The design will get better in a few days
Wearing a Hijab to oppose Trump’s machism ?
It was a beautiful March. Especially when the new president was about to cancel Planned parenthood fundings. And it was supposed to be a Feminist March… Except when some tried to convert this beautiful Resistance in a opportunity to legitimate Women’s Oppression in the name of Resisting Machism.The Amplifier Foundation started by proposing to share the poster of a women in Hijab during the march as a symbol of “We the people” and a need for “Social change”… A regressive one ? Hijab Painted Buses were providing leaflets with the picture.*
Many liberal muslim were very uncomfortable with this action, understanding that their struggle for free bodies were excluded from the march. Mona Eltahawy, an egyptian-american writter published a tweet saying :
“I am an Egyptian-American Muslim woman who fought for 8 yrs to stop wearing hijab & I am not celebrating this Shepard Fairey poster.”
Others were very shocked by the invitation made by the Women march to CAIR. An NGO, considered as terrorist by the UAE, and who monitors a political islamism. Zahra Billoo, the executive director of the San Francisco Bay Area chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) spoke at the Women’s March on Washington in the nation’s capital. She explains with no shame that it was the same thing when LGBT are harassed, blacks people killed that when “muslims” are investigated by FBI… Even when they planned to kill Gay, Jew or others Muslims ?
For Linda Sarsour, Muslim kids are being “executed” in the United States and CIA is behind an Islamist terrorism : “Underwear bomber was the #CIA all along. Why did I already know that?! Shame on us – scaring the American people.”
In another tweet Linda Sarsour suggested about Ayaan Hirsi Ali to “take her vagina away”. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a long time opponent to islamism and a survivor of Female Genital Mutilation.
Not really surprising as Linda Sarsour’s family is linked to Hamas.
Another proof a terrible “naïve” and depolitised American Left was during the March… When an artistic event consisted on wearing hijab for non muslim women as if it was a game. *
Many Muslim feminist reacted saying this video freaked their heart.
American Left must Awake quick. Exoticism will not help to resist Trump, it just Helps the fanatics… And the Far Right to be in the oval Office for 8 years !
Request for the Incarceration of Abdelfattah Rahhaoui, CCIF Protege
Since the summer of 2016, the CCIF has launched a support campaign on social networks for Abdelfattah Rahhaoui, Toulouse imam and school principal. The CCIF and Abdelfattah Rahhaoui consider the Academic Inspectorate decision not to open his Al-Badr school in the autumn of 2016 as “Islamophobic”. More information on Abdelfattah Rahhaoui and his links with Sanabil (an association suspected of having links to terrorist organizations) is available here.
Following his refusal to comply with the Academic Inspectorate decision, the subsequent illegal opening of the class (several times since 2010), as well as acts of violence and intimidation on his students, Abdelfattah Rahhaoui appeared before the court on 17 November 2016. The subjects of complaints were as follows: “aggravated and repeated acts violence against minors under 15 years of age by a person in a position of public authority”, “unlawful opening of classes” and “refusal to comply with the notice”.
Abdelfattah Rahhaoui defended himself by claiming he was just tutoring college students and giving them customized classes. But CôtéToulouse reports the questions asked by the president of the hearing at the tribunal: how can one explain 26 hours of classes? and that the concerned students were not enrolled in any other institution? This looked more like a clandestine college, than tutoring classes in parallel with young students’ studies.
Furthermore, teachings have been recognized as “failing” by all the reports of the Academic Inspection. 5 units out of 7 core classes are not properly taught. Only Arabic and Qur’anic language appear to be delivered on a sustained basis (7 hours per week), by 6 out of 13 teachers in the institution.
Teachers, many of whom say they were neither paid nor declared, were even replaced by parents when they went on strike for two weeks. This is what actually triggered inspections by the Academy inspector, then the lodging of a complaint with the Public Prosecutor.
The testimony of a young schoolgirl in the 6th grade is particularly disturbing. During the visit of the Academy inspector, she reported having been obliged to hide with the other students from the secondary school, in order not to be seen. When she asked questions about the obligation to lie to the inspector, she was summoned by Abdelfattah Rahhaoui: “He summoned me to his office and, after shouting at me, he slapped me so strongly that I fell on the floor. The director regularly scolded us, shouted at us, favored his own children and made fun of teachers and students”.
After having been banned from school for 3 days, the schoolgirl moved to another establishment. Just like this other schoolboy, defended at the hearing by his lawyer, Me Doumenc. He reported having been a violence victim on three occasions: “AbdelFattah Rahhaoui allegedly hold him once in his arms until he became completely red, before throwing him on the chairs. Another time, when he did not go fast enough to move tables to the classroom, the director reportedly threw a piece of furniture in his direction. And finally, on another occasion during the recess, he allegedly received a basketball ball from AbdelFattah Rahhaoui at the level of his ear. The young boy reported suffering from headache, which forced him to take pain killers” (CôtéToulouse).
While Abdelfattah Rahhaoui claims to be a victim of “Islamophobia”, the prosecutor requests:
• 3 months of suspended prison sentence for acts of violence,
• 4 months of suspended prison sentence, together with a fine of € 5,000, the prohibition to engage in any education-related activity, and closure of the school group, for failure to comply with the formal notice,
• and € 3,000 for the illegal opening of the college class.
The deliberations are scheduled to be held on Thursday 15 December, at 2 pm.
For The Cordoba Foundation, Islamist radicalisation does not exist
“Move along, there is nothing to see” should have been the subtitle of The Cordoba Foundation’s last report (2016, February).
The foundation was created in Great Britain by Anas Al-Tikriti, the son of the official leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Iraq. In 2009, David Cameron denounced the foundation as a cover of the Muslim brothers in Great Britain. This is why it appeared on a list which was published by United Arab Emirates, to list Muslim organizations supporting terrorism.
Despite this, Anas Al Tikriti and The Cordoba Foundation are regularly invited to deliver their analyzes. Their last report is called “The twin myths of the “Western jihadist threat” and “Islamic radicalisation””. Its author, Alain Gabon, is a French professor at Wesleyan College, an American WASP upper-class institution.
In the introduction, Doctor Abdullah Faliq, coordinator of the European Islamic Forum, explains in an alarmist way that “governments across Europe have started to confiscate and ban Islamic literature; religious observations and conservative Islamic practices are conflated with extremism; mosques, madrasas and even youth centres are being monitored (with powers of closure); and leaders of the community as well as mainstream Islamic organisations are being targeted and tarred with the brush of extremism ». He says that « islamophobic attacks » against muslims are nothing else than a consequence of overvalued jihadist threat. So finally, jihadists would only use « slogans that are (for want a better world) anti-authority », and « This rebellious culture is, however, not specific to Islam – such tendencies can be found in almost all communities ».
Anas Al Tikriti then pays tribute to former mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, for his “model conduct” after the attacks that have hit the capital in 2005. Nevertheless, he recognizes that some racist attacks happen in London, like in any capital in the world. He takes this opportunity to blame the actual government, which is less accommodating with communautarist requests, by suggesting that his fight against jihadism invocks the “horrors of the Spanish Inquisition” and “McCarthysm”. According to the lobbyist, several hundreds children would have been snatched from their parent’s hands “employing the pretext of radicalisation”. Thereafter, he blames the “criminalization of any suggestion that British Foreign Policy and military interventions might have had anything to do with the rise of global terrorism ».
In his study, Alain Gabon wants to prove 3 realities that he describes as myths :
- a) most terrorists are “Islamist” or “Jihadist” Muslims,
- b) terrorism in general and its “Jihadist” variety in particular constitute a major and mounting threat to human life in those societies
- c) there is an alarming “radicalisation” at work among significant segments of the Western Muslim populations
According to Alain Gabon, these 3 myths are spread and strenghtened by political, academical and media speeches, in an almost « Orwellian » context. In France, these myths would lead to the laws against « headscarves and full-face coverings in public space », to the « suveillance of mosques », and finally, « islamo-paranoïa ». Alain Gabon forgets to specify that simple veils are not forbidden in the street, and that the law against religious signs in public schools was decided in 2004, before the Toulouse, Charlie Hebdo, Paris, or Nice terrorist attacks.
In July 2016, just after the Nice terrorist attack, Alain Gabon didn’t hesitate to publish an article in the Middle East Eye website, to explain that the killer was “neither an islamist, nor a jihadist or a “terrorist”.
To understate islamic terrorist attacks, Alain Gabon explains that only 6% of attacks would be perpetrated by jihadists on US soil. The rest would be carried out by “Latinos, Christians and Jews, the far left, ecological activists, white supremacists, anti-government, anti-abortion, sovereignist, and secessionist groups ». The islamist attacks would be the only ones that the media would cover, although the number of victims would be « statistically negligable », and carried out by « lone wolves ». In France, we sometimes hear the number of 1% to designate the percentage of terrorist attacks carried out by jihadists. If the number of jihadist attacks is lower than the number of religional-separatists attacks for example, jihadists attacks are by far the bloodiest: 245 people have been killed in France since 2012. Moreover, the international extent of islamic terrorism, islamic networks & budget, are unparalleled compared to those of regional separatists. This does not prevent Alain Gabon from blaming primarily the « quasi apocalyptic rhetoric and “end-of-civilization-as-we-know-it” hysteria » around jihadism.
Alain Gabon gives a list of 6 reasons which would explain the “collective hysteria” :
a) “the enormous traumatic shock of 9/11, and more recently, of the two 2015 Paris attacks. Coupled with a lack of rational distance and perspective ». He explains that « there was nothing even remotely close to 9-11 before that tragic day and there has been nothing remotely close to it after, anywhere in the Western world ». He says that « just like 9-11, it is also unlikely that anything similar to November 13 will happen again anytime soon ». In fact, if we speak about two planes crashing into the Twin Towers that no longer exist, or about the attacks in the same parisian bars… those events are unlikely to happen again. But should we remind Alain Gabon about the Nice attacks that happened after his report ? All the foiled attacks in France ? All the attacks in Iraq, Syria, Indonesia, Bengladesh… ?
b) « the role and responsibility of the media and politicians (namely the two most influential and pervasive type of discourses), which relentlessly cultivate and nurture the memory of 9-11 (and now, in France, of Charlie Hebdo and November 13). These discourses in turn create and perpetuate through this “commemorationism” a distorted perception of terrorism among the general public and these media and political circles themselves, in a sort of self-intoxication »…
c) the fact that « Western media and the political class have for decades focused obsessively, furthermore through exclusively negative reporting [on Iraq, Syria, Yemen, the Iranian revolution] » and that « political conflicts such as the Syrian civil war are usually fallaciously presented as religious problems (like“shiite-sunni » conflict) »…
d) “the vested interest and calculations, including electoral calculations, of governments, who have (…) motivations for keeping their populations focused obsessively on the “Jihadist threat” through a politics of fear and anxiety in the best Orwellian tradition: it allows despotic regimes like Assad’s or al-Sisi’s in Egypt, whose own brand of state terror is even worse than that of Daesh, to present themselves as bulwarks against terrorism ». This would enable « governments to suppress dissent, for example through state of emergency », and to increase their « popularity », as « war-presidents ». In conclusion, « Daesh is proving to emphasizes be extremely useful to all ». In fact Alain Gabon is using the complotist false flag rhetoric, without naming it.
e) “the exclusive obsession with “Islamic” terrorism while the other, far more lethal forms of violence from domestic abuse to gun violence or right-wing terrorism remain largely unaddressed, [which] fits within old and deep racist and Islamophobic anti-Arab and anti-Muslim stereotypes ».
f) the fact that “the political and media treatment of terrorism systematically emphasise terrorism by Muslims while ignoring or at best minimising the other forms of terror, especially when committed by white, Christian, right-wing groups or individuals ». Alain Gabon blames the demonstrations of solidarity following the Charlie Hebdo’s attacks, which he compares with the demonstrations for the nine afro-americans killed by Dylan Roof.
Alain Gabon then presents Bachar Al-Assad or Saddam Hussein as “secular rulers”. He forgets to say that these two dictators never killed their people in the name of secularism, that Syria or Iraq have never been secular, and that there is no secular terrorist movement asking to support these two criminals. Nevertheless, he says that the fact that Al-Assad, Hussein or Al-Sissi, are not nominated as terrorist proves that we are not far from “Negationist Revisionism”.
Alain Gabon says that believing that “terrorism is a major threat to human life in Western societies is another huge fallacy ». It would even be « the smallest and least cause of mortality, violent or non-violent, of all ». The problem is that he compares terrorist attacks with domestic or road accidents, which are by definition, non-predictable… With cynism, he adds that cancer « can be a lot longer and more painful agony than sudden death or homicide ».
Alain Gabon speaks about “myths of islamic radicalisation”, because for him, radicalisation is subjective. He considers that salafist behaviour, such as refusing to shake women’s hands, can’t lead to jihadism. But he doesn’t suggest any word to describe this islamic radicality. He denounces Manuel Valls for his declaration : “the French Republic must combat not just Jihadist terrorism, but “[Islamic] conservatism and fundamentalism”, including « Muslim brotherhood, salafists and UOIF ». The signs of radicalisations described would be « paternalist », and the closing of three salafist mosques would be unjustified.
Finally, according to Alain Gabon, jihadism is a “minuscule phenomena”, and the problem concerns the media and government, working together to convince and frighten populations.
This post is also available in Français .
Who are the Benghazi defense brigades that threaten France
July 17, 2016 two (or three according to French authorities) French soldiers belonging most probably to the General Directorate for Internal Security (DGSE) agents are killed in Libya when the helicopter they were travelling aboard was shot down. A group known as the Benghazi Defense Brigades (BDB) claimed responsibility for the attack and posted images of a dead body it identified as a French soldier and pictures of the downed aircraft.
French president François Hollande confirmed on July 20th that three French soldiers were killed in Libya: “At this moment we are carrying out dangerous intelligence operations [in Libya]… three of our soldiers, who were involved in these operations, have been killed in a helicopter accident .
The same day, in retaliation for the death of its troops, France bombed several BDB targets killing a number of their militants and forcing the group to retreat west towards the city of Ajdabiya. BDB immediately issued a statement that was published on their news agency Boshra News threatening France that Libya will turn into a “graveyard for you as it was for your three soldiers”.
Few days later Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) issued a statement announcing its solidarity with BDB and calling for Libyans to fight against what it called the “oppressors ”. See please Annex.
Most of the French press related the event , Le Monde wrote an article about it  but none of them explained who the BDB are allied to. Only the English language press gave details of the links between the Benghazi Defense Brigades, Al Qaida and AQIM. The French press qualified them simply as fundamentalists.
According to August 2016 media reports, nearly 30-40 Malian and Algerian AQIM fighters have joined BDB in fighting against the Libyan National Army south of Adjdabiya. Since the establishment of the Benghazi Defense Brigades, dozens of Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb ( AQIM ) fighters have traveled to Libya to fight alongside BDB .
November 5th Saraya Media The official media outlet of Benghazi Revolutionaries Shura Council tweeted “ Two French soldiers killed while Benina Air Base was targeted with a number of grad rockets”
Who are the Benghazi Defense Brigades?
The BDB was established in June 2016 as a militia fighting with Al Qaida associated Benghazi Revolutionaries Shura Council, against the UN-recognized Government of National Accord and the Libyan National Army led by Gen Khalifa Hiftar. The Benghazi Revolutionaries Shura Council is a coalition of jihadist militias in Libya. One the members of the BRSC is Ansar Al Sharia. They were designated by the US government as a Foreign Terrorist Organization for their ties with Al Qaida and their role in the 2012 attack against the US compound in Benghazi . They are also thought to be ideologically closer to ISIL than Al Qaida . Even though they are allied with Al Qaida in some cities and with ISIS in others according to French jihadism expert David Thomson .
A former leader of Ansar Al Sharia Mohammad Al Zahawi was a leading figure in the Benghazi Revolutionaries Shura Council before his death in 2015 .
One of the commanders of the Benghazi Revolutionaries Council Ismail Sallabi is a founding member of the Benghazi Defense Brigades.
In an October 2016 interview, BDB commander Mustafa Sharkasi reaffirmed his group’s support for the Benghazi Revolutionaries Shura Council .
Qatar support for BDB leaders
Ismail Sallabi, a Benghazi-based militia leader, has been identified as “among the most prominent” BDB leaders. Sallabi was featured in the June 2016 video announcing the official formation of BDB, and has since been named in media reporting as a leader of BDB and other militant groups associated with Al Qaida in Libya.
Sallabi is a long time Islamist activist. Arrested and accused by the Qaddafi regime of working to topple the government he was released in 2004 with the help of Qatar. In the 1980s he fought in Afghanistan against Soviet forces and was a leader in the Al Qaida aligned Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which was sanctioned by the UN and the US government.
Following the 2011 uprising against the Qaddafi regime, Ismail Sallabi became a leader in the February 17thMartyrs Brigade and the Revolutionaries Companies Gathering. Both militias received Qatari aid and arms during the Libyan Revolution according to media reports.
In an interview with Reuters Ismail Sallabi confirmed that his forces received weapons from Qatar at the beginning of the Libyan revolution.
At the time they were also supported by western intelligence agencies to topple the Qaddafi regime probably before realizing that these Islamist groups had strong links with Al Qaida and AQIM.
In 2012 Libyan officials asked the US government to stop Qatar from sending money and arms to extremist militias in Libya, according to New York Times reporting. Former US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton urged the Obama administration to address “the Qatar problem” by arming opposition groups,” hoping that would persuade Qataris to stop sending weapons to extremist rebel factions”.
Most of Doha’s aid to the Libyan revolt has been guided by Qatar based cleric Ali Sallabi, brother of Ismail. Ali Sallabi is a key conduit of Qatari arms shipments to Libyan militias after the 2011 uprising. He maintained residence in Qatar where he remains active in coordinating political dialogues. He oversaw a conference in Doha of more than 80 Libyan individuals to discuss national reconciliation and political developments in Libya. According to Qatari media reporting, the government of Qatar hosted the conference  .
Ali Sallabi is also a member of the Board of Trustees of the International Union of Muslim Scholars a Doha Based organization led by Yusuf Qaradawi.
On July 23 2016 after the French airstrikes against Benghazi Defense Brigades targets, the International Union of Muslim Scholars published an article by the Grand Mufti of Libya, Sadiq Al Ghariani qualifying the attack as “a felony against the homeland in every sense of the word” .
Al Ghariani has been identified by BDB as the religious Marja (guide) of the group. He is also praised by AQIM who issued a statement of solidarity with BDB following July 2016 airstrike. AQIM called on Libyan revolutionaries to attack French forces and rally around Ulemas like Al Ghariani who they stated: “has championed knowledge in coming out with the truth in the face of Evil and its cohorts”.
In October 2014 Sadiq Al Ghariani was banned from the UK after reports revealed he was providing direct support to Libya Dawn’s takeover of Tripoli . He departed the UK for Qatar, before relocating to Turkey.
In 2012 social media showed a meeting between then Qatari Crown Prince Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani with radical cleric Sadiq Al-Ghariani .
Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) statement
“Truly, your steadfastness put the flagrant Western campaign and the French military intervention in Libya to shame when the young revolutionaries, the mujahideen of the Benghazi Defense Brigades, killed three French officers, whose death on Libyan soil the French government later recognized. These events have revealed the depths of the treachery of the foreign agent Hiftar, who kills the children of Derna and the elderly of Benghazi, on which he is waging a fierce war to exterminate all those who have anything to do with the revolution…
We call on the revolutionaries in Libya, and the Libyan people writ large to press on in their revolution against the oppressors. We call on them to rally around their ulema who speak the truth about the campaign of aggression against the identity and faith of the Muslim people. We also appreciate the courageous position of the learned Sheikh AlSadiq alGhariani, Allah preserve him, who championed knowledge in coming out with the truth in the face of Evil and its cohorts. We ask Allah to keep him and his brothers on the path of justice, and make them a bulwark for Shariah.”
The war against prevent – why the clichés persist
It is quite rare to read an article in which almost every sentence is untrue and every claim deeply flawed, let alone one written by a supposed academic and expert in the field. Unfortunately, this is exactly what I was treated to when I read this piece by Professor Tariq Ramadhan. In fact, the piece lends credence to the notion that some political and religious activists lodge themselves in academia merely to provide a veneer of credibility to their polemics, unsubstantiated as they are.
Tariq’s piece can actually be summarised into one sentence – ‘the government says that it is all about religion, but really it is all about Western foreign policy. Thus work with and support the groups I am a part of since only we have the solution’. However, he attempts to dress this simple statement up in language that could do with closer examination.
More on Quilliam Foundation.
Hamas offices back in Tunisia
Moussa Abu Marzouk, senior member of Hamas, declared in an interview to the tunisian channel Al Bilad that Hamas have just reopened its offices in Tunis with the blessing of the Tunisian authorities.
The Hamas offices were situated in Damascus until 2012 then splitted between Qatar and Turkey.
The Muslim Brotherhood palestinian militia has kept good relations with Ennahdha, the MB tunisian movement. The two groups follows Youssef Al Qaradawi guidance regarding Fatwas.
CCIF meeting in Tremblay Mosque
Following racist remarks about veiled women in a restaurant, Marwan Muhammad, leader of the CCIF launched a cyber-harassment campaign and organized a meeting at Tremblay Mosque.
His speech, broadcasted live, was a call to mobilize politically.
“Nobody has the right to tell us how we should dress, how we must fund mosques (…). And for that, we must mobilize politically. (…) Being able to send 1000 letters, mail 2000, 5000 calls to a politician if we consider his behavior as problematic. It is a political action. Political action in the noble sense of the term. (…) And in the entire range of political actions that are possible, whether voting or joining associations or the fact to mobilize and gather in place, I will choose the one with which I am in agreement and adequacy in line and consistent with my vision of society, with my values, my ethics. (…) the more we will be effective and will weigh politically more complicated it will be for elected officials to mistreat us and put us to the index. “
Clearly political, Marwan Muhammad, intervention falls under the 1905 Act.
Article 26 of Law of 9 December 1905 on the separation of Church and State is very clear.
“It is forbidden to hold political meetings on the premises normally used for the exercise of worship.”
Regarding racist, a judicial inquiry has been opened; it precisely determine the circumstances under which such statements were made and it will be for the judicial authority and of itself, to give it the appropriate action.Several steps are being taken for the holding of “a meeting in a place of worship.
Islamische Gemeinschaft Milli Görüs
The Islamic Community Milli Görus (IGMG) is the largest representation of Muslims of predominantly Turkish origin in Germany.
It works closely with the German Muslim Brotherhood leader Ibrahim El-Zayat whose sister is married to an important IGMG leader.
The prosecutors in Munich investigated officials of the IGMG for several years for collecting money for militant Islamist groups.
To go further
Middle East Eye
In theory, Middle East Eye is a success story.
Around 30 000 pages read daily. 329 000 English speaking fans on Facebook and 62 600 French speaking fans.
Twenty permanent staff in the London bureau.
A dozen freelancers in several countries.
Many are professionals and their careers give MEE a mantle of seriousness and professionalism. Heading the website is David Hearst. He is the Editor of Middle East Eye and was for a long period of time, senior international correspondent for the Guardian. He worked on the conflicts in Yugoslavia, Chechnya, Ireland and Russia.
In two years’ time, the websites became unavoidable. Online Media Awards named Middle East Eye’s Peter Oborne best freelance writer of the year for his report on the siege of Damascus.
However, what kind of journalism Middle East Eye does?
« The moment activists come through this door they become journalists » #presswashing
Many activists who write in the media sustain adamantly that they are journalists and therefore objective. When David Hearst declares that MEE staff writers come in as “activists” and come out as “journalists” he plays on this ambiguity. As if, human beings, who fight passionately for a cause or an ideology, can turn off their brain when they write.
Some contributors of Middle East Eye are politically engaged. Fortunately so.
However, alleging that they stop being activists the minute they start writing, is an insult to the intelligence of the readers and the contributors of Middle East Eye.
The bias of political Islam
Hanan Chehata is a regular contributor of the site. She does not hesitate to call secular people “secular fanatics”. She says of herself a hostage of two parts of the population. On one side, the seculars (Muslim and non-Muslim) that she does not hesitate to qualify as “secular fanatics”. On the other side, those who are more fundamentalists than she is who she calls “religious police.” Hanan Chehada says she is the happy medium between those two extremes, forgetting however that the vast majority of Muslims in the west (and even in a growing number of Muslim countries) are in favor of the separation between religion and politics and disagree with political Islam.
Basheer Nafi is in charge of research in Al Jazeera Center for Studies. He wrote several articles for Middle East Eye, in one of them he calls Rashed Ghannouchi to order.
“Ennahdah can change its speech, but not the reality of political Islam.
The relation between Ennahda and the Muslim Brothers is not the result of a conspiratorial missionary effort; it is purely a Tunisian choice. It is absolutely wrong to pretend today that Ennahdah was for many decades prisoner of an Islamic political identity it did not want.”
“The forces of the mainstream current in political Islam, led by the Muslim brothers, fought for about one century for the independence of their state. They struggled for people’s freedom and the instauration of a fair system of governance that expresses the will of the majority and safeguards their interests. When it had to face the despotism of Tunisian leader Habib Bourguiba, Ennahdah was not an exception. There is nothing shameful in this history that justifies its condemnation.”
« Fear and sensitivity should not push a political movement with such a long history of struggle and sacrifices to take hasty and sudden decisions.”
Independent….yes, from the Hollywood studios and its great granduncle maybe.
In the English section “about”, we can read, “Middle East Eye is an independently funded online news organization founded in February 2014”
What does « independently funded » mean? Independent of the big media groups? Independent of the Hollywood studios? Independent of American pension funds? The only way to try to see a bit more clearly is to ask for the legal documents handed by the company. We can read there that the director is Jamal Awami Jamal known as Jamal Bessasso. He is director of two companies with quasi-similar names: MEE limited and Middle East Eye limited.
Jamal Bessasso born in 1969 in Kuwait is a Dutch national of Palestinian origin who lives in Great Britain. He was formerly director of planning and human resources for Al-Jazeera. He was also director of Samalink TV in Lebanon, which broadcasts Al Quds TV, the station close to Hamas.
Jamal Bassasso also worked for a real estate company in Dubai with Anas Mekdad, another Palestinian linked to Al Islah the Emirati wing of the Muslim Brothers, which is banned today, and many of its members are serving prison sentences accused of attempting to overthrow the government. Anas Mekdad is the founder of the Islamist web forum AlMakeed that praised Hamas. A forum in which Bessasso contributes.
Asked by the Emirati daily The National, David Hearst the editor in chief of Middle East Eye categorically denied that Bessasso played any important role in Middle East Eye. At most he conceded that Jamal Bessasso was a ““a colleague and the head of human resources and the legal director”.
Why deny that he is also represents the anonymous owners of Middle East Eye? If he is not himself the owner. His name is the only one that appears on the official documents handed to the British administration.
The name of Jamal Bessasso is also the only one showing for the company Middle East Eye Limited that owns the website Middle East Eye.
Also in the category, “independence” we must underline this important industrial gift: the lending of a coach, Jonathan Powell, an Al Jazeera employee since 2009. He spent six months in London to create the website Middle East Eye.
Another coincidence probably, the person who registered the website Middle East Eye is Adlin Adnan. Incidentally, he is responsible of development policies at Interpal an organization based in Qatar and linked for a long time to the Union of Good of Youssef Al Qaradhawi.
A coincidence as well, probably, we find in the staff of MEE, Rori Donaghy director from 2012 to 2014 of the Emirates Center for Human Rights, a structure aimed to support the Muslim Brothers in the United Arab Emirates. Rori Donaghy admitted that this structure was created thanks to Anas Al Tikriti, head of the Cordoba Foundation and a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.
David Hearst published videos on internet in which he maintains he is politically and financially independent. However, he does not reveal the identities of those who make his financial set-up. To run a website of this size with spacious offices in central London, twenty permanent staff and tens of freelancers in various countries, let alone the cost of translation, you need more than 1.5 million pounds a year.