The Goldstone Report

[JackRiddler]

.

From the Egypt thread, where I added the false story about Baradei, my apology:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31041&p=394288#p394288

I Fell for Disinformation About Baradei!

The story about Baradei saying he would go to war with Israel if there was another attack on Gaza appears to be a fabrication! I saw it via RI, when hava1 posted the text from Ynet on the "Goldstone Report" thread.

Of course I would never allow Ynet to stand as the source for such a serious-sounding claim. After a search, I found the same story, published on the same day, in Tehran Times. (http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=237890.)

So I figured if it's in the propaganda presses of both Israel and Iran, it must have happened. Very stupid of me.

The tip-off should have been that the reports say Baradei gave this interview to the "Arab newspaper" Al-Watan, without specifiying where this supposed newspaper is based. It turns out there are several. The other tip-off should be that the story is short and contains only snippet quotes. If there's no context, don't trust it.

In fact, Baradei had not given such an interview. The Al-Watan in question is a Palestinian blog in tabloid style. It was citing older statements he had made, and he had not said anything like the quote put out by Ynet.

Here is a full deconstruction from "The Middle Beast." Right now, this is the top hit if you google Baradei al-Watan, so there is hope for the Web.

http://gahgeer.blogspot.com/2011/04/on- ... on-on.html

Wednesday, 6 April 2011

On El Baradei's "war declaration" on Israel

I had an exchange of tweets with Jim Rissier (@jm111t), who believes that Egyptian presidential hopeful and former head of the IAEA Mohammed El Baradei wanted to declare war on Israel.

The background to the story is a report by the English-language website of Israeli Yidiot Aharonot daily (also known as Ynet). In the report, El Baradei was quoted as saying that he would wage a war against Israel in the event of an Israeli attack on the Gaza Strip.

The allegation fuelled the fears of many, including Jim Rissier's, and also showed how pre-conceived prejudices can sometimes exacerbate a state of paranoia.

The story also showed Ynet's slipping standards, which failed to follow the most basic of journalism rules.

According to Ynet, El Baradei said: "If Israel attacked Gaza, we would declare war against the Zionist regime."

The Israeli paper said that it took the story from another Arab newspaper called Al-Watan.

These quotes have so far been used to tarnish El Baradei, a Nobel laureate, as
it made very quick resonance on the web, and "now there are 1,9 M references! http://bit.ly/gbkYRx", according to Rissier.

But let's go through the facts, not the incitement.

Al-Watan newspaper is a generic name of Arab newspapers, such as The Times or the Post in Europe and America. Several Arab papers under the same name are published in Syria, Saudi Arabi and Qatar.

However, none of them published such an article, according to their websites.

A further search on Google, shows that the original story came from a Palestinian source called Dunya al-Watan, which is not even a newspaper.

In the original story, available here in Arabic,
(http://www.alwatanvoice.com/arabic/news ... 72451.html)
there isn't a single mention of the word "Zionist", or a direct quote from El Baradei on the declaration of war against Israel.

The paper says: "If he wins the elections, he will discuss ways to activate the joint Arab defence treaty in case of a future attack on Gaza."

The story further adds quotes from El Baradei on his election platform and promises.

Dunya al-Watan, for the uninitiated, is a news website that thrives on strange news items and generates income from advertisements by Palestinian companies. Yes, a sort of a tabloid, but never a serious newspaper.

Look at few other headlines from this "news" source:
"Gaddafi sent to an oasis in the desert"
"Egyptian designer found dead in his apartment"
"Lebanese artist's travel to Egypt barred after her porn film"
Naturally, El Baradei's story was headlined: "El Baradei: We will declare war on Israel if Gaza is attacked."

In addition, the comments made by El Baradei are part of a one-hour interview on an Egyptian TV talk show, which can be viewed in full here.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlK89j7aGg4

As part of the interview, at 2200 through the video, El Baradei answers a question about his response to an attack on Gaza:

A: "If Israel attacks Gaza, it has to, well, at the same time I can't work alone. Where is the Arab world?"
Q: "Will you send your armed forces if you are a president to repel the attack on Gaza?"
A: "I have to think it through, I cant' tell you; I will see what the circumstances. There is a joint defence treaty; the Arab states that are fighting each other now must stand by each other."

Of course, among Rissier's 1.9 million references to this story on Google, none comes from any credible media source or publication - except Ynet.

But since Ynet has recently begun to read anyone's mind when it comes to Israel - see their coverage of Goldstone's alleged "retraction" - then this is not a surprise.

But sourcing a news story from a shady website without checking the original material is just a new low, Ynet.

Perhaps El Baradei should consider a libel action.

So much for my stupid strategy of believing something just because it's both in the Iranian and Israeli propaganda press. Everyone, 1.9 million google references, fell for this because Ynet ran it, and that includes the Iranians... and me. I wondered, I even said, "note the nuance difference" as I ran both articles, but still.

[hava1]

that's why we're here. I think that how info is spun for Israeli public is not "disinfo" but very important INFO.
Especially noting that Iran and Israel join hands on that...

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4051939,00.html

lBaradei: We'll fight back if Israel attacks Gaza
In interview with Arab newspaper, former IAEA chief says if elected as Egypt's next president he will open Rafah crossing in case of an Israeli attack

...

In an interview with the Al-Watan newspaper he said...

Hava, this article is a crude disinfo plant. I'm willing to bet my right arm that El Baradei has never given any interview to "Al-Watan" (which one? the one run by students in Kuwait? The rather obscure newspaper from the tiny Sultanate of Oman? I had to Google "Al Watan" to find out if there even exists a newspaper called "Al-Watan"). The first clue is the lack of clarity about the newspaper and in which country it's published, only that it's "Arab". The second clue is that nobody who has any knowledge about El Baradei or who has watched his hours of live interviews could possibly believe that he would say anything vaguely resembling this quote. That is so outrageous it would be funny if it weren't scary that so many people are still willing to believe without question whatever whoppers are published in the Israeli press. What is it about El-Baradei that makes the Mubarak regime, the Saudi-backed Salafists and Israel all want to defame him so much?? Believe me, according to credible reports, the Israeli government is the only one making belligerent military threats at this time.

On the other hand, speaking of Kuwaiti newspapers, we recently had a minor scandal here, after a respected Egyptian newspaper, Al-Shorouk, claimed in its news summary that the German Der Spiegel had published an interview with Egypt's Defense Minister and Head of the Armed Forces Council, Field Marshall Tantawy. According to Al-Shorouk's brief, in the interview Tantawy made an explosive claim, that Saudi Arabia had threatened to withdraw all Saudi investments in Egypt and expel the millions of Egyptians living and working in Saudi Arabia if the Egyptian government prosecutes and tries Hosni Mubarak. After vainly searching the Der Spiegel website for the original interview, some Egyptian journalists contacted Al-Shorouk, only to find out that the info had been taken from the Kuwaiti Al-Anba newspaper. The puzzle of the missing interview caused quite a brouhaha in Egyptian internet circles, prompting the official spokesperson for Der Spiegel to call in to talk shows to categorically deny that Der Spiegel had conducted or published any such interview.

Why did the Kuwaiti newspaper publish a non-existent interview? How long would it have remained unquestioned if some careless or rookie employee at El-Shorouk hadn't reported it?

Bottom line: intelligence agencies, among others, plant disinfo in obscure or compromised newspapers in order to "launder" it so it can later be picked up and published elsewhere. The Mossad has a long history of doing just that: in fact, more commonly they publish some claim which is later reported by a reputable newspaper and then quotes are selectively taken from the reputable newspaper in order to get the Mossad's message out.

This goes something like this:

Ynet News: "Israeli intelligence sources insist that Syria has a secret nuclear weapons program."

As-Safir: "According to the Israeli Ynet online newspaper, Israel claims that Syria has a secret nuclear weapons program."

Jerusalem Post: "According to the Lebanese As-Safir, intelligence sources insist that Syria has a secret nuclear weapons program."

New York Times: "Arab sources report intelligence claims that Syria has a secret nuclear weapons program."

From there, it hits the agencies and is trumpeted all over the globe.

(I use this example because that's exactly what happened in the case of Syria's so-called "secret nuclear weapons program" a few years ago.)

Unless this "news" is corroborated (highly unlikely), it can safely be assumed to be false.

[hava1]

I'll blog what you are saying, Alice. But I think that in ISrael, most of the public (not all, though) is a willing partner to the disinfo and people get angry when the matter is exposed directly.

ISrael is definintely sending some, subtle, signs of belligerence to the new regime in Egypt, and so it will need to show that it responded to provocation, etc etc we know the drill, been here too long.

HOwever, the US government is actually the deciding factor here, and so far, I dont think its even contemplated, namely, these are muscle flexings..for domestic use. DO not forget that the local leadership is up to its head in corruption investigations, they are always too happy to turn the lights in the favorite direction (war, arabs what not). Netanyahu is in deep shit over financial scams now, and his nemesis is probably former buddy now estranged Ronald Lauder, who owns part of channel 10 (with Yossi Miman, the Egypt Gas oil man).

Liberman is constantly under pending indictments and so forth This is the real danger, because for them, as someone wrote, even a nuclear world war is better than court....

[lupercal]

US plotting strategy to have Goldstone report withdrawn
By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER
The Jerusalem Post
04/08/2011 01:58

Rice: Report "gravely, fundamentally flawed", "unfairly drew conclusions"; indicates US nearly certain to boycott "Durban III" conference.


WASHINGTON – The US is consulting with allies at the United Nations to work to end any consideration of the Goldstone Report by the international body, US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said on Thursday.

The US has long been opposed to the report’s accusations that Israel intentionally targeted civilians in its war just over two years ago against Hamas, but has added momentum in its push to see the report shelved since its presiding jurist Richard Goldstone last Friday reconsidered his findings.

“The United States has been clear from the outset that we believe that report was gravely and fundamentally flawed, that it completely unfairly drew conclusions about Israel’s intentions and conduct,” Rice told the US House Foreign Affairs Committee, adding that the Obama administration would like “to see this entire Goldstone proposition disappear.”

To that end, the US has been discussing what procedural steps could be taken, including halting followup actions against Israel being considered at the Security Council and other venues on the basis of the report.

Rice noted that the specific tactics had yet to be determined.

(snip section about Durban)

During her testimony, Rice stressed that “the United States every day stands firmly and unequivocally in support of our ally Israel in the United Nations, where as we all know it often comes under illegitimate and unfair attacks simply for existing.”

She continued, “We do so because it is in our national interest, because it accords with our values and principles and because it is manifestly the right thing to do.”

Despite her words, Rice came under attack from some Republican members of Congress who felt the statement she made explaining the US veto of a Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement construction was hostile to Israel.



“While we agree with our fellow council members – and indeed, with the wider world – about the folly and illegitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, we think it unwise for this council to attempt to resolve the core issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians,” Rice said in her concluding statement at the Security Council explaining the US veto. “We therefore regrettably have opposed this draft resolution.”

Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Middle East subcommittee, described the statement as “essentially throwing our good friend and ally Israel to the wolves.”



He called it an “astonishing explanation of vote that not only did not support Israel but actually joined in the criticism.”

He pointed to many members of Congress on both sides of the aisle who were disappointed by the criticism and felt the statement “undid all the good that had been done by its veto.”

Rice took strong exception to his comments.

“The explanation of vote restated long-standing US policy of six prior consecutive administrations opposing settlement policy,” she said. “We stood strongly against the resolution.

We vetoed it, and if there’s any ambiguity in a veto, I don’t know what it is.”

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPoliti ... ?id=215683

[AlicetheKurious]

"...we think it unwise for this council to attempt to resolve the core issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians”

Why is it "unwise"? Is it because the Security Council, unlike the US and Israel, is (notwithstanding its grave limitations) bound by international law? Is it "wise" to leave the core issues to be resolved outside the framework of international law and Geneva Conventions?

Or does she mean it like a criminal's threat that appealing to the legal authorities would be "unwise"?