back to article Palestinian hackers deface Jewish Chronicle

The Jewish Chronicle website was defaced over the weekend by hackers calling themselves the "Palestinian Mujaheeds" who posted a rant against Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip. Hackers posted an image of the Palestinian flag alongside diatribes against Israeli security policy in both English and Turkish. The hacked front page …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Silver badge
Joke

PFJ

Peoples' Front of Judea perhaps?

1
0
Joke

JPF

No no no no... The Judean Peoples' Front of course! Not those traitors of the PFJ!

0
0
Gold badge

Palestinian?

"...in both English and Turkish...."

How nice of them to translate for us and I wonder why they didn't also include their native Arabic? Unless of course they're not actually Palestinians at all, but just some sad little bunch of wankers hijacking someone else's cause to make it seem as if their pastime of figuratively spraying tags on the walls of the internet is something other than petty vandalism.

0
0
Silver badge
Unhappy

RE: Palestinian?

As well as the current wave of anti-semitism in Turkey, many Turkish muslims are annoyed that, despite the election of a popularist Islamic government, the Turkish military have remained steadfastly secular and friendly with Israel. They want the military to support the Islamic agenda as the military have been the protectors of Ataturk's legacy of a secular, modern Turkey, and they fear the military will step in and remove the government if it ever goes too far. This is just one of the protests going on as Ehud Barack is currently visiting Turkey as a guest of the Turkish military. As a company with offices in both Istanbul and Tel Aviv we get plenty of pro-Palestinian graffiti and petty vandalism at our Turkish premises and our staff there are on alert for other "Palestinians" during Barack's visit.

3
5
Anonymous Coward

huh

"they fear the military will step in and remove the government if it ever goes too far"

Or, as other people might describe it, the government carries out the policies for which it has a mandate - against the desire of the Turkish military to decide which political issues are and aren't allowed to be discussed.

2
1
Anonymous Coward

Turkey is an odd one on this

The army have already stepped in a few times in the past, but on each occasion to maintain the secular state and freedom of speech, as on each occasion the ruling party was trying to use their power to force the opposite.

There is legitimate concern outside of Turkey that the same may occur again as the Government are taking an ever increasingly shariah stance, plus a pro 'Islamic World' one. So far the military have behaved and I believe the present government are expect to lose at the next elections, which may also be helping keep the internal peace.

It's interesting to note that the army have a history of trying to avoid politics, and when they have gone in, free and fair elections are quick to follow. It's almost a legacy of Ataturk, where the army see themselves as the protectors of a secular nation with 'western' ideals.

1
1
Stop

History Fail

You, sir, display complete and utter ignorance of Turkish history. They have a constitutution that mandates that Turkey remain secular society. Once in a while an Islamist govt comes to power in Turkey and wants reforms to make Turkey more similar to Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia. On every previous occassion, the army has stepped in to PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION (which, btw, is the document that provides government with the mandate). Get off your high horse. Democracy has been used in middle ages to kill innocent people. Hitler's party was democratically elected. Learn some history before spouting BS about mandates.

2
1
Anonymous Coward

Was thart a reply to my reply or the original poster ?

If to my reply, then I think you misread what I had obviously poorly stated, if not, then I agree with your statement.

The second AC

0
0
Grenade

Re: Turkey is an odd one on this

Wished the UK army (and couple other armies of other EU nations) would do this too.

Grenade because, well, military

0
0
Silver badge

Sir

"as a result we will get more readers than ever before"

..who have been made more aware of the blockade I would hope.

I think they have learnt a few lessons from their past.

0
0
WTF?

By which you mean....

"I think they have learnt a few lessons from their past."

I would love for you to explain what exactly you mean by that.

1
0

title

Presumably Israel will respond proportionately.

If past form is anything to go by, an F16 or two could be heading to an internet cafe near you.

1
1
Paris Hilton

This Turkey definitely doesn't vote for Christmas

The Turkish government has moved the country towards the Iranian sphere of influence, which may be a move true to the ruling party's Islamist roots but is going to do nothing for those who see Turkey's future as EU membership, Westernisation and improvements to their human rights record. Their government can't have it both ways.

The military sees itself as the protector of the Kemalist constitution. It's a sign that Turkey (like Pakistan) is not a mature democracy when the military is required to keep the government in check, to uphold Western societal norms. The answer to this is to reform Turkish politics and society and then the military, not the other way round.

Paris, because the French recognise what could go wrong by allowing an increasingly Islamist Turkey (which allows Lebanese citizens, perhaps including Hezbollah, to cross the border freely) into the EU.

0
0
Bronze badge
Headmaster

Sir

I'm sure the Jews have learned more than a few lessons from their past. Lessons taught by Europeans. The question in my mind is, what have the Europeans learned?

/pedant

2
1
Bronze badge
IT Angle

IT angle?

Er. More to the point, for El Reg.

How did they get themselves hacked for F*** sake.

Someone left the key under the mat?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

ian 22

What do you mean? Isnt it weird that Israel is always depicted as the victim? Dont you know that by international law, a country under a hostile occupation has the right to protect itself with weapons? The government is liable and HAS to protect it's citizen (by law) against a foreign hostile army. Now, Israel is occupying 95% of Palestine since 1967 - against international law, and against UN resolutions - that commands Israel to stop the illegal occupation. So the question is, who is the agressor and who is the defender here? What does international law and supreme court in Haag say?

Isnt it funny, that all western media always writes:

Palestine: attack, provocation, terrorists, etc

Israel: counter attack, defense, retaliation, victim, etc

when in fact, the opposite is true (by Haag, and international Law)?

Small list of UN resolutions that Israel defies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel

How come USA always supports Israel? It is because of the Israel lobby aipac which is very strong in USA. According to 22year congressman Paul Findley, you are politically dead if you are not an Israel supporter. Read what the shocked reviewers say about his findings about aipac:

http://www.amazon.com/They-Dare-Speak-Out-Institutions/dp/155652482X/ref=sr%3Cu

Read what Nobel Prize winner and ex president Paul says about the Israeli lobby aipac:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-01-29/carter-on-iran/2/

"AIPAC is the dominant voice among the Israeli organizations in this country. And if you look at the purpose of AIPAC, it’s not to promote peace, it’s not to bring peace to Israel, it’s to promote and defend the policies of the incumbent government in Israel. And so they defend Israel. It’s politically impossible, as you know, for any member of Congress to make a public statement condemning or criticizing the policies of Israel. It would be political suicidal for them to do so. A lot of the members of Congress agree with me, some very high up in the Congress. But if they came out publically and said it, their seats would be in danger. "

George Bush (the entire family) is famous AIPAC supporter. As is Obama. Dick Cheney. Al Gore. Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton. etc. The entire White House is AIPAC supporters. Obama pretended to support AIPAC, as soon as he was elected he put pressure on Israel to stop the illegal house buildings on occupied land (against the Geneve convention), but AIPAC showed it's power and Obama is now silent. He tries not to put pressure on Israel anymore, he has learned his lesson. Read about AIPAC's power on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aipac

We will get peace in middle east, when AIPAC wants to. Not when USA wants to, because the congress does, what AIPAC commands. Google for AIPAC, and see more stories.

2
3
Anonymous Coward

@"palestine is the victim"

Isn't it weird that complaints against Israel always start from around 1948, not a couple of years earlier? Isn't it weird that complaints against Israel don't take into account the fact that Israel *DID NOT* invade Palestine?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_Palestine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine

It's not Israel you should be firing rockets at to get peace (yeah like that ever works, but you don't seem to be able to figure that out); it's the UN you should be firing rockets at. It's the UN that partitioned Palestine, not Israel that invaded Arab lands. Israel is not a hostile occupation, they are a people occupying the land that was given to them. The violence in the region is entirely due to their neighbours' continued refusal to accept this, even though the acceptance wasn't theirs to refuse.

If you wanted control over the land then shouldn't you have won WWI instead of letting the Ottomans capitulate?

"Partition Plan for Palestine ... was approved by a vote of 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions on November 29, 1947"

Or maybe you should have been more active in persuading more of the 33 to vote against the PPP. 33 for, 23 against (at best), shows a clear majority in favour even if you assume the abstentions are veiled "against's", and that's how democracy is supposed to work. Non-democratic rule favours the 10 definitely against over the 43 (at best, if you count the abstentions as veiled "for's") in favour.

My suggestion, for what it's worth, is that you accept the Plan and stop attacking Israel. Israel won't attack you if you're not attacking them (or at least will cease to have grounds to), and if they do then you can appeal to the UN who, believe it or not, DO recognise your rights to your own land and will help you defend that. At the moment you have no leg to stand on (and consequently no help from the UN) because of your continued violence towards Israel. Whether warranted or not, that violence is directly the cause of your lack of peace, and you're not going to get peace until you stop. The view of Palestine in the rest of the world is that you want to have your cake and eat it; you want peace, but you also want to attack Israel with impunity. Newsflash: peace means peace with Israel, as well as peace with everyone else.

Common sense would indicate you should stop attacking Israel too. They are well known for responding disproportionately. But you use their response as reason to attack again, apparently forgetting that their response was a response to a previous attack, and so the cycle continues. But even if you feel they started it (which they didn't - the UN did) you're not going to get peace until you stop. Maybe grow up and take one on the chin for a change; that's seen as a strength in the parts of the world that are capable of making a difference.

0
0
Grenade

I find this mind boggling.

Of all the arguments about Israel taking over Palestine which jews say they own per the rules of the Bible.

I have not seen any evidence of them taking back land from Judah.

Why is that? Because if they believe that Israel was CUT IN HALF after the despora then

I would have thought they want all Biblical land back and not just from Syria and Iraq.

Maybe perhaps they see their southern neighbor as being too strong so they will leave them alone until they are the last ones to fight?

USA is in Iraq to keep Iraq weak so neoconservatives(mainly christians) are happy to prepare the location to rebuild the Tower of Babel.

0
0
WTF?

To: Anonymous Coward @"palestine is the victim"

Common sense would indicate you should stop attacking Israel too. They are well known for responding disproportionately. But you use their response as reason to attack again, apparently forgetting that their response was a response to a previous attack, and so the cycle continues.

Your argument is wrong.

The palestinians were not the firs to attack to continue the cycle but Israel was.

This little slight of misinformation on your part was not genuine and has been noted ever since

Chomsky made note of their plight being attacked a day after a peace treaty was signed and then the latest most famous one being attacked inside a school when the ALL CLEAR was given on live TV that no hostiles were in or around the building and when they ushered the school student into the building ON LIVE TV they opened fire into the school building even though it was checked as safe and clear by Israeli troops then White phosphor at the same time was being dropped and then the UN building was hit when given days in advance not to hit the building.

The vanity and pride and swagger goes beyond sin when regarding the Israeli troops for their actions. War crimes indeed! I say execute them along with the USA army idiot who is that puppy tosser and that dude who opened fire at a check point when the people were cleared as safe and he shot them anyway.....

Yeah I watched those video before youtube pulled the.

Some people are so sick in the head.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums