They were insufficiently covered up for the station's liking, as the Daily Mail reports:
Five Al-Jazeera news presenters have walked out on the Middle Eastern news broadcaster after being accused of not dressing modestly enough.
The women claimed deputy editor-in-chief Ayman Jaballah made 'offensive remarks' about them, but an internal inquiry said the Qatar-based channel had the right to dictate how presenters dressed to demonstrate its 'spirit and principles'.
The five journalists are among the best-known faces in the region. They are Joumana Nammour, Lina Zahr al-Din, Jullinar Mousa, Luna al-Shibl and Nawfar Afli. They hail from Lebanon, Syria and Tunisia.
The women appeared on television wearing make-up and with their hair uncovered.
A source at Al-Jazeera said the conflict had escalated, with Mr Jaballah commenting repeatedly on the women's 'clothes and decency'.
Arab bloggers have thrown their support behind the women, with one claiming the TV station's management was 'attempting to impose one political and ideological' standpoint on its staff.
A staff journalist said: 'This collective resignation is not motivated just by the growing pressure on the presenters concerning their dress code, which was evoked by the media. The conflicts run much deeper.'..
No kidding. So much for A-J being all modern and Western-like. Just goes to show that the urge to turn back the clock and force women into the role sharia has assigned them can be awfully compelling, even for the most "modern" of Arabs.
Contentions' Noah Pollack argues that Israel's diplomacy paradigm has been an abject failure and it's time to try something new--something, in fact, Turkish:
...The model of hasbara, or public diplomacy, that Israel has employed for decades is premised on the persuasiveness of reason, evidence, context, truth, fairness, and apology. Anyone who has been following events in Israel over the past few years understands how profoundly this strategy has failed. For obvious historic reasons, many Jews have internalized the dangerous belief that the best way to respond to condemnation is to show how unthreatening and willing to criticize and investigate themselves they are. The problem is that not only doesn’t this work; it actually invites further attack by rewarding those who defame and incite against the Jewish state.
Israel’s hasbara strategy must shift to one that is based on power, self-confidence, and an eagerness to vigorously condemn its defamers. This is the difference between driving the debate and reacting to it, refuting lies and validating them, offense and defense, setting the agenda versus being on the agenda. If the Israelis wish to see a good model for how to set the terms of a controversy, they need only look at the Turkish prime minister’s brilliant performance this week.
Politico's Laura Rozen quotes the former SOTH:
There was a deliberate effort to create an unacceptable intrusion, which Turkey should’ve stopped. The Israelis have been very clear about sustaining a blockade of Gaza, and they have every right to sustain a blockade of Gaza. Hamas is actively every day trying to kill Israelis, and as a matter of international law, Turkey should not have allowed that flotilla to go down there.
The U.S., through the United Nations relief organization, has been funding food and shelter for the people of Gaza for 60 years now. There was no humanitarian crisis; this was a deliberate political effort on the part of people who want to try to undermine the survival of Israel.
Ms. P. casts a baleful glance at the flotilla ruckus:
So let’s get this right. Israel kills Islamic terrorists who are trying to lynch its soldiers by clubbing them to death, stabbing them with massive knives and firebombing them – and according to Sir Jeremy Greenstock, this shows that Israel must now start talking to Hamas, an Islamic terrorist organisation which is committed to the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews. In other words, when attacked by Islamists waging war on the free world, the correct response is to give in. This was of course the British response right from the start of Arab violence against Jews returning to the Land of Israel in the 1920s – a policy of appeasing terror and punishing its victims that the British continue to this day.
The only consequence of Sir Jeremy Greenstock’s profoundly stupid and craven comment is to strengthen Hamas and weaken not just Israel but all in the region who rightly fear it – such as Egypt. Egypt’s rightful fear of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood is why it maintains a true blockade of Gaza, refusing to allow through any humanitarian aid – unlike Israel, which lets through thousands of tons of aid every week. Yet Sir Jeremy Greenstock was strangely silent about this. Repeating the lie that Gaza was starving, he did not call upon Egypt to lift its blockade of Gaza, only Israel. Why the double standard, Sir Jeremy?...
I'm pretty sure that one's rhetorical, since Melanie of all people is well aware of the answer.
I wasn't going to look at the Toronto Star or the Globe and Mail when they arrived on my doorstep this morning; the thought of reading their reports on the flotilla raid made me queasy bordering on the full-out nauseated. By accident, though, I caught a peek of the Globe's front page. The article, by Israel-deplorer Patrick Martin, has this headline: AFTER DEADLY RAID, ISRAEL STANDS ALONE
That disgusting assertion compelled me to respond. Here's my letter:
You’re wrong, Mr. Martin. Israel does not stand alone. Despite the hyped up response to the flotilla raid; despite the disproportionate response whenever Israel, pushed to the wall, takes action to defend itself; despite the overwrought handwringing in Europe and the Arab world, places that have succumbed to Zionhass, the Jew-hate of our age, and loathe Israel not for what it does but for what it is (Jewish); despite all that there are still many millions of people who cherish freedom and democracy, values which Israel resolutely stands for in the face of a concerted, existential threat from those who despise those values, and who seek to expunge them--and Israel, first in their line of fire--from the world.
“Israel stands alone”? No. Never.
Palestine House, the government-funded eliminationist outfit that has as its logo the map of the Jewish state with the Palestinian bits thrown in for good measure, urges you to join its ranks if you want
To Connect to the larger Palestinian and Arab Community in the GTA and Canada;
To help raise awareness about Palestinian culture, raise the Palestinian voice, and defend the rights of Palestinians in Canada and abroad in solidarity with the Palestinian liberation movement.
To access Palestine House services and space (special functions, weddings, etc..);
To broaden your social and professional network for social and economic partnership and support;
To help prepare a new generation of Palestinians and Arabs to face the challenges of their future;
To be part of Palestine House’s many activities
But, really, the best thing about joining Palestine House is that you get to gather with your landsmen and hoist your true colours--including outlawed Hezbo flags--and rant 'n' rave 'n' hoot 'n' holler about the wicked, perncious Joooish State. (h/t LGF)
In the words of the Mastercard ad, that's "priceless".
No need to go deep uncover and ferret out basement Nazis hiding online. Gossip gal Lainey has found a gen-U-wine Third Reich aficionada and interviewed her right in plain sight, on the tube. Here's Lainey's exchange (as quoted by the National Post's Shinan Govani) with Michelle "Bombshell" McGee, the skank with the tits 'n' tats currently exulting in her few minutes of fame for the part she played in torpedoeing a famous Hollywood marriage:
Lainey: You don't believe wearing a Nazi costume indicates racism?
McGee: No, not racism. Anti-Semitism? Yes. If that was the intention of putting the costume on.
Lainey: Anti-Semitism is prejudice against Jews, which is actually racism.
McGee: Oh, OK, well that's your view on that. I don't see it that way.
What a charmer. And so classy, too. Lucky for her she's American, or else the full force of force of Canada's "human rights"/hate crime laws--which don't much cotton to Nazis--would come crashing down on her. (Now, if you happen to be a vocal Islamic Jew-loather--well, habibi, that's another story.)
J--is for a war that is generally "just".
I--is for "Islam," a faith you can trust.
H--is for "Hussein," a middle name
(But let's fuggetaboutit).
A--is for "action"--Dubya's--
And how we should all still be upsetaboutit.
D--is for "dhimmi," but mostly for "Dar al Islam,"
Which we've been forgettin'.
And my name is John, and I am a cretin.
Israeli soldiers board a ship full of jihadis and their useful idiots, are overwhelmed by the "peaceniks," and are forced to fight back and defend themselves. During the course of which, several flotilla passangers are killed. The result: Hysteria! Shock! Anguish! Horror! Or horreur, as they say in France, the country whose leader has decried Israel for--guess what--its "disproportionate" response.
Ah, yes, the "d" word again, the one they haul out whenever Israel feels compelled to take action and defend itself; the word that is used specifically and unreservedly for Israel alone. So when unmaned American drones bomb the bejeezus out of civilians--that's not disproportionate. Ditto for the jihadis who cold-bloodedly murder scores of their fellow Muslims who are saying their prayers at two Lahore mosques. And while a Hamas bigwig getting iced in Dubai touches off a veritable frenzy, a Taliban mucky-muck getting his (and his family--collarteral damage--meeting their maker at the same time) elicits crickets.
There is an appropriate use for the "d" word, of course. The hysterical reaction/collective freak-out/overwrought hand-wringing of those in Europe and the Muslim world who are predisposed to loathe Israel not for what it does but for what it is (i.e. Jewish) and what it isn't (i.e. Muslim): now that's disproportionate!
Gaza aid flotilla attack: UN calls for impartial inquiry
I hear Judge Goldstone has some free time. He might be willing to do the deed. ;)
