Start A Petition

The Only Democracy in the Middle East: Another Proof!

World  (tags: Israel, occupation, freedom of the press, brutality, newspaper, raid, Israeli, troops, freedom, press )

- 1753 days ago -
Israeli soldiers raided the offices of a Palestinian newspaper in the West Bank city of Ramallah, managers said, ordering them to stop printing publications by Hamas.


We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Sam H (410)
Wednesday May 28, 2014, 11:12 pm
Freedom of the Press!

Sam H (410)
Wednesday May 28, 2014, 11:14 pm
It all started with the New York Times: "All the News That's Fit to Print."

Whatís the difference? Here we have an editor that does it with a pen, there a soldier with a gun!

Evelyn B (63)
Thursday May 29, 2014, 12:24 am
Democracy is for Israel, but not for occupied territories?
Sounds like an effort to prevent fulfillment of agreements between Hamas & the Palestinian Authority .... No doubt pro-Zionists will justify the action by saying these papers promote terrorism, without any proof beyond their fear/ expectations.
Another demonstration of the extent that the Palestinian Authority's power is heavily restricted
Thanks for posting

Sam H (410)
Thursday May 29, 2014, 1:33 am

Have you seen this one?

Rose Becke (141)
Thursday May 29, 2014, 3:08 am
Al-Ayyam has been printing the three papers since April, when a surprise reconciliation deal between Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, and their rivals Fatah brought the Islamist group's publications back to West Bank newsstands.

Rose Becke (141)
Thursday May 29, 2014, 3:15 am
The pen is mightier than than the sword( it should be)

Past Member (0)
Thursday May 29, 2014, 8:37 am
If all these groups are based on religious freedoms (correct me if I am wrong), then why are they treating each other so badly? The human aspect of every group should be tolerance of all beliefs and ideals. I am not politically savvy so maybe I am not seeing this in the right light.

Stephen Brian (23)
Thursday May 29, 2014, 9:25 am
Some context is very badly needed: Throughout much of the world, outside the U.S., there are serious restrictions on freedom of expression. Specifically, any speech which can reasonably be expected to incite criminal action is regulated, even in Canada. (Speech in public forums by people respected as authorities in those forums, which promotes criminal violence action against identifiable groups is forbidden in Canada.) The primary question is whether such regulations are abused to silence legitimate dissent.

In Israel, there is regular freedom of the press. Ha'Aretz, a major publication, regularly criticizes the government and leaders directly, and opposes government-policy. Depending on who is in power, either Ha'Aretz or Arutz Sheva tends to promote the opposition. A Hamas-run publication which operates in accordance with its operator's charter, which very clearly promotes violence, on the other hand, can be expected to regularly incite violence. Hamas is not a bunch of peaceful protesters.

For example, making these comments about an Israeli president, and in particular one of the primary supporters of the peace plans, while the conflict is ongoing, is not exactly going to promote peace: (The problematic comments are not in the title. They're much worse and purely inflammatory further down. An Israeli paper that said the same about Abbas would at least get a reprimand over that article alone.)

Here we have explicit advocacy of resistance to arrest:

Then we have advocacy of suicidal acts. (Humans cannot last more than several days without food.)
That was just from the front pages on their website today.

Here is the same story as reported in Israel:

Hi Evanola :)
Pat of the problem with religious freedoms is that some interpretations of religions include intolerance of others. Then when freedom of those intolerant aspects i included, other religions get suppressed. For example, Hamas includes aspects of Islam that developed under conditions of theocracy, when laws of the land were legitimized in the name of religion, becoming a part of the religion in the process, so now as a matter of freedom of religion, they try to enforce laws a thousand years behind the times on everybody under their jurisdiction, including intolerant ones. Fatah is more secular, still highly religious by Western standards, and I suspect there are other major divisions, along tribal/clan lines.

Past Member (0)
Friday May 30, 2014, 4:25 am
I don't see any democracy around...

Sam H (410)
Friday May 30, 2014, 5:50 am

In the meantime, this newspaper cannot report about
the condition of dozens of detained Palestinians that are now hospitalized for
vomiting blood and fainting.

That other story is here:

And it√�¬Ę√Į¬Ņ¬Ĺ√Į¬Ņ¬Ĺs worth following and noting as well.


. (2)
Friday May 30, 2014, 6:21 am


Sam H (410)
Friday May 30, 2014, 2:44 pm
Of course, Stephen, some context is very badly needed, like talking about this incident in the context of other abuses inflicted on the Palestinian population by Israel.

Donít you think raiding the offices of a Palestinian newspaper can incite violence? And if your aim is to reduce violence, why then didnít you condemn Israelís action?

Instead, you were quick to bring other countries into the picture to dilute the impact of Israelís assault on the Palestinians freedom of expression. I was surprised you didnít even bring up China.

And you seem to brag about allowing Haaretz to go on publishing unmolested by the Israeli army. What a nice, rare gesture on your part to acknowledge that Palestinians donít enjoy the same rights Israelis do!
The logical step for you would have been to condemn the raid, not justify it! But as you already know, indoctrination always gets in the way.

May you see the light one day!

In the meantime, the Palestinians have one less news outlet that could have reported on the condition of dozens of detained Palestinians that are now hospitalized for vomiting blood and fainting.

That other story is here:

And itís worth following and noting as well.

Sam H (410)
Friday May 30, 2014, 2:50 pm

That was:


Debra G (0)
Friday May 30, 2014, 3:25 pm
So this is only reported by Not Al Jazeera, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, NYT, BBC, Washington Post... Seems a bit fishy.

Birgit W (160)
Friday May 30, 2014, 3:43 pm
Evanola Davis says it all. Thank you.

Sheri Schongold (7)
Friday May 30, 2014, 3:50 pm
We will all have to concede that the likelihood of peace in the Middle East is not in the near future.

Mary Donnelly (47)
Friday May 30, 2014, 4:52 pm
Thanks for info.

Maria Teresa Schollhorn (42)
Friday May 30, 2014, 11:15 pm
Noted.Thank you, Sam.

Lona G (66)
Saturday May 31, 2014, 5:00 am
Noted. There are always two sides to a coin.

Roger G (148)
Saturday May 31, 2014, 7:11 am
noted, thanks

Sheryl G (359)
Saturday May 31, 2014, 7:24 am
Thanks for posting, due to busy time in life right now I'll just say, ditto to Evanola and Dimitris.

Stephen Brian (23)
Saturday May 31, 2014, 10:29 am
Hi Ros :)

The difference between the classic "kill self" advice on a message-board and in the newspaper is that the author in the newspaper is seen as a reputable authority on the matter, having claimed in a supposedly reputable publication that he did it himself. It's like in Canada where racist comments are not normally prosecuted, but when David Ahenekew, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, promoted genocide, describing Jews as a "disease" to be cured in a Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations conference, there's a problem.

Sadly, I think the press in Western democracies may actually need a little more scrutiny. They regularly violate their own code of ethics, particularly regarding reporting claims as fact. They're not supposed to do that unless they find claims from two independent sources, but they rarely check to ensure that the sources they use are actually independent. There was one almost hilarious case, with a dog in a court in Jerusalem. I checked over fifty sites reporting it in English. Ynet was the first English source, and the BBC, AFP, and Care2's Kristina Chew were the only three who seemed to have read it and cited their source (presenting it as a claim rather than straight fact), and the BBC and AFP left out key details. The rest, including international news-agencies based in the West and southeast Asia, many local papers from Canada to Pakistan, and quite a few other sites that make it onto Google News searches, just read the BBC and AFP reports, used them to confirm each other, and then reported them as fact. I also saw it in print in a newspaper that did not appear in the search. As it later turned out, Ynet's report was totally wrong. The same is true of non-Middle Eastern news: Looking at the actual reports related to the recent "Antarctic ice shelf collapse", it's pretty obvious that the "science" story which went around was unrelated to the science behind it.

Hi Sam :)

I didn't bring in other countries to dilute anything. I brought them in to establish a standard for judgment, and that's why I used other countries that have freedom of the press, unlike China. Had Israeli law really been far out of line with them, my reference to them would have had the opposite effect, as it does when I use the same countries to produce a standard for judgment of Israeli business-regulations.

According to the Israeli account, it wasn't a raid forcibly stopping publication. It was a visit informing the people on-site of legal violations, and the people working there cooperated. A genuine raid, if it was one, might raise tensions, but I wouldn't condemn people for enforcing a law entirely in line with generally accepted standards. On the other hand, if that law were abused and those publications were shut down without proper cause, then I would certainly condemn such ha raid, or even intimidating/harassing visit. Do you know of a place where I can look at the actual charges and cited stories so that I can know whether to condemn this one or not? It's unfortunate, but due to the politics of the area, we may never be able to get a straight story from secondary sources.

Bruce C D (89)
Saturday May 31, 2014, 5:39 pm
Israeli censorship has existed in various forms for probably as long as Israel has existed. The New York Times recently admitted to submitting to Israeli censorship. The problem I have with Western media is articles have long been written without any disclaimer about the Israeli censorship. What happened to the Palestinian-Israeli reporter recently who traveled through Jordan to report on happenings in Lebanon is just one example. The Israeli press is often given wide latitude, but there is still censorship, and how they censor themselves has also been documented before.

That this is another case of Israeli censorship I don't think can be denied, because what isn't being censored is any one article or subject, but any and all viewpoints being expressed by those belonging to a particular political group. And, clearly, there are distinctions to be made between various armed resistance groups associated with Hamas and its political wings. Those distinctions Israel and its apologists refuse to recognize, because it doesn't serve their ends. Yet Hamas is no different than Fatah until recently, or many other resistance groups around the world, including the IRA, in this regard. What is being denied isn't really Hamas, but an unwillingness to confront the gross injustices at the heart of the cause for Palestinian armed resistance to Israel.

Stephen Brian (23)
Sunday June 1, 2014, 12:41 am
Hi Bruce :)

Censoring one article or subject? How is that supposed to happen? Do you think governments should vet every article before it is published? It seemed to me from the tone of your comment that you oppose censorship. Outside of hardcore censorship beyond nearly any repressive regime on Earth, going after the publishers of such articles after the fact is the only way to address violations. Governments typically only find out the content of articles after they're published, and attempts to censor at that point are like closing the stable door after the horses have bolted.

Also, there are very good reasons to demand that foreign journalists submit to censorship in Israel. From what I understand, news-agencies reported live during the Gulf War when Saddam launched rockets at Israel, with cameras pointed at the area where the rocket fell. Traditionally, at the time, armies fought hard to get a good view of that, so that they could adjust fire to hit their targets. CNN was handed Iraqi forces, firing SCUDs at a civilian-populated area, real-time targeting-information They then ignored instructions to stop handing tactically relevant information to forces that were in the middle of firing on civilians. Frankly, I'm kinda shocked that those reporters were not immediately arrested as spies, or at least captured as enemy forces which they effectively were. Between that, the al-Dura hoax which was used as a rallying symbol in the Second Intifada, which got a lot of people killed, and a lot of other irresponsible reporting, I'm almost surprised that major Western news-agencies have not been barred from reporting in the country after having gotten so many people killed.

Hi Ros :)

I'm glad you look to other news-agencies to get away from the political polarization. Thanks for the suggestion of Indonesian press. Until now, I had mostly been relying on Singapore-based news for that.

Farah Hage Ali (155)
Monday June 2, 2014, 10:41 am
Hopefully the Arabs can realize the truth
thank you for sharing

Justin Vale (13)
Wednesday June 4, 2014, 10:02 am
so in all your foggy eyes it's alright for hamas to spread their ideology calling for the destruction of israel to a new palestinian generation? it has to end sometime.
get a grip yo.

Sam H (410)
Wednesday June 4, 2014, 10:12 am

I don't see you making any reference to those whose ideology allows them to refer to Jesus as garbage, Justin! I wonder why!
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in World

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.