GOOGLE NEWS FEED
There Must Not Be a Ceasefire
Gatestone Institute-11 minutes ago
Today, calls for a ceasefire fall on deaf ears in Syria, Iraq, Somalia, and Nigeria, where governments (good or bad) face the forces of armed Islamist terrorists.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4513/gaza-hamas-ceasefire
|
Noticed the above news feed while trying to check on news on Syria.
Opened the link and found what immediately struck me one of the most biased articles I've come across.
The close, in particular, stuck out as a red flag to me:
"When will the world see that, if Israel were ever to lose, we would all be next?"
Here's extracts from the above article in Google news feed:
There Must Not Be a Ceasefire
by Denis MacEoin
July 25, 2014 at 5:00 am
"With their usual mixture of human rights concern and hypocrisy, several countries have stepped into the fresh Israel-Gaza conflict by demanding a cease-fire. Egypt has played an important role in this demarche; Hamas has turned down flatly all the conditions on which Egyptian President al-Sisi insisted. How far the war will go still hangs in the balance. As Israeli ground forces now fight with Hamas in their tunnels and bunkers, over 600 Palestinians (largely made up of men of fighting age) have died[1], as well as over 32 Israelis."
"The international pressure from all sides for a ceasefire is widening and intensifying. Of course, what a ceasefire amounts to, as it has before, is to give Hamas a second chance. And a third and a fourth — whatever is needed for them to achieve their clearly stated goals of wiping Israel from the map, and then Jews."
...
Israel must act and act hard, just as Britain and the United States fought hard against the Nazi threat. As we are seeing in Iraq and Syria, the Hamas mindset is spreading. Anything short of total defeat will only lead to a resumption of hostilities in the near future. If the UN and foreign states will not act with determination to defeat a terrorist group armed with sophisticated rockets and accompanied by a determination to commit genocide -- if they are happy, as always, to sit on the sidelines and criticize Israel -- then Israel must, as always, go it alone.
...
When will the world see that, if Israel were ever to lose, we would all be next? There cannot be a ceasefire until the firing from Hamas has ceased, and ceased for good.
[extracts only - see full article on link below]
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4513/gaza-hamas-ceasefire
|
So I'm wondering who produced this. Who is Gatestone Institute?
- NOT-FOR-PROFIT
- NON-GOVERNEMENT-ORGANISATION
- THINK TANK
GATESTONE INSTITUTE
The Gatestone Institute, formerly Stonegate Institute and Hudson New York, is a think tank based in New York City. The organization is chaired by John R. Bolton, former U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, from 2005 to 2006, and Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, from 2001 to 2005. It was formerly Stonegate Institute and was devolved from the Hudson Institute, New York. It identifies itself as a nonpartisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank for international and domestic policy, based in New York City. It was founded in 2012 by Nina Rosenwald who serves as its president. Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton is its chairman. In The Nation, journalist Max Blumenthal reported it began as a branch of the Washington D.C. Hudson Institute and was known as "Hudson New York City". Gatestone publicizes the writings of authors as diverse as Alan Dershowitz, Robert Spencer, Palestinian journalist Khaled Abu Toameh, and Harold Rhode. It is described by some media as “an internationally known American think-tank, specialized on strategy and defense questions.”
The organization describes itself as a "non-partisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank is dedicated to educating the public about what the mainstream media fails to report." The organization believes that traditional news outlets conduct insufficient and, as a result, misleading reporting on critical issues, and thus it distributes its own information about events in the Middle East and Muslim populations in other parts of the world.
The Gatestone Institute publishes an online daily report on its website, featuring extended news coverage and editorials on various subjects, with a concentration on foreign policy issues impacting the United States and its allies.
Funding
Gatestone Institute is funded by private donors and foundations.
Criticism
The Institute of of Policy Studies has noted that "[t]he institute was founded in 2011 by Nina Rosenwald, an heiress of the Sears Roebuck empire who has been a key philanthropic backer of anti-Muslim groups and individuals in the United States". Sheila Musaji's The American Muslim includes it and Nina Rosenwald in a Who’s Who of the Anti-Muslim/Anti-Arab/Islamophobia Industry, Ali Gharib, of the blog Open Zion, describes it as "a spin-off of the Hudson Institute where right-wingers (along with Alan Dershowitz) champion hawkish, often "pro-Israel" policies and, not infrequently, rattle off Islamophobic blogposts."
Source - wikipedia - here. |
Then I got to wondering, who is the writer?
Denis MacEoin's wikipedia link (here).
Wikipedia mentioned a controversy over the following report, written by MacEoin (which was 'drawn up' by an organisation known as 'Policy Exchange'):
Controversy over "The Hijacking of British Islam"
In October 2007, "The Hijacking of British Islam: How Extremist Literature is Subverting Britain's Mosques", was published. The report—written by Denis MacEoin and drawn up by the Policy Exchange thinktank— claimed that "extremist literature calling for the execution of gays and the oppression of women" was found at 25 of the 100 Islamic religious institutions that Policy Exchange's Muslim research teams claimed to have visited in 2006 and 2007.
|
Rather than risk getting the facts mangled in summary, this is the wikipedia on the subject of the controversy:
Wikipedia (Denis MacEoin)
Allegations of tampering with two receipts for books
On 12 December 2007, BBC's Newsnight presented material which the programme suggested showed that some of the receipts purporting to prove the sale of extremist material had been forged, and that some of the literature had come from bookshops purportedly unconnected to the mosques named in the report. The BBC's Richard Watson also stated that "There is the worrying fact, not addressed by Policy Exchange, that the hand-writing on this receipt is very similar – to my eye it looks identical – to the hand-writing on another receipt, said to have been obtained from a mosque in Leyton, 10 miles away. A registered forensic document examiner concluded that there was “strong evidence” that the two receipts were written by the same person."
Similar allegations were made by The Guardian 's Seumas Milne. Milne's report stated that "BBC's Newsnight programme . . . revealed that a forensic examination of five receipts provided by Policy Exchange for the material had found them to be either faked, written by the same person, and/or were not issued by the mosques in question. A sixth receipt was also regarded as unreliable."'
Policy Exchange argued there was still evidence to link each of the institutions to extremist literature and that "The receipts are not ... mentioned in the report and the report’s findings do not rely upon their existence". As a result of the BBC Newsnight investigation, both Policy Exchange and MacEoin were sued for defamation by the Board of Trustees of the North London Central Mosque Trust (NLCM) concerning the allegations made in MacEoin's report against the Finsbury Park Mosque. The case was dismissed, dismissed on appeal, and in October 2010 the North Lorndon Central Mosque discontinued its appeal and paid a substantial contribution to Policy Exchange’s legal costs.
However, NLCM reports that the following was published on the Policy
Exchange website: "Policy Exchange has never sought to suggest that the
liteature cited in the Report was sold or distributed at the Mosque with the knowledge or consent of the Mosque’s trustees or staff."
(wikipedia here)
|
Above wikipedia entry states:
- case was dismissed
- dismissed on appeal
- in October 2010 the North London Central Mosque discontinued its appeal and paid a substantial contribution to Policy Exchange’s legal costs.
- "NLCM reports that the following was published on the Policy Exchange website: "Policy Exchange has never sought to suggest that the literature cited in the Report was sold or distributed at the Mosque with the knowledge or consent of the Mosque’s trustees or staff."
Still not clear on what is going on and curious about 'Policy Exchange', I go to the Policy Exchange link in wikipedia:
POLICY EXCHANGE - Wikipedia
Policy Exchange is a British centre-right think tank, created in 2002 and based in London. The Daily Telegraph has described it as "the largest, but also the most influential think tank on the right".
Policy Exchange has been addressed by members of the Labour Governments of Tony Blair (1997-2007) and Gordon Brown (2007-2010), such as John Hutton, Peter Mandelson and Andrew Adonis, and by members of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition Government of David Cameron (2010-), such as Chris Skidmore, Charlotte Leslie and Jesse Norman, as well as by many non party-political figures. The New Statesman named it as David Cameron's "favourite think tank", a view shared by the Political Editor of the Evening Standard Joe Murphy, who referred to it as "the intellectual boot camp of the Tory modernisers’". Its alumni include Anthony Browne, one of London Mayor Boris Johnson’s policy directors, and a number of the Conservative 2010 intake of MPs, including Nick Boles, Jesse Norman, Chris Skidmore and Charlotte Leslie.
... members of its advisory councils include Lord Trimble, Peter Clarke, former Head of the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command, James Cameron, Executive Director of Climate Change Capital, and Simon Stevens, former health advisor to Tony Blair. Policy Exchange hosts regular events and debates with key individuals including academics, journalists, MPs and Ministers. The Annual Colin Cramphorn Memorial Lecture, has been delivered by speakers such as Sir Ian Blair, Charles Farr and General David Petraeus.
Notable publications
The Hijacking of British Islam
In October 2007, Policy Exchange published a report, written by Denis MacEoin, on the Muslim community in the UK, uncovering the extent of extremism within mainstream mosques and Muslim institutions. The report entitled The Hijacking of British Islam: How extremist literature is subverting mosques in the UK was described as "a year long investigation carried out by Policy Exchange into the character of the literature currently available in mainstream sites of Islamic religious instruction in the UK." According to the report, four Muslim research teams visited nearly 100 Islamic sites in the UK "to determine the extent to which literature inculcating Muslim separatism and hatred of nonbelievers was accessible in those institutions — both in terms of being openly available and also being obtainable 'under the counter'." The researchers claimed to have found offensive material at around a quarter of the sites visited and this became the report's most publicised claim in the media.
Denis MacEoin, the report's author, is on record as stating that he has "very negative feelings" about Islam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_Exchange
|
Policy Exchange - Wikipedia
On 26 November 2009, Justice Eady struck out the claim brought against Policy Exchange by the North London Central Mosque. The six mosque trustees who had advanced the claim were ordered to pay Policy Exchange's costs of defending the action. The High Court made a further Order that £75,000 of those costs be paid by the North London Central Mosque within 28 days.
In February 2010 the trustees of the mosque abandoned their individual claims in libel against Policy Exchange in respect of the same report and paid a substantial contribution to Policy Exchange’s legal costs.
In October 2010 NLCM discontinued its appeal and paid a substantial contribution to Policy Exchange’s legal costs. Following that agreement the appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 5 October 2010.
Source - wikipedia - here.
|
However, note the sites of:
(a) North London Central Mosque; and
(b) British Muslim Initiative:
North London Central Mosque
Policy Exchange admits NLCM clear of any wrong-doing
Following NLCM win right to appeal, Policy Exchange's offer of out of court settlement accepted
On 27 October 2007, the Policy Exchange published a report entitled “The Hijacking of British
Islam” in which they named the North London Central Mosque Trust as one of a number of
mosques in the UK which they alleged were purveyors of extremist and hate literature.
As is well known, the Trustees and management of the NLCM have worked hard since the
take-over in 2005 to cleanse the Mosque from the violence, extremism and intolerance that
it was linked with previously during the time it was controlled by people such as Abu
Hamza. The ethos of the Mosque is to be embracing of all individuals regardless of their
race, religion or gender, to work for social cohesion and to encourage Muslims to play a
leading role in British society. The Management take-over was a pivotal event in the
community which involved local Muslim community and organizations alongside the
Government, the local Authorities, the Police and Members of Parliament. The allegations
contained in the Report were therefore not only offensive and defamatory but undermined
the huge and important efforts by all who were involved in the take-over.
The Mosque trustees and management have always emphatically denied the claims
contained in the Report. Moreover, the Report appeared to be based on highly suspicious
methods of research and the evidence on which the Mosque was named was entirely
dubious as exposed by the Newsnight excellent investigative report by Richard Watson. The
failure of Policy Exchange to sue Newsnight over Watson's report, despite explicitly
threatening to do so in front of millions of viewers, is telling how shaky the grounds Policy
Exchange stands on regarding their report, the report they took off their website completely
after settling with another mosque similarly accused in the report.
In 2007, a claim by NLCM was issued against the Policy Exchange, and the author of the
Report, Denis MacEoin, for defamation. At the first stage in the High Court, the claim was
struck out, not on the basis of its merit, which we maintain was strong, but on the technical
capacity of unincorporated charities not being able to be claimants in defamation cases in
their own right, a loop in the law we believe legislators should look at. In April of this year,
the Court of Appeal, after hearing legal argument from the Mosque regarding charities and
defamation law, gave us permission to appeal against the decision striking out our claim. The
case would potentially have had far-reaching implications for unincorporated charities all
across the UK. The appeal was listed for October 2010. We were confident of our chances of
success; however, being trustees of a charity, we had to act in the best interests of the
Mosque and decided that rather than continuing the risks of litigation, we would accept a
request by Policy Exchange to settle out of court after we won the right to appeal. In the
circumstances, the Policy Exchange has now published on their website the following
statement:
In our Report’ The Hijacking of British Islam’, published in October 2007, we stated that
the North London Central Mosque was one of the mosques where extremist literature was
found. Policy Exchange has never sought to suggest that the literature cited in the Report
was sold or distributed at the Mosque with the knowledge or consent of the Mosque’s
trustees or staff.
We are happy to set the record straight.
The Mosque is now cleared of any false accusations of being a purveyor of extremist
literature.
We trust that no allegations of this nature will be repeated.
The Board of Trustees
03/11/2010
http://nlcentralmosque.com/component/content/article/1-latest/220-policy-exchange-admits-nlcm-clear-of-any-wrong-doing.html |
British Muslim Initiative
Press Release | Policy Exchange admits it was wrong about North London Central Mosque
Thursday, 04 November 2010
The BMI is delighted with the result of the out of court settlement reached between the North London Central Mosque Trust ("the Mosque") and the Policy Exchange ("PX") as regards the publication in October 2007 of the PX report entitled "The Hijacking of British Islam".
The report accused a number of mosques in the UK of distributing extremist literature and in particular, accused the Mosque of only having undergone cosmetic change since new Trustees were appointed by the UK government to rid the mosque of Abu Hamza and his followers.
The terms of the out of court settlement reached between PX and the Mosque culminated in a humiliating admission by PX that neither the trustees nor the staff of the Mosque had any dealings with the extremist material it had falsely alleged were found at the Mosque premises in 2007. As the BBC Newsnight programme revealed at the time of the report's publication, the receipts provided by the PX to the BBC to support the outrageous allegations that the Mosque's staff and/or Trustees were distributing extremist literature, were crudely forged. It is disgraceful for a self proclaimed 'leading independent think tank' to have provided such material to the BBC and not to have apologised for having done so – despite numerous requests to do so.
At the High Court hearing on the issue of the Claimant's capacity raised by PX, Mr Justice Eady decided that a charity itself could not be the Claimant in a defamation case. This was a technical legal point and the merits of the case were not addressed at all. This decision has been misleadingly reported by some journalists including the Daily Telegraph's Andrew Gilligan. Permission to appeal this point was subsequently granted by Lord Justice Sedley (of the Court of Appeal) on the basis that there is a genuine argument for Charities to be allowed to bring defamation cases in their own right. The case before the Court of Appeal was listed for a hearing in October 2010 and the Mosque was confident that it would be successful.
However, it seems that PX saw sense in settling out of court, clearly due to a real fear of losing the case and agreed to publish a statement which exonerated the Mosque's staff and Trustees from any wrong-doing and in doing so effectively admitted that the credibility and accuracy of its Report was fatally undermined. BMI has also learnt that despite claims made by PX and Andrew Gilligan, no costs were paid by the Mosque to PX.
The BMI is very pleased that the Mosque took action against PX and succeeded in clearing its name.
About BMI
Formed by justice, peace and human rights campaigners, the British Muslim Initiative (BMI) is an organisation which seeks to fight racism and Islamaphobia, combat the challenges Muslims face around the world, encourage Muslim participation in British public life, and improve relations between the West and the Muslim world.
British Muslim Initiative (BMI) © 2006-2014
|
***
WIKIPEDIA
ENTRIES
NEED UPDATING
***
Judging by press release by
British Muslim Initiative
referred to above - (link)
***
Anyone that's interested in NGOs in general, or in 'Policy Exchange' specifically, here's a link to study:
The Cold War on British Muslims: An examination of Policy Exchange and the Centre for Social Cohesion
by David Miller
http://www.academia.edu/2596703/The_Cold_War_on_British_Muslims_An_examination_of_Policy_Exchange_and_the_Centre_for_Social_Cohesion
