Premio Internacional Periodismo Y Periodismo Migrante*📃
La Información Directa a tu Celular 📲 de HOY *Miércoles 25 de Octubre 2023* *En El Plano Nacional e Internacional*:
*Ahora también ya estamos en la redes y síguenos a través de nuestros siguientes medios:*
– *TikTok*: https://www.tiktok.com/@federicolamontoficial?_t=8fbL5yfdiiM&_r=1
*YouTube:* https://www.youtube.com/@FedericoLamontTv
*Instagram:* https://instagram.com/federicolamontoficial?utm_source=qr&igshid=ZDc4ODBmNjlmNQ%3D%3D
*Twitter:* https://twitter.com/federicolamont_?t=1JFGx2rnaadYGDPKxR_jpA&s=09
*Colaboración Especial En:* http://MexicoTodayUSA.com
*A Close Look at Some Key Evidence in the Gaza Hospital Blast*
A widely cited missile video does not shed light on what happened, a Times analysis concludes.
The video shows a projectile streaking through the darkened skies over Gaza and exploding in the air. Seconds later, another explosion is seen on the ground.
The footage has become a widely cited piece of evidence as Israeli and American officials have made the case that an errant Palestinian rocket malfunctioned in the sky, fell to the ground and caused a deadly explosion at Al-Ahli Arab hospital in Gaza City.
But a detailed visual analysis by The New York Times concludes that the video clip — taken from an Al Jazeera television camera livestreaming on the night of Oct. 17 — shows something else. The missile seen in the video is most likely not what caused the explosion at the hospital. It actually detonated in the sky roughly two miles away, The Times found, and is an unrelated aspect of the fighting that unfolded over the Israeli-Gaza border that night.
The Times’s finding does not answer what actually did cause the Al-Ahli Arab hospital blast, or who is responsible. The contention by Israeli and American intelligence agencies that a failed Palestinian rocket launch is to blame remains plausible. But the Times analysis does cast doubt on one of the most-publicized pieces of evidence that Israeli officials have used to make their case and complicates the straightforward narrative they have put forth.
The hospital blast has become a searing, contested episode in the war that began on Oct. 7 after Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, invaded Israel, an attack that the Israeli government says killed more than 1,400 civilians and soldiers, and seized 200 hostages who were taken back to Gaza. Israel has responded to the Hamas attack with a relentless artillery and bombing campaign that has killed 5,700 Palestinians, according to the Hamas-run Gazan Health Ministry, as the Israeli military prepares for a ground invasion.
Israeli officials and Palestinian militants blame each other for the Al-Ahli Arab explosion. Multiple videos assembled and analyzed by The Times show that militants were firing dozens of rockets from southwest of the hospital minutes before the blast, and the fiery explosion at the hospital is consistent with a failed rocket falling well short of its target with unspent fuel.
*Maps: Tracking the Attacks in Israel and Gaza*
Deadliest period for Palestinians in the West Bank in 15 years
More Palestinians have been killed in the Israeli-occupied West Bank in the past few weeks than in any similar period in at least the past 15 years, according to Palestinian health authorities and historical data from the United Nations.
Israeli forces and settlers have killed 95 Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank since the Hamas attacks on Oct. 7, health officials said, a surge in violence in what was already a particularly deadly year in the West Bank. One Israeli soldier was also killed in clashes.
Most of the Palestinian deaths in the West Bank have been in clashes with Israeli forces, while others were the result of settler attacks.
Masked settlers shot and killed three Palestinians in the village of Qusra on Oct. 11, according to Palestinian health officials. At a funeral procession for the victims the next day, settlers attacked again, killing two more Palestinians, a father and son.
The Israeli military carried out a rare airstrike in the West Bank on a mosque in Jenin on Saturday night, killing two. Israel’s military said it was targeting a “terror compound” beneath the mosque that it said was being used to organize an attack.
A raid by Israeli forces on the Nur Shams refugee camp on Thursday ended in the deaths of 13 Palestinians, including five children, as well as an Israeli soldier. The soldier was the first Israeli to have died in the West Bank since Oct. 7, according to U.N. data.
“We are extremely alarmed by the rapidly deteriorating human rights situation in the occupied West Bank and the increase in unlawful use of lethal force,” said Ravina Shamdasani, a spokeswoman for the U.N. human rights chief, Volker Türk.
*Cohen Denounces Trump During Courtroom Face-Off*
Michael D. Cohen accused his onetime boss, Donald J. Trump, of manipulating his net worth as Mr. Trump stared blankly ahead. It was their first interaction in five years.
For five years, Michael D. Cohen has waged battle with Donald J. Trump from afar: on social media, on cable television and in the pages of his books.
But on Tuesday, Mr. Cohen confronted his onetime boss from the witness stand in a Manhattan courtroom, attacking the former president as a criminal and a cheat and defending his own credibility under a barrage of questions.
Mr. Cohen, once Mr. Trump’s loyal fixer and now his antagonist, was testifying in a civil fraud case that threatens to upend the former president’s family business and undermine his public image as a businessman. It was the first time the men had come face to face since 2018, and the reunion was tense. Mr. Trump, seated feet away at the defense table, scoffed and shook his head in apparent frustration.
Mr. Cohen had been called to testify about Mr. Trump’s annual financial statements, which are at the heart of the civil case that the New York attorney general, Letitia James, brought against Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump, Mr. Cohen testified, directed him to “reverse engineer” the statements to reach the former president’s desired net worth.
Although Mr. Cohen had leveled similar accusations before, he had not, until now, made them in the presence of the former president, a man he once idolized. Mr. Cohen nonetheless began calmly and in a clear voice, his New York accent emphasizing his statements about his role at the Trump Organization, where he reported directly to Mr. Trump.
“I was tasked by Mr. Trump to increase the total assets based upon a number that he arbitrarily elected,” Mr. Cohen testified, saying that it was his responsibility to “increase those assets in order to achieve the number.”
Later in the day, the temperature rose when Mr. Cohen was cross-examined by one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Alina Habba. She called Mr. Cohen’s credibility into question, noting that he had admitted to lying under oath when he pleaded guilty to federal crimes in 2018, wrongs that he had said he committed on Mr. Trump’s behalf.
“You have lied under oath numerous times, Mr. Cohen — isn’t that correct?” Ms. Habba asked, referring to his previous guilty pleas.
*Women Will Vote at a Vatican Meeting for the First Time*
Some women participating in a conference on sensitive church issues said they feel heartened by the discussions taking place, though change may remain slow.
When Helena Jeppesen-Spuhler, an advocate for the ordination of women, joined a major Vatican meeting this month, she was skeptical that an institution dominated by men for 2,000 years was ready to listen to women like her.
The gathering of some 300 bishops from around the world also included for the first time nuns and 70 lay people, women among them, who have voting rights. It was called by Pope Francis to discuss the future of the Roman Catholic Church, including sensitive topics — married priests, the blessing of gay couples, sacraments for the divorced and remarried, as well as the role of women.
As the confidential meeting approaches its end on Oct. 29, Ms. Jeppesen-Spuhler said she has been pleasantly surprised. Some clerics — priests, bishops and cardinals — openly supported the advancement of women, she said. Some even backed the ordaining of women as deacons.
There had been “really good discussions,” Ms. Jeppesen-Spuhler said, adding, “It hasn’t been the women against the bishops and cardinals. It’s not that.”
Catholic women have been clamoring for more equal footing and greater say in the workings of the church for years, and while consensus is building for different forms of advancement, there remains deep opposition to the ordination of women as deacons, let alone priests. Deacons are ordained ministers who can preach, perform weddings, funerals and baptisms, but only priests can celebrate Mass.
A decision that momentous rests ultimately with Pope Francis, who is not expected to make any big changes after this month’s meeting, formally called the Synod on Synodality, which will reconvene for a final phase next October.
Critics have said that making women deacons is a slippery slope to making them priests, which would violate 2,000 years of church doctrine and undermine the church’s authority.
“The ordination through sacraments of women as deacons, presbyters, priests and bishops is not possible,” Cardinal Gerhard Müller said in an interview on the eve of the synod, in which he is participating. No pope “can decide something different without undermining the authority of the teachings,” he added.
Still, Ms. Jeppesen-Spuhler, who works for a Swiss Catholic relief agency, said the discussions at the synod reflected what seemed to be a growing support for the idea that women should play a larger and better acknowledged role in the life of local churches.
Women already work in the Church’s hospitals, schools and charities, and in many countries fill ministerial gaps — running parishes and carrying out pastoral responsibilities — where there is a shortage of priests. Yet they are, in the end, subordinate to a male hierarchy.
In canvassing Catholics around world — a two-year process beginning in 2021 that led to this month’s meeting — the role of women emerged as a pressing issue.
Survey respondents cited as priorities “questions of women’s participation and recognition,” and said that “the desire for a greater presence of women in positions of responsibility and governance emerged as crucial elements.”
*Rishi Sunak Is Trying His Best. He’s Probably Still Doomed.*
When Rishi Sunak became prime minister of Britain a year ago, there was little sense of celebration. The markets were in free fall after the disastrous 49-day tenure of his predecessor, Liz Truss, and the government was in disarray. Mr. Sunak, who had been rejected by Conservative Party members earlier in the year, was inserted by lawmakers in the desperate hope he could calm the crisis. Given that the party had just ousted two leaders in quick succession, it was unclear how long he would even stay in the post.
One year later, he can take comfort that Britain is in a different place. It’s now possible, for a start, to have a conversation with visitors without being asked what on earth is going on. Projecting decency and stability, Mr. Sunak has calmed the markets, helped to repair relations with the European Union and sated his party’s appetite for regicide. The next election, due by January 2025, is on the horizon. Even party critics concede that Mr. Sunak will lead the Conservatives into it.
But that’s where the good news stops for the prime minister. While Mr. Sunak has moved his party out of crisis mode, he is yet to win over voters. Against hopes that a new leader would raise the party’s fortunes, Mr. Sunak’s approval ratings have sunk along with esteem for the Conservatives. The polls repeatedly suggest a 20-point lead for the opposition Labour Party, whose leader, Keir Starmer, businesses and the media view as the prime minister in waiting.
Adding to a sense of fatalism, a steady drip-feed of local elections — often set off by the bad behavior of Tory lawmakers — have cost the Conservatives once-safe seats. Two more, including one in Conservative hands since 1931, went over to the opposition last week. Mr. Sunak may be doing his best, in trying circumstances. But at the moment, it’s nowhere near enough.
There’s an argument that any leader would struggle with the conditions Mr. Sunak inherited: high inflation, increased borrowing costs and low growth. Across the world, incumbent governments of all stripes are finding their time is up — whether it’s the center-left Labour Party in New Zealand or the right-wing populist Law and Justice party in Poland. When Mr. Sunak has found success, it’s been by making his own weather. His renegotiation of the Northern Ireland protocol, an especially vexed post-Brexit arrangement, showed maturity and won him a brief popularity bounce.
Yet economic difficulties have been stubborn. Mr. Sunak, a former chancellor, was picked by lawmakers because of his economic credentials — and he has managed to win back some market confidence. But the government is still boxed in. The right of the party, including the outspoken Ms. Truss, wants tax cuts. Mr. Sunak won’t budge until inflation is down, which is not happening quickly enough. Facing a winter of high bills, Britons will be feeling the pinch for some time to come.
But Mr. Sunak’s biggest challenge is the length of time his party has been in power. The Conservatives, plagued by scandal, have overseen a country where discontent is legion: A survey taken this summer found that three-quarters of people in Britain believe it is becoming a worse place to live. After 13 years of Tory rule — the same amount of time New Labour, under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, enjoyed in office — the other side can’t be blamed for Britain’s woes.
Mr. Sunak’s attempts to overcome this fundamental problem are twofold. First, he has accepted that the country is not working and needs to change. His five priorities — halving inflation, stopping the boats carrying migrants across the Channel, cutting National Health Service waiting lists, growing the economy and reducing debt — are designed to reflect key voter concerns. But many are pessimistic that all the goals can be achieved. Continuing health worker strikes, for example, signal that unhappiness with the state of the N.H.S. is unlikely to subside ahead of the election.
His second move is more ambitious. In a bid to shake off the baggage of previous Tory governments, Mr. Sunak is trying to depict himself as the change candidate. He has axed David Cameron’s pet project, a high-speed rail network linking the Midlands and the North, and scaled down the net-zero commitments embraced by Boris Johnson and Theresa May. The goal is to show him as a man of action with his own convictions, someone prepared, as he recently put it, to “be bold.” But running against your party’s own record is tricky, and it is already causing resentment among colleagues who served in previous administrations.
Hope, strangely, could come from the opposition. Mr. Starmer is yet to be embraced by the public — his job satisfaction ratings remain stubbornly low — and support for his party largely stems from anti-Tory feeling rather than enthusiasm for Labour itself. By depicting Mr. Starmer as a flip-flopping leader at the helm of an ineffectual party, the Tories aim to claw back support. Yet it’s telling that conversations with Conservative lawmakers — some of whom have already begun planning for life after politics — tend to focus more on what will happen after defeat than on how they might win.
In Tory circles, a dinner party game is to debate who the next leader might be. The current favorite is Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary who has made a name for herself with attacks on identity politics. But the scale of defeat is key. A small one would see status quo candidates, like the foreign secretary, James Cleverly, or the defense secretary, Grant Shapps, emerge. A wipeout — winning fewer than 200 seats out of 650 — would give the edge to wild-card candidates from the party’s right. In that scenario Suella Braverman, the hard-line anti-immigrant home secretary, would come to the fore.
For the Tories, such a contest — full of bloodletting and bombast — could be a disaster, setting the stage for years in the wilderness. To prevent it and to forestall defeat, Mr. Sunak must change the narrative. Politics is unpredictable, as Britain has amply shown in the past eight years. But right now, one thing’s for certain: The prime minister is running out of time.
*The Palestinian Republic of Fear and Misinformation*
Many years ago, when I first started covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I got to know a gifted Palestinian journalist who, for reasons that will become apparent in a moment, I’ll refer to only by his first name, Said.
As with many other Palestinian journalists, Said’s primary source of income was working with foreign reporters as a “fixer,” someone who could arrange difficult meetings, translate from Arabic, show you around. Said had an independent streak and he was no fan of Yasir Arafat, which made him particularly helpful in cutting through the Palestinian Authority’s propagandistic bombast.
With Said, I interviewed senior Hamas leaders in Gaza, officials in Ramallah, retired terrorists in Nablus, political dissidents in Jenin and construction workers in Hebron. We developed a friendship. Then, shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, he called me in a panic because something I had written in The Wall Street Journal had met with the displeasure of officials in the Palestinian Authority. The goon squad, he said, had paid his family an admonitory visit in their apartment, and he wanted me to take the story down. That was out of the question, I told him. It was never safe for us to work together again.
I mention this anecdote in the wake of last week’s sensational story that an Israeli airstrike had killed some 500 people at a Gaza hospital — a story variously attributed to “Palestinian officials,” “the Gazan health ministry” and “health authorities in the besieged enclave.” The story sparked violent protests throughout the Middle East.
It has since become clear that nearly every element of that story is, to put it gently, highly dubious.
A missile did not hit the hospital but rather the parking lot next to it. Abundant evidence, confirmed by U.S. intelligence and independent analyses, indicates that the explosion was caused by a missile fired from Gaza, which was intended to kill Israelis but malfunctioned and fell to earth. There is no solid reason to believe the death toll reached anywhere near 500. And the “Gazan health ministry” is not some sort of apolitical body but a Hamas-owned entity, towing and promoting whatever the terrorist organization demands.
I’ll leave the media criticism to others. But Western audiences will never grasp the nature of the current conflict until they internalize one central fact. In Israel, as in every other democracy, political and military officials sometimes lie — but journalists hold them to account, tell the stories they want to tell, and don’t live in fear of midnight knocks on the door.
The Palestinian territories, by contrast, are republics of fear — fear of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and of Hamas in Gaza. Palestinians are neither more nor less honest than people elsewhere. But, as in any tyrannical or fanatical regime, those who stray from the approved line put themselves at serious risk.
This is a truth that only rarely slips out — but when it does, it’s revealing.
During the first major Israel-Hamas war, in 2008 and 2009, Palestinian groups claimed the death toll was mostly civilian, with roughly 1,400 people killed. But a Palestinian doctor working in Gaza’s Shifa hospital told a different story. “The number of deceased stands at no more than 500 to 600,” he said. “Most of them are youths between the ages of 17 to 23 who were recruited to the ranks of Hamas, who sent them to the slaughter,” he said. Tellingly, according to the Israeli news site YNet, “the doctor wished to remain unidentified, out of fear for his life.”
Or take the case of Hani al-Agha, a Palestinian journalist who was jailed for weeks and tortured by Hamas in 2019. In that case, the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate took the extraordinary step of condemning al-Agha’s arrest and torture as “an attempt to intimidate journalists in Gaza Strip, who are subject to repressive police authority.” Yet, outside of a few news releases, the story received almost no coverage in the wider media.
Human rights organizations occasionally take a break from their incessant criticism of Israel to pay attention to this kind of atrocious repression. But only rarely do Western audiences understand the full extent to which information emerging from Gaza is suspect — at least until it has been extensively and independently corroborated by journalists who aren’t living in fear of Hamas, and don’t need to protect someone who is. Readers who wouldn’t normally be inclined to believe man-in-the-street interviews in, say, Pyongyang, or regime pronouncements coming out of the Kremlin, should be equally skeptical about the phrase “Palestinian officials say.”
The news media still needs fixers and freelancers to tell the full story in war zones. But people consuming that media should know the threats, pressures and cultures that these journalists operate in — not because we necessarily distrust them individually, but because we appreciate the dangerous circumstances in which they find themselves.
The next time there’s a story about an alleged Israeli atrocity in Gaza, readers deserve to know how the information was acquired and from whom. It’s bad enough that Hamas tyrannizes Palestinians and terrorizes Israelis. We don’t need it misinforming the rest of us.
*ATENTAMENTE*
*MAESTRO FEDERICO LA MONT*
Sent from my iPod
Mexico Today USA 