariri Was Born In Saudi Arabia?   Or Is It Because Saad Al Hariri With All His Wealth, Can Mobilize The Sunni Community Against The Shiite Hezbollah Whose Loyalty Is To Ayatollah Régime In Iran? The Saudis Have Always Tried To Eliminate The Pro-Tehran Forces In Lebanon And Other Arab And Muslim Countries.   The Saudis Are Pushing The Sunni Population To Engage In A Sectarian War With The Shiites, Which Will Be a Gift To The Enemies Of Lebanon, Like Israel And The US, Who Want The Lebanese Resistence To Get Distracted By A Civil War And Internal Conflicts, Thus Allowing The Israelis to Attack The Resistence From Behind To Make Up For Their Defeat In 2006. Sunnis Should Not Allow The Saudis To Drag Them Into Another Civil War, And They Should Pick A Different Leader To Represent Them, Other Than Hariri, Whose Loyality Is To Saudi Arabia And The US.

'King Abdullah is very nervous' about Jordanian opposition

Opposition groups plan to increase anti-government activity; monarch reportedly set up "special operations room" to prevent anarchy in Jordan. Talkbacks (1) Jordan’s opposition groups plan to step up their anti-government protests in the coming days amid increased fears that the kingdom may be headed toward a period of instability and unrest. Some Jordanian opposition figures are talking about organizing a one-million-strong demonstration in Amman in a bid to force the king to remove the unpopular government headed by Prime Minister Samir Rifai. RELATED: Violence-scarred Tunisia announces new government Jordan puts on trial pro-Taliban militants Palestinians who returned to the West Bank from Jordan in recent days said that many Jordanians were openly talking about the need to copy the Tunisian model and revolt against the regime. “King Abdullah is said to be very nervous,” said a merchant from Ramallah who spent the past three weeks in Amman. “There is even talk in Jordan that the king has set up a special operations room in his palace to prevent the kingdom from plunging into anarchy and lawlessness.” In recent days, thousands of Jordanians have staged street protests to demand the resignation of Rifai’s government, which they hold responsible for the bad economy and high rate of unemployment. On Friday, thousands of people emerged from a mosque in downtown Amman chanting, “Jordan is not only for the wealthy,” “Down with the Samir Rifai government!” and “Bread is a red line.” The demonstrators also chanted slogans in support of the “Tunisian revolution.” Although the protests were directed primarily against the Rifai government, some Jordanians, especially those affiliated with Islamic groups, openly called for regime change in the kingdom. “He who appoints governments is responsible because fighting corruption starts with the head,” opposition leader Leith Shbeilat told the demonstrators in an implicit reference to Abdullah. Although the anti-government protesters have been careful not to mention the king by name, some Jordanians, like Shbeilat, did not hesitate to express their disenchantment with the monarch, who appoints the prime minister. “Many Jordanians are furious with the Rifai government because of unemployment and poverty, but there are also many people who are blaming the king,” said Mufid Abu Khalaf, a businessman who shuttles frequently between Amman and Hebron. “Some Jordanians are saying that what happened to [deposed Tunisian President Zine el-Abidine] Ben Ali will repeat itself in other Arab countries, including Jordan.” The demonstrations have, meanwhile, spread to other parts of the kingdom, especially Karak and Maan, prompting Abdullah to instruct his government to reduce prices of fuel and basic commodities. But the latest attempt to appease angry Jordanians has thus far failed to contain the resentment. The current wave of anti-government demonstrations is being organized by secular leftist parties and Islamic groups. But the two forces have thus far refrained from holding joint protests, and the feeling among many Jordanians is that they are even competing with each other over who will attract the biggest number of demonstrators. Many Jordanians are also angry with their parliament, which has almost unanimously backed the Rifai government in votes of noconfidence that had been submitted by opposition parties. In the most recent vote, the government won the support of 111 out of 120 members of parliament. On Sunday evening, hundreds of Jordanians staged a demonstration outside the parliament building in Amman to express their anger with the legislature’s actions. Security authorities have been cautious in dealing with the anti-government demonstrations, allowing protesters to vent their frustration and anger. “The authorities can tolerate the demonstrations as long as they are directed only against the government’s economic policies,” said Muneer Shami, an east Jerusalem university student who has been living in Amman for two years. “Everyone knows that the situation will change if the demonstrators turn against the king. The law in Jordan forbids citizens from saying anything bad against the king.” Meanwhile, the king has been busy of late dealing with feuds between rival tribes in various parts of the kingdom. The violence has claimed several lives in the past few months. In some cases, entire tribes have been forced to leave their homes due to the authorities’ failure to enforce law and order. The removal of Ben Ali from power is expected to serve as a catalyst for further unrest in Jordan. In the coming days and weeks, Jordanian opposition groups plan a series of public protests that could lead to scenes of anarchy and lawlessness similar to those coming out of Tunisia. “The pressure on the king is mounting,” said Maher Abdel Kareem, a Palestinian journalist who used to work in Amman. “If the demonstrations spread, things could get out of control and lead to the downfall of the monarchy.”

How the Widow of Arafat contributed to the Tunisian Revolution ?

Suha Arafat, the widow of the late PLO Leader Yasser Arafat, revelation about the Tunisian Presidential family after her Tunisian citizenship was revoked For the full Wikileaks cable go to: http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2007/11/07TUNIS1489.html Here are some of Suha's allegations regarding the former President of Tunisia and his wife: -- President Ben Ali remains weakened by his battle with cancer (NFI); -- President Ben Ali spends all his time playing with his son and following him around the residence; -- President Ben Ali simply does what his wife asks him to do; -- Leila Ben Ali and her family are stealing everything of value in the country; -- Leila Ben Ali believes that she will succeed her husband as President of Tunisia; -- The members of Ben Ali's extended family can do whatever they want with impunity, including the falsification of documents; -- Leila Ben Ali dropped the American curriculum that had been planned for the Carthage school because she fundamentally wants nothing to do with Americans

Lesley Hazleton: On reading the Koran | Video on TED.com

Lesley Hazleton: On reading the Koran | Video on TED.com

فضل اليهود و النصارى على الشيعة، وعلاقة السنة بالشيعة

فضل اليهود و النصارى على الشيعة، وعلاقة السنة بالشيعة

مروان عريقات

سئُل اليهود من خير الناس، قالوا اصحاب موسى عليه السلام

سئُل النصارى من خير الناس، قالوا أصحاب عيسى عليه السلام

سئُل الشيعة( الرافضة) من شر الناس، قالوا أصحاب محمد عليه الصلاة و السلام

قال حسن نصر اللات ان أبا سفيان رضي الله عنه عندما اسلم هو و بني أمية ومنهم خال المؤمنين كما سمى رسول الله معاوية ،قد أوجدوا مشروعاً لهدم الإسلام من الداخل و تناسى ان يذكر ان عبدالله ابن سبأ اليهودي كان اكره الناس للإسلام و السنةً، فادعى الإسلام و اخترع عقيدة التشيع ليهدم الإسلام من الداخل انتقاماً لدينه اليهودي الذي هدمه الإسلام، و كان علي رضي الله عنه قد أهدر دمه، فحسن نصر على دين هذا اليهودي

رفض خامنئي و كل حكام إيران من قبله ان يهدموا ضريح أبو لؤلؤة المجوسي، الذي لم يكن سنياً ولا شيعياً ، بل من عبدة النار، وسماه أئمة الشيعة الشجاع، و إصرارهم على إبقاء ضريحه ليس حباً فيه ولكن بغضاً لعمر، يشتمون و يبغضون الفاروق ثم يدعوننا إلى الوحدة، طهران هي العاصمة "الإسلامية" الوحيدة التي لا يسمح ببناء مسجد لأهل السنة فيها. حتى موسكو وواشنطن فيهما مساجد لأهل السنة.

الشيعة( علمائهم و أئمتهم) هم اقرب للكفر والنفاق، فلا يجوز نصرتهم او الاستعانة بهم على عدو حتى لو كانوا اليهود انفسهم و هذا ليس من عندي و لكنه من كتاب الله عندما رفض المنافقون القتال مع رسول الله ثم عندما انتصر الرسول عليه الصلاة والسلام، أرادوا ان يقاتلوا حتى يغنموا بعد ان قعدوا اول مرة فروى الله عز و جل رد الرسول عليهم

( فإن رجعك الله إلى طائفة منهم فاستأذنوك للخروج فقل لن تخرجوا معي أبدا ولن تقاتلوا معي عدوا إنكم رضيتم بالقعود أول مرة فاقعدوا مع الخالفين ) . ...

و قال تعالى في القتال مع المنافقين (لو خرجوا فيكم ما زادوكم إلا خبالا ولأوضعوا خلالكم يبغونكم الفتنة وفيكم سماعون لهم والله عليم بالظالمين )

قوله تعالى لو خرجوا فيكم ما زادوكم إلا خبالا هو تسلية للمؤمنين في تخلف [ ص: 86 ] المنافقين عنهم . والخبال : الفساد والنميمة وإيقاع الاختلاف والأراجيف . وهذا استثناء منقطع ، أي ما زادوكم قوة ولكن طلبوا الخبال . وقيل : المعنى لا يزيدونكم فيما يترددون فيه من الرأي إلا خبالا ، فلا يكون الاستثناء منقطعا .

قوله تعالى ولأوضعوا خلالكم المعنى لأسرعوا فيما بينكم بالإفساد . والإيضاع ، سرعة السير :

والله اعلم و السلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته

Location:Oakdale Ave,El Cajon,United States

معالجة قناتي الجزيرة والعربية للعدوان الإسرائيلي على غزة

دراسة مقارنة
معالجة قناتي الجزيرة والعربية للعدوان الإسرائيلي على


شهدت مرئيات الفضائيات العربية مؤخرا، طفرة هائلة في ظهور نوع جديد من الإعلام الذي يعتمد على النقل المباشر للأحداث الساخنة بكل تفاصيلها، فباتت هذه الفضائيات على مستوى الأحداث من حيث التغطية أو التعرية الفورية، وفرضت هذه الشاشات مشاهد المعارك والأسرى، والجرحى، والقتلى، عبر صور متحركة آنية تبثها نصا وصورة بعناصرها الواقعية لحظة بلحظة، بحيث لم تعد دوائر النفوذ العالمية قادرة على طمسها، كما في السابق، لا بل أصبحت مخرجات هذه الفضائيات تشكل مفردات أساسية في تكوين مدخلات أجندات وسائل الإعلام الغربية، بحيث بدأ الآخر يوجه عنايته إلى المعالجة الإعلامية التي تنقلها القنوات الفضائية العربية.

المعالجة الإعلامية للعدوان على غزة
منهج البحث وتقسيماته
نتائج البحث ومقترحاته

المعالجة الإعلامية للعدوان على غزة

"
قامت قناتا الجزيرة والعربية الإخباريتان بمعالجته الحرب على غزة إعلاميا، من خلال نقل الوقائع لحظة بلحظة كل تبعا لنهجه ومساره، وسياسته، ما دفع هذه الدراسة إلى السعي إلى الإجابة على السؤال: كيف تناولت قناتا الجزيرة والعربية أزمة العدوان الإسرائيلي على غزة إعلاميا؟

"
لعل أولى ملامح ظهور هذا التحول الأكبر، بدأت في أواخر سنة 2001 في حرب أفغانستان، وإن اقتصر الحضور القوي على قناتي الجزيرة و أبو ظبي، ليتبلور بشكل أكبر عام 2003 من خلال حرب الاحتلال الأميركي للعراق.

فدخلت فضائيات عربية لتغطية الحرب التي شهدتها المنطقة وفق أساليب عمل مختلفة، أي أنه أخيرا أصبح لدى البعض من الفضائيات العربية خبرة وتجربة إعلامية مهنية مكنتها من منافسة المحطات الأجنبية في مثل هذه الأحداث بعد أن كانت تقوم بدور المتلقي، كما في حرب الخليج الثانية مثلا عام 1991، عندما انفردت شبكة سي أن أن بنقل وقائع الحرب.

وعلى الرغم من هذه الحماسة الممزوجة بنوع من التفاؤل تجاه امتلاكنا كعرب لواجهات عربية إعلامية قادرة على وضعنا في صورة ما يعصف بمنطقتنا من أحداث ساخنة، إلا أن الواقع يظهر أحيانا ارتباط تلك الفضائيات بتوجهات سياسية أو مالية تحبط من فورة تفاؤلنا، ولعل أبرز مثال على ذلك تغطية حرب احتلال العراق عام 2003، إذ راحت بعض الفضائيات العربية تسميها حرب احتلال، في حين راحت أخرى تطلق عليها حرب التحرير، ناهيك عن الميل تجاه إبراز وجهة نظر على حساب أخرى، أي أننا بعد أن كنا نعاني من التعتيم الغربي، ومحاولات توجيه الرأي العام العربي بأيدي أجنبية عبر شاشات غربية، أصبحنا اليوم نواجه ذلك عبر شاشات عربية، تبث بلسان عربي، بشكل قد يبدو مقصودا وفق مشاريع معدة سلفا لهذا الأمر، أو ربما غير مقصود بسبب حداثة تجربتها، أو بفعل تزاحم الأحداث في المنطقة ما قد يضعها في دائرة الخطأ غير المفتعل. مع ضرورة التأكيد على دورها الإيجابي في نقل تلك الأحداث.

وبفعل حداثة هذا النوع من الإعلام في منطقتنا، في مقابل ندرة الأبحاث حوله، رغم أهميته، رأت الباحثة من خلال هذا البحث الذي يحمل عنوان "المعالجة الإعلامية في قناتي الجزيرة والعربية للعدوان الإسرائيلي" أن تختص دراستها ببحث تجربة قناتي الجزيرة والعربية اللتين تعدان أحد أهم وأكبر الفضائيات العربية الإخبارية في المنطقة في معالجتهما لحدث العدوان الإسرائيلي على غزة، بما قد تسهم نتائجه في تصحيح أو مؤازرة وتشجيع بعض الممارسات التي تقوم بها الفضائيات في سياق معالجة ما ترتب عن العدوان الإسرائيلي على غزة على اعتبار أنه موضوع لا تزال تبعاته قائمة، أو حتى معالجة أية قضية ساخنة قد تشهدها المنطقة.

أما اختيار العدوان الإسرائيلي على غزة تحديدا، فيأتي من أن هذا العدوان قد شكل نقطة تحول خطيرة في زيادة سخونة القضية الفلسطينية من جهة وفي توسعة رقعة انشقاق الواقع الفلسطيني مع ذاته، مؤثرا على مجمل مسارات الدول العربية والإسلامية من جهة أخرى تجاه القضية الفلسطينية، ما انعكس عل دور الفضائيات العربية التي لم تكن هي الأخرى بعيدة عن إدارة هذا الحدث المتمثل بالعدوان، حيث قامت بدور كبير، وبشكل خاص قناتا الجزيرة والعربية الإخباريتان في معالجته إعلاميا، بين معالجة للحدث العسكري، والسياسي، والإنساني، من خلال نقل الوقائع لحظة بلحظة منذ اليوم الأول للقصف الإسرائيلي، كل تبعا لنهجه ومساره، وسياسته، ما دفع هذه الدراسة إلى السعي إلى الإجابة على السؤال: كيف تناولت قناتا الجزيرة والعربية أزمة العدوان الإسرائيلي على غزة إعلاميا؟

منهج البحث وتقسيماته

أما أهداف البحث فتلخصت بهدفين، فأولهما هو التعرف على كيفية المعالجة الإعلامية التي سوقتها كل من قناتي الجزيرة والعربية إبان فترة العدوان الإسرائيلي على غزة في حين سعى الثاني إلى تشخيص المضامين التي شكلت مرتكزات أساسية في طبيعة المعالجات الإعلامية بين القناتين.

واعتمدت الباحثة من أجل تحقيق ذلك على خطة منهجية، تم بموجبها تقسيم ومعالجة الأبعاد المختلفة ذات العلاقة بمشكلتها البحثية في إطار خمسة فصول، حيث استعرض الفصل الأول أبعاد مشكلة البحث، وبينت الباحثة الأهداف الرئيسة لهذا البحث و أهميته باعتباره يتناول موضوعا مازالت تداعياته تتطور وتتغير حتى يومنا هذا.

وتم تقسيم الفصل الثاني إلى خمسة مباحث، حيث قدم المبحث الأول استعراضا وصفيا لأبرز الدراسات السابقة ذات الصلة بمشكلة البحث، والمؤشرات التي أسفرت عنها الدراسات السابقة. وتناول المبحث الثاني نشأة الفضائيات العربية، مع تخصيص محورين أساسيين لاستعراض نشأة قناتي الجزيرة والعربية. واهتم المبحث الثالث بمناقشة موضوع الإعلام بين الرسائل المعلنة والمبطنة، في حين ناقش المبحث الرابع دور القنوات الفضائية في معالجة الحروب، واختص المبحث الخامس باستعراض المشهد الفضائي في معالجة العدوان الإسرائيلي على غزة.

وشرحت الباحثة من خلال الفصل الثالث الإجراءات المنهجية للبحث، من خلال تحديد مجتمع البحث ويشمل 14 يوما من أصل 23 يوما هي فترة العدوان. والعينة المختارة من كل قناة، وهي تشمل 14 نشرة لكل قناة، بتوقيتات زمنية وأيام مختلفة، بواقع نشرة إخبارية لكل يوم، و13 حلقة من برنامج ما وراء الخبر بثتها قناة الجزيرة خلال الـ14 يوما التي تمثل مجتمع الدراسة، في مقابل 10 حلقات من برنامج بانوراما بثتها قناة العربية خلال الـ14 يوما، و3 حلقات من اللقاءات الخاصة التي بثتها قناة الجزيرة خلال تك الفترة، و5 حلقات من برامج اللقاءات الخاصة على "العربية"، ليصبح المجموع الكلي لمفردات العينة هو 59 مفردة (نشرة وحوار وبرنامج رأي).

كما حدد الفصل الثالث، وحدة التحليل، وأداة جمع بيانات الدراسة، وإجراءات الصدق والثبات باستخدام معادلة هولستي Holsty، كما استعرضت الأساليب الإحصائية المستخدمة في تحليل العينة، وختمته بتحليل العينات.

أما الفصل الرابع فناقشت الباحثة فيه نتائج البحث، في ضوء التأكد من مطابقتها للأهداف والفرضيات. في حين عرض الفصل الخامس مجموعة الاستنتاجات الأساسية التي توصلت إليها الباحثة، وانتهى هذا الفصل بذكر بعض التوصيات والمقترحات فضلا عن قائمة المصادر والمراجع والملاحق والجداول الإحصائية.

نتائج البحث ومقترحاته

"
لعبت التكنولوجيا المتقدمة دورا كبيرا في تحقيق كفاءة أعلى لمعالجة القناتين لأزمة العدوان الإسرائيلي على غزة، من خلال ما وفرته التكنولوجيا من خدمات الأقمار الصناعية، والبث المباشر والاتصالات الدولية وشبكة المعلومات الدولية

"
أما أهم النتائج التي توصل إليها هذا البحث فكانت التأكيد على أن قناتي الجزيرة والعربية تعاملتا مع حدث العدوان الإسرائيلي على غزة من خلال تقديم تغطية 0شاملة وواسعة ركزت على جوانبه العسكرية، والسياسية، والإنسانية والاجتماعية، واستخدمت القناتان كافة إمكانياتهما لتقديم معالجة على مدار الساعة. كما منحت كل منهما وقتا متقاربا نسبيا لأخبار العدوان في نشراتهما الإخبارية، ومع ذلك فأظهرت النتائج أن قناة العربية منحت البرامج الحوارية حيزا زمنيا أكبر، من منافستها "الجزيرة".

كما أظهرت النتائج اختلاف القناتين في المصطلحات المستخدمة في توصيف مفردات الحدث، بحيث كان مصطلح الحرب هو الأعلى استخداما في قناة الجزيرة ،أما مصطلح الهجوم فكان الأعلى استخداما في قناة العربية، كما استخدمت "الجزيرة" وصف المقاومين الفلسطينيين، في حين استخدمت "العربية" مصطلح المقاتلين، وينسحب ذلك على وصف موت الفلسطينيين في غزة، حيث أفادت النتائج أن استخدام وصف الشهداء الفلسطينيين كان الأكثر استخداما في قناة الجزيرة، أما قناة العربية فاستخدمت مصطلح القتلى الفلسطينيين، والضحايا بشكل متساو، كما لجأت إلى عبارة "فقدوا حياتهم".

وتمكنت الباحثة في ظل النتائج التي توصلت إليها إضافة إلى أدبيات الإطار النظري، من تحديد مجموعة من الاستنتاجات، وهي:

لعبت التكنولوجيا المتقدمة دورا كبيرا في تحقيق كفاءة أعلى لمعالجة القناتين لأزمة العدوان الإسرائيلي على غزة، من خلال ما وفرته التكنولوجيا من خدمات الأقمار الصناعية، والبث المباشر والاتصالات الدولية وشبكة المعلومات الدولية.

عكست المعالجة الإعلامية في قناتي الجزيرة والعربية الأجندة السياسية للقوى البارزة خلال تلك الفترة، ففيما عمدت "الجزيرة" إلى التركيز على الموقف الداعم لخط المقاومة الفلسطينية المتمثل بحركة حماس، أو ما يطلق عليه خط الممانعة، راحت "العربية" تبرز موقف الاعتدال ممثلا بموقف السلطة الوطنية الفلسطينية.

اختيار قناة الجزيرة مفردات توصيف عناصر الحدث، بناء على المصطلحات المتداولة على مستوى الشارع العربي، من شأنه شن حرب معلوماتية ضد الدول والأنظمة التي يحاول إعلامها تشويه تلك المصطلحات عبر بث لغة إعلامية جديدة.

استبدال قناة العربية مصطلح الشهيد بالقتيل، والمقاومين بالمقاتلين، تحت ذريعة السعي إلى المهنية المجردة من أي توجه، ينم عن ارتباط القناة بأجندة سياسية بعيدة عن ثقافة المجتمع الذي ولدت فيه، خصوصا أنها لم تلتزم بهذا الخط المهني المجرد على مستويات أخرى، فالانتقائية في تجريد الخبر أو المصطلح المستخدم، مقابل توجيه لآخر، يبطل شرعية هذه الذريعة.

استخدام قناة الجزيرة للصورة القاسية تثبت إدراك القناة أن قوة الصورة مسألة قيادة مثل قيادة الحروب، وأن من شأن هذه الصورة أن تحول الشاشات إلى وسائل قتالية، لأن في ظل تعدد قنوات الاتصال أصبح حجب الصورة ضربا من ضروب التضليل أو التعتيم الإعلامي.

تأخر قناتا الجزيرة والعربية في توصيف الحدث، مع عدم تحديدهما للفاعل، سواء عبر استخدام قناة الجزيرة شعار "غزة تحت النار"، أو من خلال شعار "غزة تحت اللهيب" في قناة العربية، من شأنه عدم تحديد مسؤولية الفاعل في جريمته.

تمكنت قناة الجزيرة من توحيد وصفها للحدث بما يتوافق مع شعارها، أما قناة العربية فلم تتمكن من توحيد لغتها الوصفية المستخدمة في النشرات الإخبارية، مع شعارها خلال فترة العدوان.

اعتماد القناتين على المصادر الذاتية، يعني أن الإعلام العربي صار خلال فترة العدوان مصدرا مهما للأخبار، بشكل منحه صبغة تعدت الإقليمية، وبلغت العالمية.

استبدال المصطلحات التي تدين المحتل الإسرائيلي بأخرى تجعل منه طرفا، من شأنه التمهيد لما يعرف بالتطبيع غير المباشر مع إسرائيل.

لعب الانتماء الوطني لمراسلي قناة العربية دورا بارزا في تحديد مفرداتهم التي استخدموها في توصيف الأزمة، على خلاف خط سير القناة، ما يعني غياب التنسيق بين المراسلين وبين القائمين على هذه المؤسسة الإعلامية.

وحاول هذا البحث تقديم مجموعة من التوصيات والمقترحات إلى قناتي الجزيرة والعربية خاصة، والفضائيات العربية عامة، في سبيل تعزيز الدور المناط بها وهي كالتالي:

أهمية قيام وسائل الإعلام مجتمعة وهاتين القناتين بشكل خاص، بتأسيس مراكز بحوث داخلها تقوم بتحليل مضامين المعالجات التي تقوم بها بين الحين والآخر، إذ في هذه الحالة سيستقيم الأداء الإعلامي، وسيعتمد على الحقيقة دون ربطه بأجندات معينة أو بأية عوامل غير موضوعية أخرى.

على وسائل الإعلام أن تدرك أن الحرية الإعلامية لا تعني منح الآخر فرصة إبراز وجهة نظر على حساب الآخر، ما يتطلب مراعاة دقة التصريحات ذات الطبيعة السياسية.

توصي الباحثة القناتين "الجزيرة" و"العربية" بضرورة الفصل بين الخبر وبين الرأي، لأن من شأن ذلك تقديم تغطية غير موضوعية وبعيدة عن التوازن.

ضرورة عدم تركيز تعامل قناتي الجزيرة والعربية، وغيرهما من القنوات الفضائية على زوايا معينة وإهمال أخرى، بل التعامل مع الحدث بشكل غير انتقائي، لأن الانتقائية من شأنها إثارة الخلافات والانشقاقات والجدل، وقد تصل إلى التشكيك بأهداف القناة.

أهمية تحقيق التوازن في أدوار ومهام الإعلام الفضائي خلال المراحل المختلفة للحدث، ومراعاة عنصر التخطيط الإعلامي منذ البداية حتى النهاية، وتوفير قاعدة موحدة للعمل سواء ما يتعلق منه بالعمل داخل الأستوديو، أو العمل الميداني لتحقيق نوع من التنسيق والتعاون.

 

أما المقترحات فتشمل:

العمل على التوفيق بين احترام المتطلبات المهنية من جهة والتوجهات والضغوط المختلفة التي توثر في عمل القنوات الإخبارية من جهة أخرى.

نظرا للدور البارز الذي يقوم به المراسل في فترات الحرب من نقل مباشر للحدث، فترى الباحثة ضرورة مراجعة كل من القناتين لدور مراسليهما الفعلي، بحيث يعمل كل منهم على نقل الخبر لا على تحليله والتعليق عليه بما يرجح كفة طرف على الآخر، صراحة أو تلميحا.

إعداد فريق عمل إخباري داخل القناة، مهمته العمل في فترة الأحداث الساخنة، وفي تغطية الملفات الشائكة، من خلال تدريبه على أحدث الطرق في متابعة الأحداث وتغطيتها إعلاميا والاستخدام الأمثل لتكنولوجيا البث المباشر.

توصي الباحثة بتدريس مقررات للإعلام عن الأزمات في كليات ومعاهد الإعلام، وتوفير ورش عمل لتدريب الصحافيين والإعلاميين على العمل في هذا المجال.

توصي الباحثة بضرورة الاستمرار بدراسة مضامين المعالجات الإعلامية للفضائيات ووسائل الإعلام العربية الأخرى، خدمة للبحث العلمي الإعلامي من جهة وتطوير أداء الوسائل الإعلامية من جهة أخرى بما من شأنه الارتقاء بأدائها الإعلامي المتوازن.

المصدر:مركز الجزيرة للدراسات

تعليقات القراء
التعليقات المنشورة لا تعبر عن رأي الجزيرة وإنما تعبر عن رأي أصحابها
1
سعودي

What Does Jihad Really Mean?

What Does Jihad Really Mean?
Posted on January 1, 2011
By: Marwan Arikat

http://mrarikat.blog.com/2011/01/01/what-does-jihad-really-means/

Jihad is usually translated into “Holy War” although this term was invented by the fighting monks(the Templars) during the crusades back in the middle ages, in Islam “war” has negative connotation. The Prophet of Islam, did not hide his displeasure with people who name their kids “Harb” which is Arabic for war and which is still common amongst Arabs, so if He(peace be upon him) hated the name because it means war and bloodshed and he asked Muslims no matter how strong they are and how well-prepared they are, not to wish to fight, so the Prophet despised the act of war and considered it when Muslims had to engage in it a necessary evil, so how on earth would he( peace be upon him) glorify it or make it sacred. In reality, he did not glamorize fighting and bloodshed, and the word “Jihad” has nothing to do with the word “war”, Jihad mean “striving in cause of Allah (Glorified and Honored.)”. Being a Criminal Justice major, my favorite example is people living in a bad neighborhood, where there is a crack house or a liquor store on every corner, I heard that some members of the African-American Muslims community in the Bay Area used all types of social, legal and religious measures, including intimidating drug dealers and liquor store owners into shutting down their dirty business, this kind of effort is striving to eliminate evil, like Drugs and Alcohol, and when the person strives to eliminate evil or implement good, it can be called, striving in the cause of Allah(Glorified and honored.). Jihad literally means “exerting effort,” if someone is fighting a chronic terminal disease, it could be said the he/she is making Jihad against his/her illness, I hope people in the US will understand the real meaning of Jihad, and start applying the act of Jihad to make our country better and on the righteous path.

Location:San Diego, CA,USA

Jihad and what does it really mean?

Jihad is usually translated into "Holy War" although this term was invented by the fighting monks(the Templars) during the crusades back in the middle ages, in Islam "war" has negative connotation. The Prophet of Islam, did not hide his displeasure with people who name their kids "Harb" which is Arabic for war and which is still common amongst Arabs, so if He(peace be upon him) hated the name because it means war and bloodshed and he asked Muslims no matter how strong they are and how well-prepared they are, not to wish to fight, so the Prophet despised the act of war and considered it when Muslims had to engage in it a necessary evil, so how on earth would he( peace be upon him) glorify it or make it sacred. In reality, he did not glamorize fighting and bloodshed, and the word "Jihad" has nothing to do with the word "war", Jihad mean "striving in cause of Allah (Glorified and Honored.)". Being a Criminal Justice major, my favorite example is people living in a bad neighborhood, where there is a crack house or a liquor store on every corner, I heard that some members of the African-American Muslims community in the Bay Area used all types of social, legal and religious measures, including intimidating drug dealers and liquor store owners into shutting down their dirty business, this kind of effort is striving to eliminate evil, like Drugs and Alcohol, and when the person strives to eliminate evil or implement good, it can be called, striving in the cause of Allah(Glorified and honored.). Jihad literally means "exerting effort," if someone is fighting a chronic terminal disease, it could be said the he/she is making Jihad against his/her illness, I hope people in the US will understand the real meaning of Jihad, and start applying the act of Jihad to make our country better and on the righteous path.

Location:Oakdale Ave,El Cajon,United States