Israeli Police Assaults Venezuelan's Ambassador at Al Aqsa Mosque

Israeli Police Assaults Venezuelan's Ambassador at Al Aqsa Mosque

JERUSALEM, Palestine, March 12, 2006 (IPC) - -

http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_new/english/details.asp?name=14321

Israeli Occupation Policemen on Saturday violently beat up the Ambassador of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela H.E. Dr. Rafael Leal, at the intersection of the one gate of Al A Aqsa mosque strongly pressed him and barred him access into the mosque but the immediate intervention by the mosque's custodians bring a halt to the abusive treatment.

By then the Islamic Religious Endowment (Waqf) commission in Jerusalem quickly took him into al Aqsa mosque. He toured through it and then met with Adnan Al Hussaini Head of the Supreme Muslim Council, the official body overseeing the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Haram Al-Sharif (Noble Sanctuary) of Jerusalem

In a press release, Al Aqsa Institution For Rebuilding Islamic Sanctuaries, quoted the Venezuelan ambassador as saying "we are against such misconducts by the Police, that is not gratuitous by no means."

The Venezuelan Ambassador is a Muslim, Arabic speaker, he was in the company of his wife and his four attendants while he was visiting Al Aqsa mosque.

Visitation of the Al Aqsa mosque, as the third holiest site and first Qibla (direction of prayer) of Muslim is a must and the Israeli police have no right to prevent any Muslim from performing his worshiping inside the mosque.

n/t

... but ought to.

(Now it's been locked from the LBN - for some unexpalined reason.)

A case of mistaken identity, it might be argued, but there's no call for violent abuse toward such a visitor to the site.

Is this a way to get back at Chavez for installing a Muslim ambassador, knowing it wouldn't ruffle too many feather in Washington?

any links?

It works perfectly well from here in Taiwan.

Wondering if the story has been 'prioritized' for restricted access.

The propaganda site works here too. Perhaps the other poster has a slower ISP, even with digital, it still took awhile to upload.

... you doubt the validity of the story, or that publishing it would automatically indicate foul political persuasions?

The Venezuelan ambassador was either physically attacked by Israeli police at the entrance to the al Aqsa Mosques or he wasn't.

You present only false choices with your questions.

However, your assertion that he was or wasn't assaulted is what needs to be determined.

... without any explanation is more straightforward than a simple question asking you to clarify your use of that same very subjective term, then I'd say it's obvious you're just trying to make a negative judgement due to your committed loyalties.

In other words, your calling the source a 'propaganda site' without some needed stipulation, is just another form of propaganda, noh?

You presented false choices, as I already said. You didn't ask a "simple question."

that being a judgement you were quick to make. Instead of clarifying, you are cutting down my inquiry with a sub-context of judging the query inadequate.

I think those were two honest choices as to how someone might interpret what you meant by 'propaganda'.

Aside from opinions about Israeli policy toward Palestinians and non-Jews which do, I admit, concern state-sponsored racism, that term 'propaganda' is far less clear than would suit an honest objective approach and you used it to obviously indicate doubt in the news story (which was removed from LBN).

For you to insist that my inquiry was misleading and further infer that you therefore needn't extend the courtesy of any explanation shows some politcal manuevering on your part.

My second post requested clarification which you only address inasmuch as to once again ignore, instead saying the first inquiry was insufficient. This is a mild form of abuse directed at expressed opposition to Zionism (in the context of a report of Israeli abuse at the al Aqsa Mosque) and an invitation to enter into the natural personal conflict that might follow from the slight, to later be turned against the person trying to debate the flaws of Zionism.

Fair play is readily overridden by judgements and various forms of abuse. The truth gets lost.


I wrote on another thread on this discussion group and was deleted leading me to believe this group is basically reserved for pro-Israel writers and has a decidedly pro-Israel moderator who teaches those who disagree with the bias the cost of discourtesy towards those who take the conquering of Palestine to be an unquestionably good policy, even when the issues themselves involve major human displacements and endless violence.

I was also the recipent of a harrassing personal message from Coastie For Truth today which indicated he had done something of a background check on me in the meantime. It was just plain insult.

If controlled attacks are the MO of a sensitive political entity which can't tolerate consideration of Israel's actual right to exist, when in fact that right is poorly founded on real objective legal issues, then we might wonder if the legality questions aren't subject to the same thug mentality as the cop beating up the ambassador. It's not about who's right, but who's in control.

If you really wanted to know what I meant by propaganda, you would have asked, "why do you think that site is propaganda?" You would not have asked, "By 'propaganda' do you mean you doubt the validity of the story, or that publishing it would automatically indicate foul political persuasions?" You present only two choices as to why I think the site is propaganda. The validity of the story is not what propaganda is. The action of publishing it is not propaganda. So, you presented TWO false choices.



You "think," an opinion, or at least, an "assumption," as to the 'honesty' of the choices you presented. Your 'opinion' is that I see propaganda as "doubt(ing) the validity of the story, or that publishing it would automatically indicate foul political persuasions." Your assumption, opinion, was incorrect.



I indicated that the site you used uses propaganda. You dishonestly state; I "...obviously indicate doubt in the news story..." Calling "Fox Network" a propaganda site is not the same as saying that a story there is propaganda, which is what you are trying to do. However, a post from "Fox" would be under scrutiny, even if the person failed to see that the report actually came from the "Associated Press." As for your post's removal from LBN, I am not a moderator. I had nothing to do with the move. However, perhaps they removed it because it was in violation of LBN rules (no I/P unless it is directly related to America, or because they also see it (your source) as a propaganda site). Ask a moderator.



There was no "political maneuvering" on my part, another opinion, on your part. You provided, for the third time, in my opinion, two false choices as to why I labeled the site you provided as 'propaganda.'



Your first, and second request, were insufficient. What the al-Asqa Mosque has to do with this....well, sounds like a "red herring" is swimming into your accusations. There was no 'debate' here about the "issues" of Zionism, let alone its flaws.



Fair play is, indeed, overridden. There can be no honest discussion here with some because Israel is always wrong. Various forms of anti-Semitism are ripe, but usually in the guise of 'innocent' criticism.



I can't speak to your other "post" because I don't know what you said in that thread. Therefore, you can reach whatever conclusion (opinion) you wish. However, your very wording makes me understand why another post you made might get "axed." You seem to only know one side and think that because a post is not allowed to stand it must be because "...this group is basically reserved for pro-Israel writers and has a decidedly pro-Israel moderator who teaches those who disagree with the bias the cost of discourtesy towards those who take the conquering of Palestine to be an unquestionably good policy...," which is simply laughable!



That is unfortunate. However, you have engaged in "calling out" another member, which is a violation of DU rules. Perhaps you should review those rules, especially the ones for I/P, as they are more stringent. You will notice that in PMs there is an "alert" function.



So basically, Hamas (et al) is right in its attacks, and Israel has no right to exist in the modern world? Is that what you are saying?

Answer these questions:

1. Israel has the right to remain an independent political state. Yes or No?
   
   
2. The nation known as Israel should be ONE state (Arab and Jewish). Yes or No?

"Fair play is, indeed, overridden. There can be no honest discussion here with some because Israel is always wrong. Various forms of anti-Semitism are ripe, but usually in the guise of 'innocent' criticism."

How do you make the distinction, aside from your own prejudices, between what is innocent and allowed vs what is deemed non-kosher?


I'm saying Zionism tends to obscure the truth for its own protection because of inherent racism that makes ethnic identity something of a privilege, and will add how support for that movement implies supporting ethnic privileges (even if far away), against the grain of modern social advancements. You, by contrast want to focus on the problem you see with anger towards Israel being based on undue hatred.

That might be hatred of greed over land or ethnic cleansing or using domestic lobbyists to drain our public coffers and blindly support an undisclosed nuclear arsenal or forgive known acts of sabotage - but it can still be called something vile so 'therefore' it's the hatred which is the most compelling evil to you - not too mention an extremely useful one for side-lining critics.


Imagine for a brief moment, if you will, we lived in a world where racism is absent, where our media moguls come in every shape and form, where the finest educational institutions do not require minor fortunes to attend, and where people with land titles and generations of history have can keep their land and property.


A major movement has come along in recent decades to claim Palestine based on 'various' petitions and references to ancient history and the old testiment Bible and only won approval from British authorities (who administered the territory at the time) in the form of an agreement promising the existing population of Palestine would not be adversely effected.

Now some bystanders who had more pluralism in mind from the start might occasionally raise the point that the arrangement isn't all that beneficial when those promises were not kept; or when, say, Israel attacks an unarmed ship off their coast or invades its neighbor and the American press toes the line one war after another even when decades later a ship's crew reveal Israeli sabotage. We don't hear these influential supporters of Israel ready to face the truth. They want it 'managed'. Osama bin Laden made 9/11 happen from a cave in Afghanistan. He admitted to it on video. People believe this!

The ambassador gets beaten and the NYT doesn't seem to notice. It's just not news-worthy.

Or when America attacks an innocent country based on whim of Israel's more hawkish supporters because of a pack of lies and in turns into another escalating quagmire with no avenue available for returning to peace - with millions of lives thrown into struggle at best. But this is not what troubles Israel and devotees. It's whether or not criticizing Zionist politics should be permitted in a not-so-free-anymore America and it seems your concerns most likely will again take priority.


The point is there should be room to criticize Israel above and beyond that shallow label you flash like it were a neutralizer for all the trouble that has come with the solicitations to guarantee Israel
s 'right to exist'.

It was not the decison of the critics as to what demographic priorities Israel would be based on and committed to - and they should not be blamed for pointing out that the formula is troublesome.


To answer your question:

Israel would be far better off, not only more legitimate, to ensure citizenship rights to all persons within it's control boundaries regardless of race or religion.

1) israeli occupation policemen? no such organization exists
2) if he was so violently beat up how was he able to continue into the mosque?
3) says as the date line "jerusalem, Palestine" the final status of jerusalem has not been determined. once it is i fully expect the old city to remain in israeli hands as it has since 1967.

IMO the site is biased and not a legitimate news source.
it is a state run agency, putting out propoganda.

anybody can be a citizen of israel. anyone who is a citizen if israel (jewish, muslim, christian, etc) all have full and equal rights.

ENInews, but you have to be a subscriber to view it:

<http://www.einnews.com/venezuela/>

Apparently the exact same report.

n/t

n/t

that it's a data mining site that merely reproduces news articles from a multitude of sources in one central place, so more than likely the original source for the article was ipc in the first place...

Violet...

it works now.