A BBC Article, Mixed With Facts From The News

This article is in itself interesting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8585775.stm

But I thought it would be fun to add a few bits of information I have learned from other news about Gaza.

 

 By Jon Donnison and relevant well-known facts added by Leauki
BBC News, Gaza

In a busy internet cafe in the centre of 
the Gaza concentration camp, lots of people, mostly young, are typing and clicking away in a territory that is so poor that it deserves everyone's compassion.

Some of them are engrossed in the world of Facebook
, a typical hobby in this prison with no contact to the outside world. "I use it 10 hours a day," says Mohammed who owns the shop located in this overcrowed poverty-stricken city. "I have over 200 Facebook friends."

But Hamas, the Islamist movement that controls the Gaza Strip, believes the population's love of social networking websites is making it easier for Israel to recruit spies
among a population loyal to the Hamas government.

Israel has long maintained networks of informers in the West Bank and Gaza in its effort to derail the activities of militant groups.

Historically, collaborators have often been killed if discovered, and this week Hamas announced
, in a move that made clear its commitment to peace, it would execute anyone caught acting as an agent for Israel.

Facebook "is a big, big thing that the Israelis use", says Ehab al-Hussein, a spokesman for the Hamas-run interior ministry.

"Many people don't have security sense. They go on the internet and talk about all their personal problems such as with their wives or girlfriends," he says
to a BBC reporter who then published the interview on the Internet.

Israel's intelligence services can then contact people
in the totally isolated concentration camp by telephone, e-mail or using existing Israeli agents in Gaza, and use the information to pressure people to become spies.

The internet
, a tool commonly available to the poor and oppressed in a concentration camp, "allows them to make people feel Israel knows everything about them", says Mr Hussein.

Ronen Bergman, an Israeli expert on intelligence and author of Israel's Secret War with Iran, says monitoring social networking sites
where many oppressed Gazans spend their free time is the very minimum you would expect from his country's intelligence services.

"Israel is using the personal information that is put in massive amounts on the internet to identify the people who can maybe help Israel," he says.

"If in 50 years they open up the secret files of the Israeli secret service, the Shin Bet, and military intelligence, the sophistication of electronics that is being used by Israel now in the Gaza Strip would put even the legendary Q from the James Bond movies to shame."

But Mr Bergman says that the intelligence community's current thinking is that using personal information gleaned from the internet to pressure or even blackmail potential informants is not considered effective in recruiting long-term informants.

He says such threats are not often enough to get people to commit such a serious offence as collaborating
and stopping actions that would be considered criminal if the intended victims weren't Jews.

But online detail, he says, can help intelligence services identify people who might be useful - such as those with good access to Hamas or to
other criminal networks.

When asked to comment, the Israeli government said it was not its practice to talk about its security services' modes of operation.

Even Mr Hussein admits he has a Facebook page
like many people in the poverty-stricken Gaza strip, "but I'm careful about the information I put on," he says. "I only say I am a Hamas spokesman."

He is probably not the only member of Hamas communicating on Facebook and the internet
.

This is partly because other forms of communication, particularly mobile phones, are easily bugged and can be used to track movements, Mr Bergman says, so the internet has become a more preferable option.
The fact that mobile phones can be easily bugged and that hence other means of communication, like the Internet or satellite TV, are employed instead is a common problem in poverty-stricken areas as well as concentration camps.

Virtually all Palestinians leaving Gaza now do so for medical reasons
to be helped by the evil opressors in hospitals paid for by the same people Hamas is trying to kill.

One reason Israeli intelligence is watching the social networking websites
used by destitute Gazans who cannot afford food or water to try to identify potential informants is because a historical source of collaborators no longer exists, according to Mr Bergman.

Up until the second intifada, or Palestinian uprising, started in 2000, thousands of Gazans had permits to enter Israel each day to work
.

These people had direct contact with Israelis and were sometimes approached by Israeli intelligence officers and asked to collaborate.

But these days the border is virtually sealed
despite the obvious advantages of having murderers and terrorists run into Israel and murder people at will.

Virtually the only Palestinians allowed through are often in wheelchairs or bandaged up, seeking medical treatment in Israel
, a country that should be destroyed but can be relied on for healthcare.

Some of those say they've been asked for information about Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

"They asked if I knew any people in my neighbourhood who were members," says Khaled, a young man from Gaza City, who will give only his first name
because he has nothing to fear.

He had to go to Israel to seek medical treatment after being injured in last year's conflict with Israel.

He says he did not pass on any information that the Israelis would not already have known.

But he gives an insight into how intelligence officers pressure people to become informants.

"They say that they know everything about you, but actually it's information you have already published on Facebook," he says.

"It's not safe to publish such information - I believe it allows Israel to keep watching our movements."

Last year, Israel dismissed as "simply ludicrous" allegations that its security forces had told Palestinians seeking permits to exit Gaza
and enter Israel for medical treatment that they would only be allowed to leave if they supplied information on militant groups since it is commonly expected that Gazans have both the right to shoot at Israel and receive medical care from Israel.

 

So, did you know that using facebook is a common hobby in a concentration camp and that the poor and opressed sometimes don't use their mobile phones because they can be bugged?

 

13,041 views 20 replies
Reply #1 Top

...

Reply #2 Top

As to the original premise of the article, I can see where it would be useful.  Loose lips and such.  Which would not require an active recruitment, but just passive monitoring.  People (especially untrained and unprofessional ones) like to brag.  I thin it is a very smart move. And I am sure Facebook is a Zionist plot for just that purpose!

It is actually a brilliant strategy.  No more risking lives of your friends.  Let social networking do the job for you while Mohammed's "friends" sit safely in a building miles away!

What is stupid is anyone would be surprised that this was not being used to gather intelligence.  But then the capacity for stupidity of those in Media and government does not surprise me any longer.

Reply #3 Top

I never thought that Israel wouldn't use Facebook for exactly that purpose so the article didn't impress me.

But we can learn two things from this.

First, for some reason this is a problem for Hamas whereas exposure to enemy propaganda via the Internet is not a problem for Israel.

Second, the "concentration camp" full of poor, oppressed people has Internet access and mobile phone networks.

For some reason stories like this one and stories about how oppressed "Palestinians" are never appear together.

 

Reply #4 Top

First, for some reason this is a problem for Hamas whereas exposure to enemy propaganda via the Internet is not a problem for Israel.
End of quote

The author is as stupid as the idiot hamas terrorist using facebook

Second, the "concentration camp" full of poor, oppressed people has Internet access and mobile phone networks.
End of quote

Stupid people cannot think for themselves as they have no capacity for rational thought.  So they just regurgitate what is fed to them.  And you are surprised by that?

For some reason stories like this one and stories about how oppressed "Palestinians" are never appear together.
End of quote

it is a good addition to your collection of idiots in the media, but that is about all.  We know they are going to say this.  Fortunately, thinking people easily see the difference.  The sheep of the world would not believe you even if the hand of God wrote it on their foreheads.

Reply #5 Top

You know, Leauki, if that chip on your shoulder were any bigger I'm pretty sure you'd topple over. :P

Reply #6 Top

"The well balanced Irishman: a chip on both shoulders"

But this is still a real problem. People die because of the crap the media report.

This conflict could have ended a long time ago if Israel and the (non-terrorist) Arabs would simply work things out, but then some newspaper or television network decides to start things up again, either by pretending that the terrorists speak for the Arabs or by making up some story about Israel killing a child somewhere.

And yes, I do try to attract opponents and see if they can explain to me how they rationalise these things.

Do you think "Arafat" would have rejected Clinton's peace plan and started a new war if he hadn't known that the western media would support him and that he could gain sympathy by attacking Israel?

So yes, I have a real problem with most journalists because they make money off other people's sufferings, think they have a right to betray their country and think that in general law don't apply to them.

 

Reply #7 Top

Judging from all the bad news we hear about Gaza, one would have thought that the most pressing issue for Hamas is how to get weapons through the (allegedly) sealed border and not how to stop Gazans from publishing too much personal information on facebook.

 

Reply #8 Top

But this is still a real problem. People die because of the crap the media report.
End of quote

There is an old Movie (early 80s) called Absence of Malice.  In it, AG James Wells tells the press something to the effect that we want the press to act responsibly, but when they don't there is not a hell of a lot we can do about it.  I always liked that quote.  For it is very true.  We the people/Government cannot do a lot about the irresponsibility of the press.  But we the people/individuals can.  We can boycott their petty childish games.  Unfortunately, there are too many sheeple around that will slavishly obey the press because it is the press.

They have done a lot of damage, including starting wars (the most famous being the Spanish American war).  But there is not a lot we can do about it.  Except be aware of their childish and dangerous activities, and ostracize them.

Once we get katie Couric to the level of a used car salesman, we will have succeeded.

Do you think "Arafat" would have rejected Clinton's peace plan and started a new war if he hadn't known that the western media would support him and that he could gain sympathy by attacking Israel?
End of quote

After his capture, Saddam said he never thought Bush would invade.  Why?  The press.  That was partially his fault as we already know that CNN catered their reports to his desires.  But it still shows that the press reports and slants what it wants, not what is there.

So yes, I have a real problem with most journalists because they make money off other people's sufferings, think they have a right to betray their country and think that in general law don't apply to them.
End of quote

Yes they do.  But refer to the first above.  We can vote with our wallets.  Indeed, my wife turned on NBC nightly news last night and I told her to turn it off.  I will not support liars, frauds, and incompetents.

Reply #9 Top

Yes they do.  But refer to the first above.  We can vote with our wallets.  Indeed, my wife turned on NBC nightly news last night and I told her to turn it off.  I will not support liars, frauds, and incompetents.

End of quote

We can also, one day, treat them like other people before the law.

If some bastard takes a picture of a terrorist launching a rocket I don't care about his supposed right to "free speech". I care only about the fact that it is HIS responsibility to stop or report (in time) a crime he observes, not make money off it.

 

Reply #10 Top

If some bastard takes a picture of a terrorist launching a rocket I don't care about his supposed right to "free speech". I care only about the fact that it is HIS responsibility to stop or report (in time) a crime he observes, not make money off it.
End of quote

In this country, it is not free speech. It is freedom of the press.  And specifically mentioned in the Constitution.  I am sure you can get that law passed in many European Countries (after all they have laws about Nazi stuff now), but the day it passes in the US is when the US becomes a banana republic (not saying never, but I hope never).

Reply #11 Top

In this country, it is not free speech. It is freedom of the press.  And specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

End of quote

Can this freedom usually be used to excuse every crime if only the criminal documents it at the same time?

 

Reply #12 Top

Quoting Leauki, reply 11
Can this freedom usually be used to excuse every crime if only the criminal documents it at the same time?

 
End of Leauki's quote

The reporter is not shooting the rocket, he is just taking the picture.  There is a difference between taking a picture of yourself committing a crime and taking a picture of someone else doing it.  In the former, you are committing a crime outside of reporting.

Reply #13 Top

The reporter is not shooting the rocket, he is just taking the picture. 

End of quote

Even it were legal to stand by and do nothing, the journalist will still have to break the law when the criminals tell him where to go to take the picture.

 

Reply #14 Top

(The quip about the Irishman is a good one, gonna have to find a way to use that somewhere)

Leauki, I understand what frustrates you there, but if you start prosecuting Journalists for witnessing crimes that's a dangerous way to go, and makes it very easy for an oppressive government to take advantage of. For instance, should journalists in Iran be arrested for photographing rallies that the government has declared illegal? Nevermind that they are, often... we already know that the Iranian regime is morally bankrupt. It seems to me that criminalizing journalistic witnessing of a crime would be a substantial blow to press freedom, which is crucial for a healthy democracy.

(So is press that actually does its damned job, but that's a different issue)

So, while I agree with you that the reporter filming those rocket launches as you describe is probably immoral (tough to say without specific details, but if he's letting the militant in question direct him for propaganda purposes, absolutely), but criminalizing that behaviour sounds like a legislative can of worms that'll be very dangerous to pop open.

Reply #15 Top

Leauki, I understand what frustrates you there, but if you start prosecuting Journalists for witnessing crimes that's a dangerous way to go, and makes it very easy for an oppressive government to take advantage of. For instance, should journalists in Iran be arrested for photographing rallies that the government has declared illegal? Nevermind that they are, often... we already know that the Iranian regime is morally bankrupt. It seems to me that criminalizing journalistic witnessing of a crime would be a substantial blow to press freedom, which is crucial for a healthy democracy.

End of quote

I think oppressive governments will always arrest journalists for whatever they want, regardless of whether we arrest them for real crimes or not.

Perhaps we should let the journalists decide. Just tell a BBC journalist (in a convincing way) that his house in London was hit by a rocket and his family died. Tell him that some guy named Billy saw the crime and decided not to interfere but to take a picture of the criminal firing the rocket. Then ask him if Billy, who could (and should) have saved his family should a) be punished for neglecting his public duty to help another human being or b) get paid lots of money for taking the picture and thus profiting from our journalist's tragic fate.

So yes, freedom of press is crucial for a healthy democracy. But relying on your fellow man to help you against criminals (or at least not to profit from them) is also crucial for a healthy democracy, crucial for a healthy society of any type.

I think the behaviour is already illegal. Journalists just got used not to be persecuted any more. I doubt such behaviour was covered by "freedom of press" anywhere in the world until a few decades ago. And I don't think the world has become a better place since it was.

The problem is not so much the legality of taking pictures of criminal acts rather than stopping them, because that's illegal already, but the fact that it is journalists who would report what happened to the criminal journalist. And you can be sure that they won't say anything about the journalist being punished for violating a law that applies to everyone but they will claim it was specifically an attack against the "free press".

In reality, I think, a free press is only under attack when governments start persecuting journalists for what they say rather than what they do. But criminal behaviour should be illegal for everyone. There is ONE law for everyone, not one for journalists and one for the sorry rest of the population. And the monopoly of the law is far more important for society than freedom of press or even democracy.

 

 

Reply #16 Top

So yes, freedom of press is crucial for a healthy democracy. But relying on your fellow man to help you against criminals (or at least not to profit from them) is also crucial for a healthy democracy, crucial for a healthy society of any type.
End of quote

What is morally right, what is legally right, and what is reality are always separate things.  From a moral perspective, I would agree, but the "journalists" (and I use that term loosely) have stated many times that if they were to get involved (which they do anyway, it is just of their choosing when they do), it would compromise their journalistic integrity.  They choose not to get involved or to get involved based upon their bias.  The law cannot mandate they act as watchmen for the police, but they do at times.  Nor should the law dictate it.  In one instance, it could save lives.  But then if it was legally mandated, what is the difference between a rocket launch and a bank robbery?  Little other than motive.  So once you start legislating intervention, you have removed the safeguards of the nature of press, and turned them into watchdogs for the authorities.  Which is not only dangerous (they are incompetent in their chosen field, what makes anyone think they would be competent in any other?), but it would destroy their (at least illusion of) credibility.

Reply #17 Top

But they are already watchdogs for the authorities, just not for the legitimate authorities. Journalists already fear terrorists and report in a manner as not to be punished by them.

As for a bank robbery, I would hope that if a journalist travels with bank robbers and films them robbing the bank (and maybe shooting a bystander or so) would be punished for not calling the police.

Doesn't everyone have the duty to stop crimes when they can (or at least report them)? I cann accept as an excuse that someone is afraid, but I cannot accept as an excuse that someone preferred taking pictures of the murder which he then sells.

 

Reply #18 Top

Quoting Leauki, reply 17
But they are already watchdogs for the authorities, just not for the legitimate authorities. Journalists already fear terrorists and report in a manner as not to be punished by them.
End of Leauki's quote

Again, that is their choice.  But you bring up a good point.  The terrorists are getting a tit for tat from them.  So if you get both sides to do the tit for tat, what is the difference between the 2?  Not much.

Doesn't everyone have the duty to stop crimes when they can (or at least report them)? I cann accept as an excuse that someone is afraid, but I cannot accept as an excuse that someone preferred taking pictures of the murder which he then sells.
End of quote

The average citizen does.  But the press is in a murky area, and the reason many have gone to prison.  Many refuse to release evidence of a crime to authorities citing the privilege of the press.  Courts so far have mostly sided with authorities.  The press is not obligated to testify, but they cannot protect their evidence through the power of the 1st amendment. 

So report a crime?  I guess that is what we see on the 6 O'clock news.  Stop it?  clearly they are not required to (nor is the average citizen).  That applies to the terrorist as well.  They report the crime (you see it on the news), but at least in America, they are not obligated to intervene.  Some do - they report it to authorities.  But as I said above, the bias comes in and many use the 1st amendment to decide how much cooperation to give to each side.  And the result is that many times, they appear to favor the criminal over the legal (I have no hard facts to support that, only anecdotal stories, and hence that is why the key word - appear - is used).

Reply #19 Top

Again, that is their choice.  But you bring up a good point.  The terrorists are getting a tit for tat from them.  So if you get both sides to do the tit for tat, what is the difference between the 2?  Not much.

End of quote

I think the NRA is qualified to explain how a dangerous tool can be useful in the right hands.

I just want the law to be applied to everyone, even journalists.

Yes, there is a right that guarantees free press. But I think that right is supposed to protect journalists from being told what not to write, NOT to protect journalists when they actually do break the law.

 

So report a crime?  I guess that is what we see on the 6 O'clock news.  Stop it?  clearly they are not required to (nor is the average citizen).

End of quote

By "report a crime", I mean doing so in time.

When some criminal would tell me that he is planning to fire a rocket at some house, and would I like to take a picture of him doing it, I would call the authorities and tell them about it. And even if I were afraid of doing so, I wouldn't actually meet the criminal, take a picture and get paid for it later. It's immoral.

And I am willing to bet a small amount of money that if exactly this happened to me here in Ireland and I would take a picture of the crime rather than report it, I would be punished for that.

 

Reply #20 Top

Yes, there is a right that guarantees free press. But I think that right is supposed to protect journalists from being told what not to write, NOT to protect journalists when they actually do break the law.
End of quote

Ideally you are correct.  But then with the imperfection of man, where would the "what to write" stop and "amateur police" begin?

But on a more subtle level, they do not actually "break the law".  They just do not stop those who do.

When some criminal would tell me that he is planning to fire a rocket at some house, and would I like to take a picture of him doing it, I would call the authorities and tell them about it. And even if I were afraid of doing so, I wouldn't actually meet the criminal, take a picture and get paid for it later. It's immoral.
End of quote

Indeed it is.  But again, how do  you draw the line?  Once a line is drawn, it then becomes a matter of interpretation of the ones in power.  The old slippery slope.  I have seen it too many times to think it would not happen with this.  And some things are just too important to trust to the "honesty" of politicians.  This being one of them. 

And I am willing to bet a small amount of money that if exactly this happened to me here in Ireland and I would take a picture of the crime rather than report it, I would be punished for that.
End of quote

I would not bet you.  England (and the commonwealth) does not enjoy the concept of freedom of the press that America does.  They do contort it to suit their national needs.  So far they have walked that tightrope fairly well.  But that is because England has not really had a "crises" outside of the IRA, and we saw how fast freedom of the press was subverted in that case.

In many countries, what you desire is already there (except when it does not affect their security), so reporters get away with it.  In America, we cannot even start, lest it never return.