A Leauki's Writings

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?

 


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Apr 12, 2010

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.

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.

on Apr 12, 2010

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.

 

on Apr 12, 2010

Leauki
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.

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.

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).

on Apr 12, 2010

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.

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).

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.

 

on Apr 12, 2010

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.

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.

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.

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. 

2 Pages1 2