Monthly Archives: June 2017

Pope Francis: The Good Shepherd Now Must Protect His Sheep by Lawrence A. Franklin

  • Pope Francis might review the decisions of former pontiffs who once organized resistance against existential threats to Judeo-Christian Civilization. Several of his predecessors seized the initiative whenever a weak or divided Europe appeared incapable of defending itself.

  • Pope Francis also could author an encyclical condemning radical Islam. This would be wholly within the purview and tradition of the Papacy. Such an encyclical would mirror in significance Pope Pius XI’s “Mit Brennender Sorge” (With Burning Anxiety) which condemned the racist supremacy doctrine of the Nazis.
  • Some of the passages in Pius XI’s “Divini Redemptoris” (The Divine Redeemer) could also serve as appropriate criticism of various tenets of extremist Islam. One example: “Communism aims at upsetting the social order and undermining the very foundation of Christian civilization.” Another: “Entire peoples find themselves in danger of falling back into a barbarism worse than which oppressed the greater part of the world at the coming of the Redeemer (Roman Empire).”

It was uplifting to hear Pope Francis denounce the genocide of the Armenians in Turkey last week and remind the world that it must never again happen.

The Vatican has several other options to meet head-on the challenge of Islamic extremism. Pope Francis could capitalize on his widespread popularity to combat Jihadi aggression by word, pen, and sword. He might also review the decisions of former pontiffs who once organized resistance against existential threats to Judeo-Christian Civilization. Several of his predecessors seized the initiative whenever a weak or divided Europe appeared incapable of defending itself.

Pope Francis could begin his review with Pope Saint Leo the Great. In 452 A.D., he rode out of Rome on horseback to meet Attila the Hun, persuading him not to invade the Eternal City.

Pope Francis (left) could begin his review of the actions of former pontiffs with Pope Saint Leo the Great (right). In 452 A.D., Leo rode out of Rome on horseback to meet Attila the Hun, persuading him not to invade the Eternal City.

Pope Francis could then study the statecraft of Saint Pope Pius V, who helped establish the Holy League in March 1571. This alliance – of Venice, Spain, the Republic of Genoa, the Papacy, and Austrian Hapsburg military contingents – pooled their maritime military assets to fight an overwhelmingly superior Ottoman fleet.[1] If the Turks triumphed, the entire Mediterranean Sea would be theirs. However, on June 7, 1571, the Holy League destroyed the Turkish Navy in the waters of the Gulf of Corinth, southwest of Greece.[2] The Vatican judged the victory, a miracle. This unexpected naval triumph certainly seemed a providential response to the prayers of tens of thousands of sailors and soldiers kneeling on the decks of their vessels.

Pope Francis could also consult the speeches and letters of Pope Urban II, whose solemn and inspirational oratory catalyzed the Knights of Europe to defend the Holy Land’s sacred sites. Urban’s urging of Europe’s professional warrior class “to take up the Crusader Cross” was Christendom’s response to Islam’s often predatory policy against Christian pilgrims.

In addition, places important to Christians everywhere were being destroyed by the Seljuk Turkish Empire. Anti-Christian pogroms became so intense that, in 1095, the Orthodox Emperor of Constantinople Alexius Comenius I appealed to Pope Urban to send forces to tame the Turks. Urban took up the challenge, calling the Council of Clermont in 1095. He urged European knights to sanctify their violent inclinations in defense of their fellow Christians.

The first of seven Crusades embarked for the Holy Land later that same year, capturing Jerusalem on July 14, 1099. This movement was the beginning of Europe’s counterattack, after several centuries of Muslim Conquests of former Christian lands. After hundreds of years of occupation, violence, and slave-like servitude, Christians had become a threatened species in lands once the first to embrace Christianity.

Pope Francis also could author an encyclical condemning radical Islam. This would be wholly within the purview and tradition of the Papacy. Such an encyclical would mirror in significance Pope Pius XI’s “Mit Brennender Sorge”[3] (With Burning Anxiety) which condemned the racist supremacy doctrine of the Nazis. This encyclical criticized National Socialism’s excessive emphasis on the priority of the state over the sovereignty of God. Somewhat ironically, the encyclical was authored by Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, who two years later, became Pope Pius XII. He was the Pontiff often criticized for not confronting the Nazis strongly enough, while mass murder occurred in German concentration camps during World War II.

Far more effective was Pius XI’s condemnation of Communism in his “Divini Redemptoris”[4] (The Divine Redeemer). This encyclical challenged the suppression of human rights, class warfare, and materialism. Some of its passages could also serve as appropriate criticism of various tenets of extremist Islam. One example: “Communism aims at upsetting the social order and undermining the very foundation of Christian civilization.”[5] Another: “Entire peoples find themselves in danger of falling back into a barbarism worse than which oppressed the greater part of the world at the coming of the Redeemer (Roman Empire).”[6]

The Holy Father could seize the opportunity to address the plague of Muslim violent extremism in Islamic education — as did Grand Imam Ahmed al-Tayeb, head of the Egypt’s Al-Azhar University — the leading center of learning for Sunni Islam, in Februray 2015 — on an international stage, as he did regarding climate change at a UN General Assembly Meeting also in 2015.

Another international opportunity could be a Vatican call for a convocation of world religions at Assisi, the site of three past such assemblies.[7] Just as dramatic a maneuver, having the potential to revive the ghosts of Christian Europe, would be a Papal address to a plenary session of the European Union. The rarity of such an event would rivet the attention of the continent’s political elite. A more emphatic gesture would be a request by the Pope to address a meeting of NATO. Such a move would demonstrate the gravity which the world’s most powerful religious institution views the Muslim threat to supplant Greco-Roman ideals and Judeo-Christian values. These initiatives could serve as teaching moments, where the Vatican could detail past instances when an aggressive Islamic thrust threatened to swallow Christian realms. Francis could easily sketch out the jihads of history. He could demonstrate how “we” have seen all this before: outside the Gates of Vienna,[8] in the mountains of the Pyrenees,[9] and the blood-soaked isles of the Mediterranean.[10]

He could challenge Islamic leaders to institute specific reforms which would root-out theological justification for violent and intolerant behavior. He could call upon Muslims of good will to summon their courage to recapture their faith. He could help moderates by suggesting changes in Islam which would be welcomed by both many Muslims and by Western civilization. Pope Francis might host periodic working sessions with moderate Sunni and Shi’a Muslims. These sessions may serve as an opportunity to build a better, more trusting relationship between Christendom and the Islamic World. At these convocations, the Vatican could urge Muslim scholars to “re-open the gates of Ijitihad [independent questioning, reasoning],” to review certain martial passages of the Koran. Nevertheless, the bugle must be sounded without hesitation. The tone must not be tentative. It must be decisive in word, speech, and deed.

The Good Shepherd now must protect his sheep, saving civilization in the process. The Holy Father must assume the role of Supreme Pontiff, indeed, Leader of the West. Like the Prophets of old who counseled Israel’s Kings in times of danger, the Pope can don the mantle of spiritual guide of the West and urge its leaders to summon up the courage to fight and the will to endure.

Dr. Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve, where he was a Military Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Israel.

Polygamy: Europe’s Hidden Statistic by Judith Bergman

  • The sheer volume of polygamous marriages shows that such marriages are also entered into in Europe, in secret, through Islamic marriage ceremonies conducted by imams. In most European countries, imams are not required to report these marriages to the authorities.

  • Daham Al Hasan fled from Syria to Denmark, leaving behind his three wives and 20 children. Under the Danish rules of family unification, one of his wives and eight of his children have joined him in Denmark. But Al Hasan wants all his children with him, as well as all his wives. Lawyers estimate that the remaining wives will be able to join their children in Denmark. The case has caused a shock not only because of what it will cost the Danish state just in child allowance, but because Al Hassan claims that he is too ill to work or even learn Danish. “I don’t only have mental problems, but also physical problems…” He has admitted that his “mental illness” consists of missing the children he voluntarily left behind.
  • Even if theoretically women can go to the police or press charges, they run the risk of being beaten or possibly divorced. Women’s shelters are “full of Muslim women.”
  • The spokeswoman of Germany’s Federal Employment Agency said that the establishment of a central registry of Islamic marriages would be helpful for investigating claims of fraud.

A few years ago, Sweden’s Center Party, one of the four parties in the center-right governing coalition at the time, proposed legalizing polygamy. The idea caused outrage; the proposal was dropped. The party’s youth division, however, refused to let go: “We think it is important for the individual to decide how many people he or she wants to marry,” said Hanna Wagenius, head of Center Youth, predicting that polygamy would be legal in ten years, when her generation would enter parliament and make sure of it.

Sweden is not the only place in Scandinavia where “idealistic” youths have advocated polygamy. In 2012, the youth division of Denmark’s Radikale Venstre Party (“Radical Left”), then part of the governing coalition in Denmark, also proposed that polygamy should be legalized in Denmark. The move came four years after an Iraqi asylum seeker, who had worked for the Danish military in Iraq as a translator and then fled to Denmark, arrived with two wives. As Denmark does not recognize bigamy and as he refused to divorce his second wife, he returned to Iraq. “It is unacceptable that we are so narrow-minded in Denmark, and will not help a man who has helped us. We want to do something about that,” Ditte Søndergaard, head of Radikale Venstre Youth, said at the time. The proposal, however, did not find favor with any of the other political parties.

As far-fetched as these proposals may sound, they signify the shifts taking place in the West regarding fundamental ethical issues of gender equality and the willingness to accommodate Islamic sharia law. They are also proof of an enduring willful blindness to the detrimental effects of the practice of polygamy, not only in terms of financial costs to the state, but also to the Muslim women and children, whose rights these young politicians purport to support.

Muslim polygamy is only rarely debated in the media. The practice, therefore, despite its spread across the European continent — spanning, among other countries, Sweden, Denmark, the UK, Germany, France and the Netherlands — continues largely to hide under the public radar. As the practice is illegal across the continent and therefore not supposed to exist, there are no official statistics of polygamous marriages anywhere in Europe.

Several countries, such as the UK, the Netherlands, Sweden and France, nevertheless recognize Muslim polygamous marriages if they were contracted abroad under certain circumstances, such as if polygamy is legal in the country where the marriage took place. It is estimated that as many as 20,000 polygamous Muslim marriages exist in Britain. In France, as polygamy was legal until 1993, the minimum estimate as early as 2006 was around 20,000 polygamous marriages. In Germany, it was estimated in 2012 that, in Berlin alone, 30% of all Arab men were married to more than one wife.

In April, Swedish professor Göran Lind argued that it was time to “put one’s foot down” regarding polygamy in Sweden, after it was disclosed that Sweden had recognized “hundreds” of polygamous marriages contracted abroad. Professor Lind pointed out that polygamy is not compatible with Swedish law, especially the principles of equal treatment of spouses, the equality of all human beings, and the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of gender, as codified in the European Convention on Human Rights. One might add to those the principles enshrined in the UN’s Convention on the Elimination of All Discrimination Against Women, article 16, according to which,

“States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations and in particular shall ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women:

“(a) The same right to enter into marriage;

“(b) The same right freely to choose a spouse and to enter into marriage only with their free and full consent.”

Considering how much time leading European politicians spend on assuring their electorates of their dedication to human rights, their tacit acceptance of these glaring violations of women’s rights, as enshrined in the above conventions, which polygamy constitutes, is rather peculiar.

The sheer volume of polygamous marriages, however, attests to the fact that such marriages are also entered into in Europe, in secret, through Islamic marriage ceremonies conducted by imams. In most European countries, imams are not required to report these marriages to the authorities. Therefore, despite the probable knowledge of the authorities, this illegal practice is basically allowed to flourish unhindered. As Islamic marriage does not legally exist in Europe, the woman entering into the union is left legally stranded and vulnerable with no means — other than the local imam or sharia council — of getting out of the marriage. Even if women can theoretically go to the police or press charges, they run the risk of being beaten or possibly divorced. Women’s shelters are “full of Muslim women,” as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who worked in them, attests.

Polygamous Muslim marriages are bound to become an even bigger problem in the wake of the migrant crisis.

In Denmark these days, Daham Al Hasan is making headlines. He has twenty children with three wives, but two years ago fled alone from Syria to Denmark, and left his wives and children behind. Recently, under the Danish rules of family unification, one of his wives and eight of his children have joined him in Denmark. But Al Hasan wants all his children with him, as well as all his wives. He has been granted permission for nine additional children to join him, but as Denmark does not allow polygamy, the two remaining wives, under the same rules of family unification, are not permitted to join him. Lawyers, however, estimate that the remaining wives will also be able independently to join their children in Denmark, once they are there.

The case has caused rather a shock in Denmark, not only because of the extraordinary size of the family, and what it will cost the Danish state just in child allowance, but because Al Hassan claims that he is too ill to work or even to learn Danish. “I don’t only have mental problems, but also physical problems”, he says by way of explanation, “My back and my legs hurt.” He has admitted that his “mental illness” consists of missing the children he voluntarily left behind. This means that he and his family live exclusively off the Danish taxpayers’ money.

What is noteworthy about the current debate, however, is what is not being debated: namely that Al Hassan is a polygamist. While it is only natural that politicians and citizens feel violated and aggrieved about the financial costs to the Danish state, they should be equally concerned about the practice of polygamy. Yet not a single Danish feminist has spoken out about it.

In the television documentary, “Sharia in Denmark”, several imams recorded on a secret camera answered in the affirmative and without the least hesitation the question of whether a woman’s husband was allowed to take another wife against his first wife’s wish. For them, in fact, despite the fact that they live in a country where bigamy and polygamy are prohibited, for a man to take a second, third or fourth wife regardless of what any of them thought, seemed perfectly natural.

A qualitative study about Muslim women in Denmark from 2009, performed by Tina Magaard for the Danish Ministry of Welfare, documented the practice of polygamy among Danish Muslims. One Turkish woman told the interviewers:

“A growing group of women marries a man who is already married. They get married by an imam because then they become more accepted. Apparently, they have no alternative. They become ostracized if they were divorced and are on their own. Many would rather live a life where they get an identity — then they belong somewhere and then they are accepted. And it is sad that it exists in Denmark. I think if they could count the numbers, which is very difficult, they are probably much higher than we think.”

Another woman, a Muslim convert, said:

“This [polygamy] is something that I have really seen a lot of, there was a period when it became fashionable. I think it was five or six years ago, it was crazy, I think almost every second couple I knew, the man got himself an extra wife. But then, after a year or so, he regretted it or he divorced the first wife. I actually think there were twelve from my circle of friends where the husband got himself another wife.”

In a German documentary from 2013, the journalists found that Muslim men used polygamy as a means to commit fraud and obtain more welfare benefits. The tactic was to have their wives claim at the Employment Center that they were single women who did not know the father of their children. The story works because Germany, like other European countries, has no way of ascertaining the existence of an Islamic marriage, especially as German law does not obligate women to inform the authorities of their marital status.

In the film, the journalists asked the spokeswoman of the Federal Employment Agency — the supervisor of the local Employment Agencies responsible for paying out welfare benefits — whether the Federal Employment Agency was aware of the many instances of fraud. The woman said that they were indeed aware of the polygamy and the ensuing fraud and even enumerated the places where it was rife: large cities in Western Germany, such as Berlin, Cologne and Frankfurt. The journalist then asked the woman why nothing was being done about it. “I believe these cultural differences are very sensitive, we are a very tolerant country,” the woman said. Asked whether the Federal Employment Agency was perhaps too tolerant, the woman said that indeed she herself was wondering how it will all end.

The woman then said that the establishment of a central registry of Islamic marriages would be most helpful and desirable, as it would make possible investigating claims of fraud; but that this was a matter for the politicians.

“How will it all end?” Not well.

Judith Bergman is a writer, columnist, lawyer and political analyst.

Poll: Most Palestinians Prefer Terror War, Not Peace Negotiations

The Palestinians distrust their leadership and are generally opposed to a two-state solution with Israel, a recent poll reveals. A majority favor a new terror war, known as ‘intifada’, against Israel.


Mahmoud Abbas

Palestinians do not believe Abbas will resign. (AP/Majdi Mohammed)

The latest poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) indicates a crisis of faith in the Palestinian leadership. Nearly two-thirds of Palestinians surveyed believe that Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas should resign, but he has no clear successor. Just over halfoppose a two-state solution, but support for a one-state solution stands at less than one-third. A majority are in favor of armed intifada.

The poll shows that 65 percent of Palestinians want Abbas to resign. The same percentage, however, believes that his intention to resign from the Palestine Liberation Organizationexecutive committee is an act. Thirty-two percent would prefer that he be replaced by terroristMarwan Baghouti, and 19% would like to see Hamas’s Ismail Haniyeh take his place. If an election were held now and the only candidates were Abbas and Haniyeh, Haniyeh would just barely win at 49% to Abbas’s 44%.

Terror attack at Hebrew University's Mt. Scopus campus in 2002.

A majority of Palestinians favor a return to violence. (AP)

Palestinian support for the two-state solution has also dropped. Sixty-six percent said they oppose an unconditional return to negotiations with Israel, and 60% rejected aFrench proposal at the UN that would force a resolution to the conflict on both sides. Forty-eight percent said they favor a two-state solution, with 51% opposed. In the absence of negotiations, 57% are in support of an armed intifada, as compared to 49% three months ago.

PSR conducted the survey on September 17-19, and the results reflect the events of that time period, which include: President Mahmoud Abbas submitting his resignation to the PLO Executive Committee; a growing rift between Hamas and Fatah over rumors that Hamas was indirectly negotiating a truce in Israel; the eruption of riots on the Temple Mount on Rosh Hashana; and the deaths of three members of the Dawabshe family from Duma.

The pollsters interviewed 1,270 adults in face-to-face interviews at 127 randomly selected locations across the PA-administered territories.

By: Sara Abramowicz, United with Israel

Sign the Pe

Political Revolution Is Brewing in Europe by Geert Wilders

  • The German authorities are dangerously underestimating the threat of Islam… They have betrayed their own citizens.
  • Let no-one tell you that only the perpetrators of these crimes are to blame. The politicians, who welcomed Islam into their country, are guilty as well. And it is not just Frau Merkel in Germany, it is the entire political elite in Western Europe.

  • Out of political-correctness, they have deliberately turned a blind eye to Islam. They have refused to inform themselves about its true nature. They refuse to acknowledge that is all in the Koran: the permission to kill Jews and Christians (Surah 9:29), to terrorize non-Muslims (8:12), to rape young girls (65:4), to enslave people for sex (4:3), to lie about one’s true goals (3:54), and the command to make war on the infidels (9:123) and subjugate the entire world to Allah (9:33).
  • We will have to de-islamize our societies…. But it all begins with politicians with the courage to face and speak the truth.
  • More and more citizens are aware of that. This is why a political revolution is brewing in Europe. Patriotic parties are rapidly growing everywhere. They are Europe’s only hope for a better future.

Yesterday, the Islamic State claimed the Berlin terror attack of Monday evening, in which twelve people were killed with a truck at a Christmas market.

The killer managed to escape. However, in the truck the police found identity papers belonging to Anis A., a Tunisian who came to Germany as an asylum seeker in 2015.

(Image source: RTL Nieuws video screenshot)

When last year German Chancellor Angela Merkel opened Germany’s borders to almost one million refugees and asylum seekers, she invited the Trojan horse of Islam into her country. Among the so-called refugees were many young men of Islamic background, filled with hatred for the West and its civilization. One of them was Anis A.

It took almost a year for the German authorities to reject his asylum request, but meanwhile the man had disappeared. The police are now looking for him as a prime suspect of Monday’s attack in Berlin.

The German authorities are dangerously underestimating the threat of Islam. They signs are there for all to see. In October, an Afghan asylum seeker raped and murdered a 19-year old German girl in Freiburg. And a 12-year old Iraqi boy was caught before he could explode a nail bomb at a Christmas market in Ludwigshafen.

Last Summer, an Afghan with an axe attacked train passengers in Heidingsfeld, a Syrian murdered a pregnant woman with a machete in Reutlingen, another Syrian detonated a suicide bomb at a music festival in Ansbach, a Palestinian attempted to decapitate a surgeon in Troisdorf. And who has forgotten last New Year’s eve, when migrant sex mobs assaulted hundreds of women in Cologne?

This year, 1,500 police officers will be patrolling the streets in Cologne on New Year’s eve. Ten times more than last year. But how many police officers will be needed next year? And the year after that? And what will happen when they are outnumbered? What is needed are not just more police officers; what is needed is a democratic political revolution.

The Politicians Are Guilty

Let no-one tell you that only the perpetrators of these crimes are to blame. The politicians, who welcomed Islam into their country, are guilty as well. And it is not just Frau Merkel in Germany, it is the entire political elite in Western Europe.

Out of political-correctness, they have deliberately turned a blind eye to Islam. They have refused to inform themselves about its true nature. They refuse to acknowledge that is all in the Koran: the permission to kill Jews and Christians (Surah 9:29), to terrorize non-Muslims (8:12), to rape young girls (65:4), to enslave people for sex (4:3), to lie about one’s true goals (3:54), and the command to make war on the infidels (9:123) and subjugate the entire world to Allah (9:33).

Instead of informing themselves, they have opened their country’s borders to mass immigration and invited asylum seekers in, despite the fact that IS had announced that it would send terrorists to the West as asylum seekers.

They even allowed Syria fighters to return to Europe, instead of denaturalizing them and blocking their re-entry. They have not even imprisoned them. In short, they are guilty of serious negligence. They have betrayed their own citizens.

The asylum tsunami of 2015 has only exacerbated an already terrible situation. Almost a decade ago, in 2008, a study by the (very leftist) University of Amsterdam revealed that 11% of all Muslims in the Netherlands agree that there are situations in which they find it acceptable for themselves to use violence for the sake of their religion.

This means that, in my country, the Netherlands, alone, there are 100,000 Muslims who are personally prepared to use violence. The Dutch army, however, is less than 50,000 soldiers strong. Hence, even if we deploy the entire army to protect Christmas markets, theaters, night clubs, festivals, shopping malls, churches and synagogues, we cannot guarantee the safety of all our citizens.

That is why there is little doubt that 2017 will bring Germany and the entire West more violence, more attacks on our women and daughters, more bloodshed, more tears, more sorrow. The terrible truth is that, in all likelihood, we ain’t seen nothing yet.

But this does not mean that there is no hope.

Just as the present dangerous situation has been created by politicians refusing to see the horrible reality of Islam and refusing to do their duty, the solution to the gigantic self-inflicted problem the West is currently suffering from, needs to be a political one.

Fixing a broken Europe

We will have to de-islamize our societies. Indeed, every single measure we take to achieve this goal, from ending all immigration from Islamic countries, to preventive detention of radical Muslims, to the promotion of voluntary remigration, to the denaturalization and expelling of criminals with dual nationality, will be a step towards a safer society for ourselves and our children. But it all begins with politicians with the courage to face and speak the truth.

More and more citizens are aware of that. This is why a political revolution is brewing in Europe. Patriotic parties are rapidly growing everywhere. They are Europe’s only hope for a better future.

We have to drive politicians, such as Angela Merkel, my own weak Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, and their like minded colleagues in other countries, from power. We must liberate our countries.

And believe me, my friends, that is exactly what we are going to do. Terrorists, who hope to break our resolve with bloody atrocities will not succeed. We will choose new and brave leaders, we will de-islamize, we will win!

Geert Wilders is a member of the Dutch Parliament and leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV).

Political Operatives Pose as Journalists, Human Rights Groups by Bassam Tawil

  • The same activists and organizations were silent when the Palestinian Authority (PA) security forces arrested al-Qiq and harassed his family. Amnesty International neglected to mention that al-Qiq has also been targeted by PA security forces and that, in addition to his work as a newsman, he is also affiliated with Hamas. This detail, according to Amnesty, is evidently not significant.

  • When arrested, such political operatives posing as journalists — and so-called human rights groups, and the mainstream media in the West — get to scream about Israel assaulting freedom of the media. This dirty little game has been played by Palestinian and Western journalists and highly politicized, biased human rights groups for years.
  • The Palestinian Journalists Syndicate (PJS), which is headed by Nasser Abu Baker, did not come out in support of journalist, Sami al-Sai when he was arrested (and tortured) for 20 days in the PA’s notorious Jericho Central Prison. Nor did Amnesty or most human rights organizations come out in defense of al-Sai.
  • Instead of calling on the PA leadership to release their detained colleague, Abu Baker and the PJS heads issued a statement in which they justified his arrest and defended the PA against charges of torturing him.
  • Nasser Abu Baker himself is affiliated with the PA’s ruling Fatah faction. Recently, the AFP correspondent even ran (and lost) in the election for Fatah’s Revolutionary Council.
  • While AFP has been reporting about the detention by Israel of al-Qiq, it has conspicuously failed to report about the plight of al-Sai and his serious charges of torture in PA prison. So a journalist arrested by the PA is not worth a story in an international media outlet, while anyone arrested by Israel gets wide coverage.
  • Now it is official: double standards, racism, and political activism are an integral part of the modern media.

Two Palestinian journalists are arrested — one by Israel and the other by the Palestinian Authority (PA). The name of the one arrested by Israel is Muhammad al-Qiq. The name of the one arrested by the PA security forces is Sami al-Sai.

Although he is registered as a journalist, al-Qiq was arrested for security-related offenses completely unrelated to his profession. Israel did not arrest him because of his reporting or his writing, but because of his activities on behalf of Hamas. As a student at Bir Zeit University in 2006, al-Qiq was already known to be affiliated with Hamas. He was a member of the Islamic Bloc — a student list belonging to Hamas.

Al-Qiq’s affiliation with Hamas even got him into trouble with the Palestinian Authority; its forces arrested and interrogated him several times in the past few years. The last time his family received a visit from PA security officers was in 2014. Then, officers in plainclothes seized al-Qiq’s laptop and personal documents.

Now, al-Qiq is in Israeli detention, where he has gone on hunger strike in protest against his arrest.

Guess who is campaigning on his behalf and demanding that Israel immediately and unconditionally release him from detention? The same PA that repeatedly arrested and harassed al-Qiq over the past few years.

In addition, human rights organizations and activists have endorsed the case and are now using it to attack Israel. These are the same activists and organizations that were silent when the PA security forces arrested al-Qiq and harassed his family.

One of these organizations is Amnesty International, which issued a statement last week calling on Israel to release the detained “journalist.” Amnesty neglected to mention that al-Qiq has also been targeted by the PA security forces and that, in addition to his work as a newsman, he is also affiliated with Hamas. This detail, according to Amnesty, is evidently not significant.

The truth is that most, if not all, Palestinian journalists arrested by Israel are targeted not because of their work in the field of journalism, but because of their activities on behalf of various Palestinian groups, including Hamas. It is an open secret that many Palestinian “journalists” are in fact political activists who are openly affiliated with one terrorist group or another.

When arrested, such political operatives posing as journalists — and so-called human rights groups, and the mainstream media in the West — get to scream about Israel assaulting freedom of the media. This dirty little game has been played by Palestinian and Western journalists and highly politicized, biased human rights groups for years. Yet, why discuss it when you can leverage it against Israel?

Here is another missing fact related to the detention of the Hamas activist-turned journalist: The Fatah-controlled Palestinian Journalists Syndicate (PJS), which is based in Ramallah, has also joined the campaign to demand the release of al-Qiq from Israeli detention.

Why is this detail important? Because the PJS, which is headed by Nasser Abu Baker (also spelled Abu Bakr), who also serves as a correspondent for Agence France-Presse (AFP), did not come out in support of the other journalist, Sami al-Sai, when he was arrested (and tortured) for 20 days in the PA’s notorious Jericho Central Prison. Nor did Amnesty or most human rights organizations come out in defense of al-Sai when he was being held by the PA security forces.

Sami al-Sai, who works as a correspondent for a private television station in the Palestinian city of Tulkarem in the northern West Bank, was arrested for “fomenting sectarian strife” through Facebook. This is a popular Palestinian Authority charge, one that is used to justify the arrest of anyone who criticizes PA leaders or who takes issue with the policies of Mahmoud Abbas.

The PJS at first refused to take up the case of al-Sai. The PJS rarely defends journalists who are critical of the PA. That is because the head of the PJS, Abu Baker himself, is affiliated with the PA’s ruling Fatah faction. Recently, the AFP correspondent even ran (and lost) in the election for Fatah’s Revolutionary Council.

Facing criticism, Abu Baker and some of the heads of the PJS agreed to visit al-Sai in his prison cell in Jericho. But instead of calling on the Palestinian Authority leadership to release their detained colleague, Abu Baker and the PJS heads issued a statement in which they justified his arrest and defended the PA against charges of torturing him.

Nasser Abu Baker is a correspondent for Agence France-Presse and heads the Ramallah-based Palestinian Journalists Syndicate (PJS). He is also a political operative who recently ran in (and lost) an election for Fatah’s Revolutionary Council. When fellow journalist Sami al-Sai was thrown in jail for criticizing the leadership of the Palestinian Authority (PA) on Facebook, Abu Baker and the PJS justified his arrest and defended the PA against charges of torturing him.

While AFP has been reporting about the detention by Israel of al-Qiq and other Palestinian “journalists,” it has conspicuously failed to report about the plight of al-Sai and his serious charges of torture in PA prison.

So a journalist arrested by the Palestinian Authority is not worth a story in an international media outlet, while anyone arrested by Israel gets wide coverage.

Needless to say, Abu Baker, who covers Palestinian affairs for AFP, did not bother to write a story about his visit to the Jericho prison and the meeting with al-Sai.

As chairman of a Fatah-controlled body, Abu Baker is not going to report to AFP anything that would reflect negatively on the PA leadership.

Even more bizarre is that an AFP correspondent would be allowed to run for political office and continue with his work as if nothing happened. Would Le Monde allow its diplomatic correspondent to cover the French elections if he was also running for office? Apparently, the conflict of interest does not bother Abu Baker’s superiors at AFP.

The case of the two journalists — Muhammad al-Qiq and Sami al-Sai — provides further evidence of the hypocrisy, double standards, bias and racism that the Palestinian and Western media continue to demonstrate concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Any story that could negatively affect the Palestinian Authority or Hamas is not “fit for print.” Human rights groups and the media clearly do not care if a Palestinian is detained and tortured by Palestinians.

A story becomes news when it is possible to lay blame on Israel. Western (and some Israeli) journalists covering Palestinian issues justify their double standard by arguing that if they criticized the PA or any of its senior figures, they would be barred from Ramallah or shouted at and denied access to sources. Here is the truth: prejudice works and intimidation works. Journalists and human rights groups would rather distort and practice self-censorship than report accurately about Israel or anger the Palestinian Authority leadership.

In Israel, however, journalists write negative things about the Israeli government and army and police from sunrise to sundown without fearing anything. Now it is official: double standards, racism, and political activism are an integral part of the modern media.

Bassam Tawil is a scholar based in the Middle East.

Translate »
Skip to toolbar