I was exchanging some words with a friend, after I had mentioned an article. He suggested that the article “could easily be Israeli propaganda to legitimize a new attack on Gaza.” I tried to explain that such information seemed contrary to Israeli interests — that if Israel wants to publish propaganda, it should write something that is more advantageous to itself –, that the newspaper that Haaretz used as a source was owned by a Saudi who has been accused of funding Hamas and seems quite unlikely to start publishing Israeli propaganda, and that the source that this latter paper used seemed credible and, if it was a lie, could easily have been denied by Hamas. Then the conversation became about whether Haaretz was trust-worthy. This lead me to write a letter that was much longer than our previous exchanges and is perhaps more suited to this website than through the medium we were using:

Haaretz is a well-respected Israeli newspaper which I have been reading for some time. I can tell you that, especially in contrast to other voices coming from Israel, it is favourable to Palestinian interests, though it does not, of course, neglect Israeli interests. Just read about Gideon Levy, who is an editor for Haaretz that regularly publishes pro-Palestinian articles. Haaretz does, however, publish a diversity of view points, so there will be one extreme with Gideon Levy, but also a variety of op-ed articles that speak in favour of Israel’s interests. To suggest that it is a mouthpiece for the Israeli government to publish propaganda, however, seems like no more than ignorance as to what the paper actually publishes.
Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

I was curious to understand the theological basis behind why Muslim countries often have a ban on alcohol and other drugs and why Muslims refrain themselves from drinking:

The entity who designed these verses seems to not have been opposed to consuming intoxicants as a whole, as he specified one condition under which people should not consume, clearly suggesting that this condition was one exception (perhaps amongst many, but an exception nonetheless) and thus that intoxicants are not forbidden as a whole. The same goes for the other acts which he imposes conditions upon: he does not say that people can not have sex, or defecate, but that there are conditions to be imposed on these acts.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text