Israeli talk show personality and socialite wife of Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom has called for escalated bombing of Gaza and for the “passive residents” to be made to “suffer.”
Judy Nir Mozes Shalom, wrote on her Facebook page in Hebrew on Saturday:
I hope that at tomorrow’s cabinet meeting a decision will be accepted to enter Gaza and kill all those responsible for the nightmare that is happening in the south. It’s time even for the passive residents of Gaza to suffer the way the residents of the south are suffering.
Since Friday, Israeli bombing has killed more than 20 people in Gaza and injured dozens more, following an Israeli extrajudicial execution on Friday that set off retaliatory rocket fire by Palestinian armed groups. No Israelis have been killed. Today, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on “both sides – all sides – to make every effort to restore calm.”
Nir Mozes Shalom’s Facebook post is followed by dozens of other comments by users, many of which support her violent sentiments.
The celebrity also used her Twitter account to incite bombing and violence against civilians in Gaza, and when some people objected she responded, “I forgive those who hate themselves and respond against my tweet to attack Gaza. Keep sunbathing. Perhaps if Gazans get hurt in their home they will eventually take action against the killers.”
But even that wasn’t enough for some of her followers. Inbal Shalit, for example, responded, “We don’t need to attack Gaza, we need to spray and destroy Gaza!!!! The sooner the better.”
(see site for map http://www.representativepress.org/IsraelHistory.html)
|In practice, Zionists did not accept the UN Partition Plan. Zionists seized areas beyond the proposed Jewish State and did not recognize the International Zone. Using force and terrorism months before May 1948, Jews seized land beyond the UN proposed borders. The UN Plan was used as a pretense for taking over most of Palestine.NOTE: This is a critical fact often omitted when the history is presented and this leads to a very distorted view of what happened in 1948. The misleading story often told is that “Jews declared Israel and then they were attacked.” The fact is from November 1947 to May 1948 the Zionists were already on the offensive and had already attacked Arabs. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had driven 300,000 non-Jews off their land. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had seized land beyond the proposed Jewish State. SEE Sources or this blog entry: Sources for the Israeli/Palestinian situation 1947-1948
It is the Zionists that pushed for the radical idea that the land be divided up so that a “pure” racially established state of Jews could be established. They didn’t want to live as equal citizens as is expected of all religions in America. But the division was only considered temporary by them since their goal was and is to take over all of Palestine.
The key Zionists had no intention of accepting that UN partition, a recommendation to chop up Palestine into 7 parts. 67% of the population didn’t what that done. In 1938 Ben-Gurion said to other Zionists, “after we become a strong force, as the result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.” Sure enough, after the creation of the state in 1948, Menachem Begin made clear how serious the “Jews accepting the UN partition” was in reality, “The partition of the Homeland is illegal . It will never be recognized.The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever“.
“A partial Jewish state is not the end, but only the beginning … I am certain that we will not be prevented from settling in the other parts of the country, either by mutual agreement with our Arab neighbors <i>or by some other means…[If the Arabs refuse] <i>we shall have to speak to them in a different language. But we shall only have another language if we have a state.” p162 Fateful Triangle The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians
“The Zionists were by far the more powerful and better organized force, and by May 1948, when the state of Israel was formally established, about 300,000 Palestinians already had been expelled from their homes or had fled the fighting, and the Zionists controlled a region well beyond the area of the original Jewish state that had been proposed by the UN. Now it’s then that Israel was attacked by its neighbors – in May 1948; it’s then, after the Zionists had taken control of this much larger part of the region and hundreds of thousands of civilians had been forced out, not before.” p132 Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky
The fact that the rights of the majority, 67% of the population, were violated is suppressed in the media. Why in the world would you think it is legitimate for 33% of a population to seize land and carve up the land into 7 parts? Why in the world should 67% of a population ever accept that? These population stats, which highlight just how undemocratic the UN proposal really was, are almost never mentioned in US media.
The 1947 proposal was not the first land division scheme, the Peel Commission suggested a partition plan in 1937. Also if you look into it, the Zionists had no intention of accepting any fair partition. As Ben-Gurion himself said in 1937, “No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of Eretz Israel.” (see p162 Fateful Triangle The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians)
The May 1948 unilateral declaration was by less than 33% of the population who were imposing their will on 67% of the non-Jews. In Nov 1947 the UN made a recommendation for a three-way partition of Palestine into a Jewish State, an Arab State and a small internationally administered zone that would have included Jerusalem. This was a recommendation by the UN General Assembly and General Assembly recommendations have no force, they are only recommendations. In fact Israel is the greatest rejecter of General Assembly resolutions by the way. When the recommendation was made, war broke out between the Palestinians and the Zionists who had been planning on taking over and before the end of the war they had amassed much more arms. By May 1948, when the Jews (33%) unilaterally declared “the state of Israel”, 300,000 Palestinians had already been ethnically cleansed (forced from their homes or had fled the fighting) by the Zionists and the Zionists had stolen a region well beyond the area of the original Jewish State that was proposed by the UN. Then, after the Zionists had taken control of this much larger part of the region and hundreds of thousands of civilians had been forced out, “Israel” was attacked by its neighbors.
In 1967 the Jews attacked and took over the remaining part of Palestine with the intention of keeping it. All through the supposed “peace process” they have been illegally building on the occupied territories.
<< Terrorism by Jews can’t be discounted. >>
These Jewish terrorists are subsidized (living on land illegally and in violation of the Geneva Convention and are not pursued by “the law” the same way other terrorists are) and they are ON TOP of the violence, the maiming and killing of thousands, against the Palestinians. The Israeli military have been targeting children and maiming them for life. Dramatic examples of other crimes go UNREPORTED or UNDERREPORTED here in America.
A Jewish State covering 56.47% of Mandatory Palestine (excluding Jerusalem) with a population of 498,000 Jews and 325,000 Arabs;
* An Arab State covering 43.53% of Mandatory Palestine (excluding Jerusalem), with 807,000 Arab inhabitants and 10,000 Jewish inhabitants;
* An international trusteeship regime in Jerusalem, where the population was 100,000 Jews and 105,000 Arabs.
The partition plan also laid down:
* A guarantee of the rights of minorities and religious rights, including free access to and the preservation of Holy Places;
* A constitution of an Economic Union between the two states: custom union, joint monetary system, joint administration of main services, equal access to water and energy resources.
Alex Awad speaks at the Christ at the Checkpoint conference.
“Christ at the Checkpoint: Hope in the Midst of Conflict” was a five-day event organized by Bethlehem Bible College earlier this month. Christian theologians, academics and church leaders were invited to meet with the local Palestinian church and challenge the Christian Zionist influence within the evangelical movement.
The conference attracted major speakers both from within the Palestinian Christian community as well as international evangelicals, including Tony Campolo, Gary Burge, Stephen Sizer, John Ortberg and Shane Claiborne. Messianic Jewish speakers were also invited.
“This is a conference about sitting down together, Christians, Muslims, whoever comes, discussing theology, in this environment of occupation,” Alex Awad of Bethlehem Bible College told The Electronic Intifada. “We want people to come, see the wall, see the checkpoints, see the reality on the ground, and then open the Bible.”
“The bottom line is the reality of God and his goodness, and the reality of this occupation. Because as Palestinian Christians we face this every day,” Awad added. “We go to church and we learn God is good, but to get to our church we have to go through a checkpoint. How do we figure the goodness of God with the harsh realities on the ground? That is what the conference is all about.”
Empowering the Palestinian church
According to the Christ at the Checkpoint website, its main aims were to empower the Palestinian church, expose injustice in Palestine and to motivate participants to engage in reconciliation.
Topics ranged from the role of Palestinian women in ministry, to the theology of the land and biblical principles of justice and nonviolence. One of the most prominent themes, however, was using the Bible to challenge the theology of Christian Zionism, a theme which proved unpopular in Christian Zionist circles.
The aim that proved most controversial, however, was the conference’s desire to “create a platform for serious engagement with Christian Zionism.” A series of attacks ensued from the Christian Zionist community, including campaigns to intimidate speakers into withdrawing from the conference.
Challenging Christian Zionism
The conference included seminars and talks which outlined why, from an evangelical Christian perspective, Christian Zionism has dangerously misinterpreted the Bible. An entire day of the conference was devoted to engaging with Christian Zionism, including a seminar by Rev. Stephen Sizer, author of Zion’s Christian Soldiers, entitled “Seven Biblical Answers to Popular Zionist Assumptions.”
“Christian Zionism can be defined as Christian support for Zionism,” said Sizer in an interview with The Electronic Intifada. “They simply believe that promises God made to Abraham and the Jewish people in Hebrew Bible are in some sense being fulfilled today, or are about to be fulfilled.”
“Therefore as Christians our responsibility is to support what God is doing among the Jewish people today and so taints our political agenda,” Sizer continued. “But there really is no place for the Palestinians within a Christian Zionist theology, other than as the servants, or the hewers of wood and the carriers of water.”
“The particularism and the exclusivism of Christian Zionism is actually a misreading of the Bible,” he added. “When you turn your theology into a political agenda which denies the human rights of other people because they’re not Jews, for me that’s where it crosses a line.”
For many Palestinian Christians, the Christian Zionist theology leaves no room for the presence of an indigenous church in the Holy Land, and fails to address the suffering of the Palestinian people as a whole.
“Christian Zionism, in my opinion, has ignored us Palestinian Christians at best, [and] demonized us at worst,” said Munther Isaac, conference director, in his talk at the conference entitled “A Palestinian Christian Perspective.”
“Whenever they speak about prophesy and Israel, it’s as if Palestinians don’t exist. We are not mentioned in the books, in the films, in the theology conferences,” he added.
“For too long there has been only one narrative,” Isaac said. “The Palestinian narrative is there and is challenging the narrative which has dominated for too long. They can no longer ignore the Palestinian voice.”
The aims of the Christ at the Checkpoint conference did not go unnoticed. For months before the conference, Christian Zionists and Israeli Messianic Jews waged a campaign against the conference and its organizers, labeling them “anti-Semitic” in an attempt to have the conference canceled.
“You wouldn’t believe the negative stuff that was written about us — sometimes [it] was nasty, some was personal,” said Isaac. “Major Christian media stations have spread lies about Bethlehem Bible College, just because of this conference. I never expected it to get this nasty and this personal.”
These critics suggested the conference was one-sided, biased and anti-Semitic, and speakers were attacked individually and accused of being anti-Jewish and anti-Israel. One op-ed in The Huffington Post even asserted that Stephen Sizer had “joined hands with the Iranian regime” (“Christ at the Checkpoint Conference will only breed more Theological Extremism,” 9 November 2011).
Meanwhile, Guilio Meotti wrote in an op-ed for Israeli online publication Ynet, “Their Intifada from Heaven is breathing new life into a kind of demonology that bans Israel from the family of nations,” (“Christians who Hate the Jews,” 19 February 2012).
The attacks intensified in the days leading up to the conference, culminating in a hysterical treatise in The Jerusalem Post which equated the conference with Haman’s genocide plot against the Jews in the Old Testament (“This Bethlehem Conference is no Purimshpiel,” 29 February 2012).
As well as attacking the conference aims and individual speakers, critics were also unhappy both with the choice of the name, “Christ at the Checkpoint,” and the logo, which depicted a church surrounded by Israel’s wall, an image based on a photo of a church in Bethlehem. Some conference organizers were even targeted by the Israeli authorities.
“The Israeli officials and military leaders summoned me and Dr. Bishara [Awad, founder of Bethlehem Bible College] to interview about the conference,” said Isaac. “They tried to intimidate us and protested the logo and the name of the conference. We said, ‘you don’t like the wall and checkpoint? Remove them, then we’ll change the name of the conference.’”
Christ at the Checkpoint organizers responded to these attacks both personally, by writing to their critics, and publicly, by publishing statements on their website.
“[To] everyone who criticized us, we sent a personal email and said please come to the conference, and then make your judgements,” added Isaac. “In a lot of cases there was no credibility in the attacks, because they were based on the wrong information.”
“It is not fair for one to assume that any criticism of Israel should be considered an act of demonization,” stated Isaac and Awad on the conference website. “In reality, many of these attacks are made by extreme fundamentalist groups or writers who do not have any tolerance for a view that differs from their own. For these writers, any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism … If any demonization is taking place, it is the demonization of all Palestinians and Arabs” (“An important message from Christ at the Checkpoint”, 25 January 2012).
For most speakers, the attacks suggested that Christian Zionists were unhappy with any challenge to their theology, particularly from within the evangelical community. According to Stephen Sizer, Christians Zionists often attempt to intimidate or isolate any Christian who publicly disagrees with them.
“Many ministers I know share the views I hold but they won’t talk about it, because when they do they get hit over the head,” he said. “So intimidation often works.”
But while some are intimidated, others remain resolute.
“This is the first time within the evangelical movement there’s been an uprising against Christian Zionism,” Awad explained. “And these people don’t want an uprising, especially because it is a civil uprising. We are evangelicals, and we are revolting against Christian Zionism from within the evangelical church … this is the first time that Palestinians [are speaking] to them loudly.”
Influencing the evangelical church
For many years, the Christian Zionist narrative has dominated evangelical Christianity, particularly in the United States. Prominent figures and pastors such as John Hagee and Pat Robertson have circulated the belief that the modern state of Israel is fulfillment of biblical prophecy and part of God’s divine plan for humankind.
Though Christian Zionism is still very much a mainstream theology, this conference, which describes itself as a “major breakthrough,” shows that there is a growing number of Christian academics and pastors, both within Palestine and worldwide, who are willing to challenge Christian Zionist doctrines and support a biblical understanding of the Middle East based on principles of justice and care for the oppressed.
“Because we are evangelicals, when we come up with a conference to question the basics of Christian Zionism it really angers them,” said Awad. “That article in The Jerusalem Postsaid one statement that made me very proud. It said that this conference has the possibility of changing the evangelical movement. Well if our conference can do that, hallelujah!”
For Sizer, Christian Zionism isn’t the first historical example of Christians confusing theology with politics in order to oppress others. “The Bible has been misused by every colonial system,” he said.
“The Spanish used the church to suppress the Incas and the other people in Latin America, the British used the Bible to justify the colonisation of East Africa and Asia. In South Africathe Dutch Reform Church used the Bible to justify why the blacks were inferior to the whites.”
“We’ve used the paradigms of the Bible to justify mistreating other peoples that we could denigrate or dehumanize them … My message to the Christian community is to say Jesus has called us to treat everyone with dignity and respect.”
According to Isaac, many Christian Zionists tend to ignore the suffering of the Palestinians as it presents a problem to their theology. “One of the most typical and common reactions we hear from many Christian Zionists when they are asked about the situation of Palestinians, you know what they say? They say it’s ‘unfortunate,’” he said.
“People look at the conflict, the death, the refugees, the wall, the humiliation. Tourists pass by the checkpoint and the refugee camps into the Nativity Church, they look at the wall, and all they can say is ‘it’s unfortunate.’”
“No, it’s not unfortunate, that’s the wrong word,” Isaac added. “If you spill a cup of coffee, that’s ‘unfortunate.’ People victimize us in the name of God and the Bible; that is not ‘unfortunate.’ It makes me wonder whether we as evangelicals have lost our conscience. How have we become so apathetic to the suffering people of the world?”
“In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the people who passed by the wounded person were religious people. Maybe they passed by the person and said, ‘it’s unfortunate.’”
(electronicintifada.net / 13.03.2012)
At least 27 more Palestinians, including nine children, were injured in the latest round of Israeli aerial attacks against Gaza during the late hours of Sunday. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu boasted on Sunday the Tel Aviv regime will continue airstrikes against Gaza “as long as necessary.” Majali added that the Israeli regime “keeps using its security fears as pretext to kill Palestinians in Gaza. This does not fool anyone anymore.”
Jordan “holds Israel responsible for the outcome of this escalation in Gaza,” according to the Jordanian government statement. “The Israeli government must immediately stop its attacks on Palestinians,” added the statement.
(www.europeanphoenix.com / 13.03.2012)
by JAMES ABOUREZK
Bibi Netanyahu’s experience with the United States government—all Israeli governments—has been one of continuous shakedowns over the years. Actually, Bibi didn’t start the habit of milking the American treasury. That started a few decades ago when in the 1970s, Israel’s Prime Minister, Menachem Begin and Egypt’s President Anwar Sadat finally signed a truce after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war in which Israel captured the Sinai desert. It was returned by Israel to Egypt after the United States, represented by Henry Kissinger, promised to dump a lot of weapons from America onto Israel’s Army.
During the Sinai negotiations, Kissinger signed a separate top secret Memorandum of Understanding that promised almost everything we had in our arsenal to Israel in return for handing back the Sinai to Egypt, as well as releasing the thousands of Egyptian prisoners of war it had captured. He promised to Israel a level of annual aid of $2 billion over the ensuing five years, allowing Israel to maintain its occupation of the West Bank, which itself was against U.S. policy. He committed America to be responsive to Israel’s defense and economic needs. The US would continue to offer both economic and military aid into the unknown future.
Kissinger also promised to provide Pershing missiles—manufactured for the delivery of nuclear warheads. This would have worked had it not been for a column published by Jack Anderson, who exposed this volatile gift to Israel. The ensuing publicity by Anderson and the Washington Post actually killed that part of the deal.
But it was a bonanza for Israel at virtually no cost to it for the trade.
With this precedent in mind, Netanyahu came to Washington this month following his year-long publicity campaign wherein he continually threatened to attack Iran, that is, unless America wanted to do so. That’s when the next chapter of Israel’s shakedown was written.
Because Obama could not afford an Israeli attack on Iran during his re-election campaign, he was low hanging fruit, ripe for picking. Had Israel gone ahead with a bombing campaign on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Iran’s retaliation would surely cause world oil prices to go even higher than the current rumors of war have driven them, and would likely draw attacks on U.S. interests anywhere in the world.
To illustrate that “no good deed goes unpunished” so far as Israel is concerned, after the tens of billions of dollars American taxpayers have involuntarily handed over to Israel, that was not enough for Bibi. He saw the opportunity for a world class shake down of America by threatening Obama with another Middle East war, and it worked.
Obama was helpless in this contest. With the US’s fragile economic recovery moving at a snail’s pace, any spike in oil prices would almost certainly drive Obama from office and would elect either the shape-shifting Mitt Romney, or the unbalanced Rick Santorum as our new president. (I’ve deliberately omitted any threat of being elected by the war-like Newt Gingrich, as both he and his threat have significantly diminished as even Republican voters have found him too extreme for their freaky tastes. I’m thinking of the Republicans’ enthusiastic applause when Rick Perry would brag about executing 235 prisoners, or when another would allow a sick person without health insurance to die, or when most of them promised to bomb Iran).
Obama probably reflected the fears of all the rest of us that neither a souring economy nor the election of one of the Republican candidates for President would be good for the people of America.
Understanding Obama’s perilous situation, Bibi decided that now was the time to strike. He spoke at the AIPAC convention in Washington—the lead group in America lobbying for an American attack on Iran—and in his private meeting with Obama he surely warned Obama that if America would not start a war, Israel would. Bibi well understood that Obama could not afford another Middle East War, thus, the pay-off was surely in the offing.
That was the point when Obama reportedly offered Bibi a massive bribe of American taxpayers’ money to wait until after the election this fall. And that was when Bibi’s ongoing near panic about Iran’s nuclear threat suddenly disappeared, resulting in the exchange of money and weapons by Obama, for a temporary peace by Bibi, who agreed now that his attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could wait.
All this was good for Israel, but was it good for America? Only if it keeps the Republican primary sideshow from becoming a reality show.
(www.counterpunch.org / 13.03.2012)
AL-KHALIL, (PIC)– Jewish settlers uprooted and stole 250 olive saplings in Sa’eer village in Al-Khalil province on Tuesday, local sources said.
The land research center in Al-Khalil said in a press release that the settlers robbed the olive and almond seedlings in Seer area to the east of the village.
The center quoted Mohammed Shalalde, one of the land owners, as saying that the settlers uprooted all 250 seedlings, which were planted only last Thursday, in addition to 150 others, which the Israeli occupation forces had forced them to leave on the land.
(occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com / 13.03.2012)
Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood said on Tuesday it recognized its demand to sack Prime Minister Kamal al-Ganzouri’s cabinet is unlikely to be heeded by the ruling generals but that it did not want a standoff with the army, toning down tough talk by some of its MPs.
The Brotherhood is the biggest bloc in parliament which this week voted to begin steps to withdraw confidence from the army-appointed cabinet, a move that would take Egypt into uncharted political waters shortly before the military is due to relinquish power. The army says it will hand over to a new president by July 1.
The Islamist Brotherhood has been calling on the ruling military council to appoint a new government representing the make-up of a new parliament that was elected in Egypt’s most democratic election in six decades.
But on Tuesday, it appeared to recognize its demands were likely to be ignored and that there was so little time left before the planned handover of power that it was not worth making a major issue of the cabinet’s makeup.
“The matter is in the hands of the military council and it seems the military council does not want to sack this government,” Mahmoud Ghozlan, spokesman for the Brotherhood, said in an interview.
Under Egypt’s interim constitution, parliament does not have the power to sack a government, something Ghozlan said he recognized. Only the military council that has been governing since Hosni Mubarak was toppled by a popular uprising a year ago has the power to do that.
“We will not take matters to the stage of confrontation. We respect the constitution,” he said.
Asked what would happen if a planned vote of no confidence in Ganzouri was ignored by the military council, he said he did not think it would create political tension. “I do not think so because the remaining period is short,” he said.
“There are many problems in Egypt which will not bear tension and confrontation or anything like this, and from the start of the revolution we have avoided confrontation with the military council and any other party.”
ATTEMPT TO END TENSION
The Nour Party, the more hardline Islamist group that came second to the Brotherhood in the parliamentary election, said it opposed withdrawing confidence from the Ganzouri government, though a spokesman described the current cabinet as a failure.
“It is not the right time,” said Yousry Hammad, the spokesman. He said Egypt needed stability so a new constitution could be drafted and presidential elections could go ahead.
Analysts say changing the cabinet now could also complicate negotiations with the International Monetary Fund over a $3.2 billion loan the government of Prime Minister Kamal al-Ganzouri is seeking to stave off a looming financial crisis after more than a year of political and economic turmoil.
State media reported on Tuesday that the head of the ruling military council had contacted parliament and Ganzouri in an attempt to end the tension.
Parliament’s criticism of Ganzouri has focused on issues such as security lapses that contributed to a February 1 soccer stadium disaster in Port Said, Egypt’s economic problems, and, most recently, the authorities’ decision to lift a travel ban on U.S. citizens charged in a probe into civil society groups.
Under Mubarak, parliament was little more than a rubber stamp for government decisions. The more assertive role played by parliament since the legislative election is one measure of change in Egypt since Mubarak was ousted.
Parliament has yet to say when it will hold its no-confidence vote in the Ganzouri government.
(www.reuters.com / 13.03.2012)
De man die gisteravond de Rida-moskee in de Brusselse gemeente Anderlecht in de brand stak, had politieke motieven. Dat maakte het Brussels parket vanavond bekend. Bij de brand kwam de imam om leven, twee anderen raakten gezond.
De man, van wie de identiteit nog niet met zekerheid is vastgesteld, wilde angst aanjagen bij die mensen die volgens hem verantwoordelijk zijn voor het geweld in Syrië. De woordvoerder van het parket liet daarnaast weten dat de man vermoedelijk een Marokkaan is. Ook zou de man wel in België wonen, maar hij wil niet zeggen waar.
De aanslag heeft veel stof doen opwaaien in België.
Afkeuring over de daad kwam er van alle kanten. Politici zoals burgemeester Gaëtan Van Goidsenhoven van Anderlecht en minister van Binnenlandse zaken Joëlle Milquet zeiden geschokt te zijn en hoopten dat dit een op zichzelf staande daad was. Verscheidene moslimorganisaties riepen op tot kalmte. Christelijke organisatie spraken van een laffe daad en betuigden hun medeleven.
De sjiitische moskee in de Brusselse gemeente Anderlecht, op een steenworp van het grote treinstation Brussel-Zuid, was enkele jaren eerder ook het slachtoffer van bedreigingen van de kant van soennieten.
De man zwaaide gisteravond met een mes en stak daarna een fles gevuld met benzine aan. Het vuur greep in de moskee om zich heen. De meeste aanwezigen, een tiental, wisten te ontkomen, maar de imam, die het vuur probeerde te doven, stikte door de rook. De 46-jarige Abdallah Dadou laat een vrouw en vier kinderen achter. Twee anderen, onder wie de beheerder van het gebedshuis, raakten gewond.
(www.parool.nl / 13.03.2012)