March 13, 2011 15:42 by Simon Plosker
Only days after HonestReporting’s Managing Editor wrote about the thread that links Palestinian incitement to inevitable acts of terror, Israel has suffered a shocking and brutal terrorist attack carried out by baby killers. Yet the BBC has still managed to turn this into a story about settlements.
As the JPost reports:
A mother, father and three of their children were stabbed to death late Friday night by at least one suspected terrorist who infiltrated the Itamar settlement southeast of Nablus.
The killings occurred shortly after 10 p.m., when one or two attackers jumped the fence that surrounds Itamar and broke into the home of Ruth and Udi Fogel, aged 35 and 36, respectively. The attackers went room to room, stabbing the parents, a three-month-old girl, Hadas, and two boys, Elad, three, and Yoav, 11.
Clearly, those who are capable of the premeditated murder of babies and children are driven by something far deeper than an aversion to the existence or building of Israeli settlements. There is nothing more innocent than a three-month old. Yet, many media outlets still chose to politicize the horrific slaughter of innocents by focusing less on the despicable act itself and more on making an issue of the location of the attack and dehumanizing the victims as “settlers”.
Note some of the following headlines:
* Suspecting Palestinians, Israeli Military Hunts for Killers of 5 West Bank Settlers – New York Times
* Israeli troops scour West Bank villages for killers of 5 Jewish settlers – Washington Post
But the most shocking and callous treatment of the incident was produced by the BBC. While the news cycle moved on and media outlets turned towards an announcement of approval for construction in Israeli settlements, most at least gave prominence to the appalling details of the terrorist attack even if this became part of a story relating to settlements.
The BBC, however, virtually buried the Fogel family’s massacre, once again demonstrating its obsession with the settlement issue above all other issues relating to the Arab-Israeli Conflict.
No dedicated reportage of the brutal attack was featured elsewhere on the site. Instead, subsumed in a story of settlements, it warrants only a few lines. The BBC does, however, report that the attack “has shocked many Palestinians”. Of course, the BBC failed to mention that Hamas described the attack as a “heroic operation” while sweets and candies were handed out in Gaza in celebration.
The BBC has exercised its own moral judgment that says that the issuing of building permits in settlements is the cause of terror. Otherwise, the story may have included statements from Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu attributing the terror attack to Palestinian incitement.
The BBC has a well-staffed bureau in Jerusalem with the same access as other media outlets. Yet it chose not to publish any photos or specific details of the terror incident.
In the BBC’s world, it is all about the settlements. By politicizing such a heinous terrorist crime perpetrated against a baby, two small children and their parents, the BBC is as guilty as the perpetrators of dehumanizing innocent Israelis based on where they live. For the BBC, it seems that the location of the murders and the stress on how settlements “are held to be illegal under international law” is more important than the murders themselves.
If the BBC ever had any moral compass, it has demonstrated that it has completely lost it. In the BBC’s eyes, there is no moral difference between deliberately murdering innocent babies and the construction of homes in disputed territory. Indeed, for the BBC, the settlement issue at best allows one to “understand” why such an atrocity could take place and at worst, justifies it.
The BBC is by no means the only guilty party in creating an environment where Israeli Jews living in West Bank communities are dehumanized to the point that a three-month old is merely a “settler” – the Palestinian Authority’s continuous incitement in the Palestinian media and education system bear much responsibility. But the international media have bought into this narrative of demonization and helped to create such a toxic environment that the murder of innocents is deemed to be almost acceptable and the human story behind a tragedy is cynically removed.
YNet News reports that the director of Israel’s Government Press Office, Oren Helman, has demanded an apology over CNN’s coverage of the terrorist attack:
A CNN website report avoided describing the event as a terror attack, noting that the Israel Defense Forces consider it an act of terrorism. “Only you decided to use the term terrorist attack in quotation marks, as if this were not necessarily the case,” Helman wrote. “There is a limit to the extent of objectivity regarding such a horrific deed.”
CNN has responded, as of 1714 GMT, by removing the quotation marks from the headline and the opening paragraph.
The GPO’s other complaints, however, concerning CNN’s descriptions of the terrorist as an “intruder” or “assailant” have not been addressed at this time.
UPDATE 2
The BBC covered the terrorist attack in an article that was last updated on March 12 at 15:04 GMT. The story was as problematic as CNN’s, using a headline that cast doubt on the circumstances of the terrorist attack through the use of quotations.
The BBC usually links to related materials on later stories such as the settlement one critiqued above. Instead, the story of the terror attack disappeared from the main news pages, including that of the Middle East news where such items usually stay visible online for a period of at least a few days.
So why is it that the BBC’s original coverage of the terror attack, as problematic as it was, does not even appear as a related item at the bottom of the settlement story? Having drawn a link between the building of settlements and the attack, it is extremely surprising that the original story has been omitted. An innocent slip or is there something more sinister behind the scenes at the BBC?
UPDATE 3
Why did Sky News wait over 48 hours to cover the brutal terrorist murder and only then in a story highlighting settlements?
Source: HonestReporting
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Monday, March 7, 2011
The world's most dangerous broadcaster
I have only just caught up with the BBC1 documentary on the Dutch politician Geert Wilders that was transmitted on Tuesday evening. Did I say documentary? ‘Europe’s Most Dangerous Man' was a vicious hatchet job that was a disgrace to journalism. More than that, it could be argued that by presenting Wilders as a latter-day Nazi who was likely to foment war in Europe between Muslims and non-Muslims, it was in effect inciting violence or the murder of a politician who is already under armed guard 24/7.
There were several aspects of this programme that should have caused any responsible broadcaster to sling it straight into the trash. First and most fundamentally, it simply turned the people threatening the free world into victims and the politician who is trying to defend the free world against that threat into a fascist. Muslims were presented as universally peaceful people signed up to democracy and human rights; Wilders was the presented as the extremist threat to democracy and human rights. Yet as Wilders himself was quoted as saying – even while the script was telling us that these words were ‘extremist’ – he was defending freedom against the threat from Islamists to extinguish those freedoms.
Worse still, look at the two individuals the film-makers used to level the most inflammatory charges against Wilders – individuals who were described as democrats assigned up to human rights. The first, Ibrahim Mogra, is from the Muslim Council of Britain – described by the programme as ‘an organisation seeking to promote a distinct Muslim identity in tune with British cultural norms and values’.
Yet this is the organisation with which the British government has twice broken off relations on account of its extremism. The first occasion was when it refused to take part in Britain’s Holocaust Remembrance Day ceremony. The second occasion was in response to the MCB’s deputy general secretary, Dr Daud Abdullah, signing the Istanbul Declaration, a public declaration of support for Hamas and call for violence against the British Royal Navy and Jewish communities.
The film made no mention of this whatever. Instead it used the MCB man to attack Wilders as a dangerous extremist.
The second of these ‘moderate’ individuals wheeled on to attack Wilders was Sheikh Khalid Yasin. The film described Sheikh Yasin as ‘an American Muslim teacher extremely popular among young European Muslims’ who ‘has embarked on a mission to de radicalise them.’ Yasin denounced Wilders for ‘fanning hatred’.
Yet in the Channel 4 Dispatches programme ‘Undercover Mosque’ transmitted two years ago, Yasin was recorded saying:
‘We Muslims have been ordered to do ‘brainwashing’ because the kuffaar [non-Muslims] ... they are doing ‘brain defiling’ ... You are watching the kaffir TVs, and your wife is watching right now, and your children are watching it right now, and they are being polluted, and they are being penetrated, and they are being infected, so that your children and you go out as Muslims and come back to the house as kaffirs...The whole delusion of the equality of women is a bunch of foolishness. There’s no such thing.’
And Wilders is called ‘Europe’s most dangerous man’?
Worse, the film then adduced as the final proof of Wilders’s perfidy that he was a passionate defender of Israel. His crime, apparently, was to believe that Israel was ‘the last line of the defence of Europe’ – which indeed it is – and that to solve the Middle East impasse, Jordan should become Palestine -- which indeed it originally was.
Worse again, however, the film suggested that Wilders was an Israeli spy – and, in the words of Sheikh Yasin, that it was doing Israel’s dirty work for it:
‘I think that he [Wilders] has taken and embraced the idea of modern Zionism. And he is using the platform of modern Zionism to espouse the same concepts about Muslims in the world and the Koran, that the Jews cannot afford to say in Israel. But Mr Wilders can do them a favour. He can go outside of Israel with those same feelings and he can characterise the way that the Zionists characterise the Palestinians to legitimise their power. Mr Wilders can characterise Islam in the same way. This is what is taking place.’
So the film suggested, in effect, that Wilders was the front man for a kind of Nazi-Jewish conspiracy -- thus defaming both him and Israel in one go. Others smeared by association with him were the distinguished scholar of Islam (and indefatigable supporter of true Islamic reformers) Daniel Pipes, and the heroic Danish defender of freedom of speech Lars Hedegaard – who recently only narrowly fought off an attempt by Denmark’s pusillanimous prosecutors to silence him through a criminal prosecution for raising concerns about violence within some Muslim family life.
This travesty of a documentary was made by two radical Dutch film-makers for a production company called ‘Red Rebel’. Questions need to be asked how the BBC could transmit something on such an inflammatory subject which ignored the most basic standards of journalistic fairness, -- and was effectively the broadcasting equivalent of a flier distributed by the Socialist Workers’ Party.
But of course, we all know the answer to that already. BBC ‘group- think’ means that BBC executives will have assumed the lazy and vicious left-wing demonisation of Wilders is axiomatically true and unchallengeable. They will thus have suspended any critical faculties or professionalism to which they might ever have laid any claim.
We are living in truly evil times.
Source: Spectator.co.uk
There were several aspects of this programme that should have caused any responsible broadcaster to sling it straight into the trash. First and most fundamentally, it simply turned the people threatening the free world into victims and the politician who is trying to defend the free world against that threat into a fascist. Muslims were presented as universally peaceful people signed up to democracy and human rights; Wilders was the presented as the extremist threat to democracy and human rights. Yet as Wilders himself was quoted as saying – even while the script was telling us that these words were ‘extremist’ – he was defending freedom against the threat from Islamists to extinguish those freedoms.
Worse still, look at the two individuals the film-makers used to level the most inflammatory charges against Wilders – individuals who were described as democrats assigned up to human rights. The first, Ibrahim Mogra, is from the Muslim Council of Britain – described by the programme as ‘an organisation seeking to promote a distinct Muslim identity in tune with British cultural norms and values’.
Yet this is the organisation with which the British government has twice broken off relations on account of its extremism. The first occasion was when it refused to take part in Britain’s Holocaust Remembrance Day ceremony. The second occasion was in response to the MCB’s deputy general secretary, Dr Daud Abdullah, signing the Istanbul Declaration, a public declaration of support for Hamas and call for violence against the British Royal Navy and Jewish communities.
The film made no mention of this whatever. Instead it used the MCB man to attack Wilders as a dangerous extremist.
The second of these ‘moderate’ individuals wheeled on to attack Wilders was Sheikh Khalid Yasin. The film described Sheikh Yasin as ‘an American Muslim teacher extremely popular among young European Muslims’ who ‘has embarked on a mission to de radicalise them.’ Yasin denounced Wilders for ‘fanning hatred’.
Yet in the Channel 4 Dispatches programme ‘Undercover Mosque’ transmitted two years ago, Yasin was recorded saying:
‘We Muslims have been ordered to do ‘brainwashing’ because the kuffaar [non-Muslims] ... they are doing ‘brain defiling’ ... You are watching the kaffir TVs, and your wife is watching right now, and your children are watching it right now, and they are being polluted, and they are being penetrated, and they are being infected, so that your children and you go out as Muslims and come back to the house as kaffirs...The whole delusion of the equality of women is a bunch of foolishness. There’s no such thing.’
And Wilders is called ‘Europe’s most dangerous man’?
Worse, the film then adduced as the final proof of Wilders’s perfidy that he was a passionate defender of Israel. His crime, apparently, was to believe that Israel was ‘the last line of the defence of Europe’ – which indeed it is – and that to solve the Middle East impasse, Jordan should become Palestine -- which indeed it originally was.
Worse again, however, the film suggested that Wilders was an Israeli spy – and, in the words of Sheikh Yasin, that it was doing Israel’s dirty work for it:
‘I think that he [Wilders] has taken and embraced the idea of modern Zionism. And he is using the platform of modern Zionism to espouse the same concepts about Muslims in the world and the Koran, that the Jews cannot afford to say in Israel. But Mr Wilders can do them a favour. He can go outside of Israel with those same feelings and he can characterise the way that the Zionists characterise the Palestinians to legitimise their power. Mr Wilders can characterise Islam in the same way. This is what is taking place.’
So the film suggested, in effect, that Wilders was the front man for a kind of Nazi-Jewish conspiracy -- thus defaming both him and Israel in one go. Others smeared by association with him were the distinguished scholar of Islam (and indefatigable supporter of true Islamic reformers) Daniel Pipes, and the heroic Danish defender of freedom of speech Lars Hedegaard – who recently only narrowly fought off an attempt by Denmark’s pusillanimous prosecutors to silence him through a criminal prosecution for raising concerns about violence within some Muslim family life.
This travesty of a documentary was made by two radical Dutch film-makers for a production company called ‘Red Rebel’. Questions need to be asked how the BBC could transmit something on such an inflammatory subject which ignored the most basic standards of journalistic fairness, -- and was effectively the broadcasting equivalent of a flier distributed by the Socialist Workers’ Party.
But of course, we all know the answer to that already. BBC ‘group- think’ means that BBC executives will have assumed the lazy and vicious left-wing demonisation of Wilders is axiomatically true and unchallengeable. They will thus have suspended any critical faculties or professionalism to which they might ever have laid any claim.
We are living in truly evil times.
Source: Spectator.co.uk
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
For Palestinians, Egyptian unrest is bittersweet
The Jerusalem Post
For Palestinians, Egyptian unrest is bittersweet
By DAVID E. MILLER/THE MEDIA LINE
01/31/2011 18:56
Ordinary people cheer on protesters, but Hamas and Fatah are both hesitant to take sides.
Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and West Bank expressed both hope and anxiety as unrest went into its seventh day in Egypt, a country that has acted as a lifeline to besieged Gaza and a patron to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank but also as the object of anger and resentment.
In Gaza, where the Islamic Hamas movement rules, officials were mum on the mass protests, which have brought Egypt to a standstill and forced President Hosni Mubarak to dismiss his cabinet. In the West Bank, where the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority (PA) is in control, police blocked a demonstration backing the Egyptian protesters.
Mubarak has had a complicated relationship with the Palestinians, especially since Hamas and Fatah parted ways and Gaza fell under Hamas rule in 2007. Cairo has mostly cooperated with Israel’s embargo of Gaza to the chagrin of Hamas, an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood opposition group, but allows goods to pass illegally through tunnels under their joint border.
Towards Fatah, Mubarak has served as a friend, but has earned the wrath of many ordinary West Bank Palestinians for being too close to Israel and for being complicit in Israel’s Gaza embargo.
The PA on Sunday obstructed a small demonstration in solidarity with the opposition across from the Egyptian embassy in Ramallah. A few dozen protesters were met by 20 armed police, who tried to confiscate cameras and intimidated demonstrators, Human Rights Watch reported.
Ahmad, a Gaza resident who asked not be identified by his full name, said that similar demonstrations would have taken place in Gaza, too, but people feared a crackdown by Hamas.
"The Hamas government is too scared to voice a position, fearing that Mubarak's regime will eventually prevail and Hamas will be held accountable," Ahmad told The Media Line.
"If the regime survived, things will get much worse for us," added Ali Abu-Shahla, secretary-general of the Gaza Business Association.
In the meantime, however, the chaos in Egypt is complicating life in Gaza as fighting between troops and protesters in northern Sinai closes the roads between Cairo and Gaza that bring commodities to the tunnels. By Monday, tunnel traffic had ground to a halt and gasoline reserves quickly ran out, forcing filling stations to shut down.
"The Gaza Strip is completely dependent on Egypt for gasoline," Mahmoud Al-Khizandar, deputy head of the fuel dealers association in Gaza, told The Media Line. He said the price of gas coming in from Egypt was one Israeli shekel (28 cents) per liter, compared with 6.50 shekels for Israeli gas, a price beyond the reach of most Gazans.
Fearing a fuel shortage and ignoring government pleas against hoarding, Gazans flocked to filling stations over the weekend filling gas tanks and plastic containers to the brim. Ali Abu-Shahla said Gaza's diesel-fueled power stations were also likely to suffer from the smuggling halt, with power shortages to be expected in the coming days.
"I don't understand why Israel doesn't completely open all the border crossings," Abu-Shahla told The Media Line. "That would put an end to illicit trade from Egypt."
But Samir Zaqout, field work coordinator for the Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights in Gaza, insisted there was no fuel shortage.
"Even when the Egyptian gas runs out in the gas stations, there will still be plenty of Israeli reserves," he told The Media Line, adding that the Hamas government has barred gas stations from filling containers to prevent stockpiling.
Meanwhile, Egypt shut its official border crossing with Gaza on Sunday, although there were no soldiers there to enforce it, Al-Khizandar of the fuel dealers association said. Hamas security personnel guarded the border, however, preventing Palestinians from crossing into Egypt. At least 50 Palestinians wishing to exit Gaza were turned back by Hamas forces, Reuters reported. But five Palestinian militants fleeing Abu-Zaabal prison in Cairo made it home to Gaza.
The escapees came back bearing stories of torture and mistreatment by the Egyptians, fueling popular antipathy for Egypt’s ruler.
Mutasem Al-Quqa, who spent seven years in Egyptian prisons, said he was arrested on his way from Gaza to Cairo on charges of belonging to Hamas, which is outlawed in Egypt.
"They put us in solitary confinement, which I cannot describe, it was so horrible," he told the Palestinian Information Center, a Hamas news agency. "I managed to escape that prison, which was a hell for Palestinian inmates, after residents of the area destroyed the prison walls."
Despite the economic distress the unrest has created, some Gazans remained cautiously optimistic about Egypt.
"People here are generally happy with what's going on," said Ahmad. "Gazans suffered a great deal at the border crossing with Egypt. They often had to bribe soldiers, but the Egyptians had no mercy on people, whether leftists or Hamas members. They even turned back the sick who came for treatment."
But Al-Khizandar said he preferred to focus on the cultural and familial ties between Gazans and Egyptians, a result of geographic proximity and 19 years of direct Egyptian control between 1948 and 1967.
"Many Egyptians live in the Gaza Strip, so there are family ties; Many Gazan students go abroad to study in Egypt," he said.
For Palestinians, Egyptian unrest is bittersweet
By DAVID E. MILLER/THE MEDIA LINE
01/31/2011 18:56
Ordinary people cheer on protesters, but Hamas and Fatah are both hesitant to take sides.
Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and West Bank expressed both hope and anxiety as unrest went into its seventh day in Egypt, a country that has acted as a lifeline to besieged Gaza and a patron to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank but also as the object of anger and resentment.
In Gaza, where the Islamic Hamas movement rules, officials were mum on the mass protests, which have brought Egypt to a standstill and forced President Hosni Mubarak to dismiss his cabinet. In the West Bank, where the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority (PA) is in control, police blocked a demonstration backing the Egyptian protesters.
Mubarak has had a complicated relationship with the Palestinians, especially since Hamas and Fatah parted ways and Gaza fell under Hamas rule in 2007. Cairo has mostly cooperated with Israel’s embargo of Gaza to the chagrin of Hamas, an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood opposition group, but allows goods to pass illegally through tunnels under their joint border.
Towards Fatah, Mubarak has served as a friend, but has earned the wrath of many ordinary West Bank Palestinians for being too close to Israel and for being complicit in Israel’s Gaza embargo.
The PA on Sunday obstructed a small demonstration in solidarity with the opposition across from the Egyptian embassy in Ramallah. A few dozen protesters were met by 20 armed police, who tried to confiscate cameras and intimidated demonstrators, Human Rights Watch reported.
Ahmad, a Gaza resident who asked not be identified by his full name, said that similar demonstrations would have taken place in Gaza, too, but people feared a crackdown by Hamas.
"The Hamas government is too scared to voice a position, fearing that Mubarak's regime will eventually prevail and Hamas will be held accountable," Ahmad told The Media Line.
"If the regime survived, things will get much worse for us," added Ali Abu-Shahla, secretary-general of the Gaza Business Association.
In the meantime, however, the chaos in Egypt is complicating life in Gaza as fighting between troops and protesters in northern Sinai closes the roads between Cairo and Gaza that bring commodities to the tunnels. By Monday, tunnel traffic had ground to a halt and gasoline reserves quickly ran out, forcing filling stations to shut down.
"The Gaza Strip is completely dependent on Egypt for gasoline," Mahmoud Al-Khizandar, deputy head of the fuel dealers association in Gaza, told The Media Line. He said the price of gas coming in from Egypt was one Israeli shekel (28 cents) per liter, compared with 6.50 shekels for Israeli gas, a price beyond the reach of most Gazans.
Fearing a fuel shortage and ignoring government pleas against hoarding, Gazans flocked to filling stations over the weekend filling gas tanks and plastic containers to the brim. Ali Abu-Shahla said Gaza's diesel-fueled power stations were also likely to suffer from the smuggling halt, with power shortages to be expected in the coming days.
"I don't understand why Israel doesn't completely open all the border crossings," Abu-Shahla told The Media Line. "That would put an end to illicit trade from Egypt."
But Samir Zaqout, field work coordinator for the Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights in Gaza, insisted there was no fuel shortage.
"Even when the Egyptian gas runs out in the gas stations, there will still be plenty of Israeli reserves," he told The Media Line, adding that the Hamas government has barred gas stations from filling containers to prevent stockpiling.
Meanwhile, Egypt shut its official border crossing with Gaza on Sunday, although there were no soldiers there to enforce it, Al-Khizandar of the fuel dealers association said. Hamas security personnel guarded the border, however, preventing Palestinians from crossing into Egypt. At least 50 Palestinians wishing to exit Gaza were turned back by Hamas forces, Reuters reported. But five Palestinian militants fleeing Abu-Zaabal prison in Cairo made it home to Gaza.
The escapees came back bearing stories of torture and mistreatment by the Egyptians, fueling popular antipathy for Egypt’s ruler.
Mutasem Al-Quqa, who spent seven years in Egyptian prisons, said he was arrested on his way from Gaza to Cairo on charges of belonging to Hamas, which is outlawed in Egypt.
"They put us in solitary confinement, which I cannot describe, it was so horrible," he told the Palestinian Information Center, a Hamas news agency. "I managed to escape that prison, which was a hell for Palestinian inmates, after residents of the area destroyed the prison walls."
Despite the economic distress the unrest has created, some Gazans remained cautiously optimistic about Egypt.
"People here are generally happy with what's going on," said Ahmad. "Gazans suffered a great deal at the border crossing with Egypt. They often had to bribe soldiers, but the Egyptians had no mercy on people, whether leftists or Hamas members. They even turned back the sick who came for treatment."
But Al-Khizandar said he preferred to focus on the cultural and familial ties between Gazans and Egyptians, a result of geographic proximity and 19 years of direct Egyptian control between 1948 and 1967.
"Many Egyptians live in the Gaza Strip, so there are family ties; Many Gazan students go abroad to study in Egypt," he said.
Muslim Brotherhood: ‘Prepare Egyptians for war with Israel'
By YAAKOV LAPPIN
A leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt told the Arabic-language Iranian news network Al-Alam on Monday that he would like to see the Egyptian people prepare for war against Israel, according to the Hebrew-language business newspaper Calcalist.
Muhammad Ghannem reportedly told Al- Alam that the Suez Canal should be closed immediately, and that the flow of gas from Egypt to Israel should cease “in order to bring about the downfall of the Mubarak regime.” He added that “the people should be prepared for war against Israel,” saying the world should understand that “the Egyptian people are prepared for anything to get rid of this regime.”
Ghannem praised Egyptian soldiers deployed by President Hosni Mubarak to Egyptian cities, saying they “would not kill their brothers.” He added that Washington was forced to abandon plans to help Mubarak stay in power after “seeing millions head for the streets.”
A leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt told the Arabic-language Iranian news network Al-Alam on Monday that he would like to see the Egyptian people prepare for war against Israel, according to the Hebrew-language business newspaper Calcalist.
Muhammad Ghannem reportedly told Al- Alam that the Suez Canal should be closed immediately, and that the flow of gas from Egypt to Israel should cease “in order to bring about the downfall of the Mubarak regime.” He added that “the people should be prepared for war against Israel,” saying the world should understand that “the Egyptian people are prepared for anything to get rid of this regime.”
Ghannem praised Egyptian soldiers deployed by President Hosni Mubarak to Egyptian cities, saying they “would not kill their brothers.” He added that Washington was forced to abandon plans to help Mubarak stay in power after “seeing millions head for the streets.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)