Tag Archive

You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Islamic Movement in Israel’ tag.

The Guardian’s long crusade in defense of radical Islamist Raed Salah is dealt a heavy blow.

October 30, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Al-Aqsa Mosque, anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, Comment is Free, Delegitimization, Guardian, Islamic Movement in Israel, Raed Salah, Terrorism | by Adam Levick | 7 comments

The Guardian’s coverage of the UK’s detainment of Sheikh Raed Salah (which included twelve separate reports and commentaries), represented the ideologically driven anti-Israel bias of the paper at its worst.

As we’ve pointed out, the Guardian continually airbrushed, or ignored, irrefutable evidence of Salah’s antisemitism, extremism, and record of incitement. Inversely, those who opposed Salah were typically referred to in the pejorative as merely “right-wing” Israelis or those with an anti-Muslim bias.

He has been in Britain since June, despite being banned from entering the country, and spoke at a number of anti-Israel events before being arrested.

Salah appealed the original deportation order issued by Home Secretary Theresa May, who deemed that he was not conducive to the public good, and was granted bail in July while he awaited the deportation hearing.

On Wednesday, Salah lost his appeal against deportation from the United Kingdom.

Indeed, the case that Salah is indeed an extremist, and that the UK made the proper decision in detaining him, simply couldn’t be clearer.

Salah has endorsed classic anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about 9/11, advanced the Medieval blood libel, spent time in Israeli jails after acknowledging providing funds to Hamas , and has used his authority as leader of the Islamic Movement’s Northern Division to incite thousands of his followers to riot under the pretense that the Al-Aqsa Mosque was in danger of being destroyed by Israeli authorities.

Regarding the UK Immigration Tribunal’s rejection of Salah’s appeal, per the blog of the CST:

“The tribunal considered five pieces of evidence against Salah: a poem he had authored which we argued could incite hatred of Jews, but which Salah argued was not antisemitic; a speech in which he made a ‘blood libel’ slur against Jews, but which Salah claimed was not about Jews; Salah’s inflammatory claims that Israel intends to destroy the al-Aqsa Mosque; the outstanding charges he currently faces in Israel for incitement to violence and to antisemitism; and Salah’s conviction for funding organisations linked to Hamas.”

The UK ruling stated:

“We are satisfied that the Appellant has engaged in the unacceptable behaviour of fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK. We are satisfied that the Appellant’s words and actions tend to be inflammatory, divisive, insulting, and likely to foment tension and radicalism.”

“[The Appellant] has admitted in criminal proceedings being involved with organisations used to fund Hamas, a group part of which is proscribed as being a terrorist organisation.”

The ruling goes on to point out that for the purposes of “unacceptable behaviour” under the Prevent strategy, the most important criterion is the impact of a person’s words in fostering “hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK”, and it clearly accepted that Salah’s blood libel comments had the potential to incite antisemitism in the UK.

The Guardian, in a June 30 editorial on the detainment of Salah – in a polemic simply dripping with contempt towards Israel – accused the UK of engaging in anti-Muslim “intolerance”.

As the evidence contained in the UK Judiciary’s ruling clearly indicates however, the only thing the UK was being intolerant about was Raed Salah’s undeniable record of religious extremism, incitement to violence, and virulent antisemitic bigotry – decidedly reactionary values which a genuinely liberal newspaper would similarly lack tolerance towards.

Friends of Raed Salah: Is the Guardian a newspaper? (Harry’s Place)
Guardian again airbrushes Raed Salah’s extremism, antisemitism, and terrorist affiliations (cifwatch.com)
On anti-Semites and their enablers: Guardian editorial defends radical anti-Semitic preacher, Raed Salah (cifwatch.com)
Raed Salah Week continues at the Guardian, offering the sage analysis of Noam Chomsky (cifwatch.com)
What the Guardian won’t report: Raed Salah’s not so liberal views on women, gays, and Jihad (cifwatch.com)
The Guardian continues to run interference for the radical antisemitic preacher, Raed Salah (cifwatch.com)
The Guardian: Fuelling Denials of Antisemitism (cifwatch.com)
The Guardian’s bias in covering Sheikh Raed Salah (cifwatch.com)
Haneen Zoabi defends anti-Semitic Islamist preacher: Accuses UK Zionist lobby of controlling British politics (cifwatch.com)
Conal Urquhart quotes Ben White as a source in Guardian’s second whitewash of anti-Semitic preacher (cifwatch.com)

The Guardian continues to run interference for the radical antisemitic preacher, Raed Salah

September 26, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Al-Aqsa Mosque, Comment is Free, Community Security Trust, David Hearst, Delegitimization, Guardian, Hamas, Islamic Movement in Israel, Raed Salah, Terrorism | by Adam Levick | 5 comments

H/T Harry’s Place and Margie

The Guardian’s capacity to cover up clear and undeniable evidence of Islamist antisemitism has no limits.

In “May warned of weak case against Sheikh Raed Salah“, Sept. 26, the Guardian’s David Hearst suggests that the case against Raed Salah’s political extremism and antisemitism is quite weak, and is owed largely to efforts by the UK Jewish community.

Writes Hearst:

Emails seen by the Guardian, show that UK Home Secretary Theresa] May was determined to find a reason to exclude [Raed] Salah, before the evidence against him had been verified.

Just 17 minutes after receiving a report on the activist, prepared by Michael Whine of the Community Security Trust, a UK charity monitoring antisemitism, Faye Johnson, private secretary to the home secretary, emailed about a parliamentary event Salah was due to attend.

“Is there anything that we can do to prevent him from attending (eg could we exclude him on the grounds of unacceptable behaviour?)” she wrote. Whine’s report said Salah’s record of provocative statements carried a risk that his presence in the UK could have “a radicalising impact” on his audiences. [emphasis mine]

Added Hearst:

“Saleh’s legal team say the quotes he is alleged to have said and written were doctored to make them sound antisemitic.

The Home Office presented four allegations of antisemitism against him, all drawn from the Israeli press: [emphasis mine]

The doctored quotes have been repeated by the Israel’s press, pro-Israeli websites, two British newspapers and the CST.

In a classic ad hominem attack, Hearst insinuates that the fact that the quotes were reported by the UK Jewish community and “the Israel’s press” [sic], “pro-Israeli websites, two British newspapers and the CST” undermine their credibility.

In fact, the site which reported Salah’s comments, MEMRI, is a widely respected organization which provides English translations from the Arabic, Persian, Urdu-Pashtu, and Turkish media.

The credibility of of MEMRI’s translations has never been seriously questioned and, indeed, the organization routinely assists U.S. federal and local governments (as well as the U.S. military) in their counter-terrorism efforts.

As such, MEMRI reported the following about an article written by Raed Salah, in which he advanced the classic 9/11 antisemitic conspiracy theory:

Raed Salah wrote in Saut Al-Haqq Wa-Al-Hurriyya, “A suitable way was found to warn the 4,000 Jews who work every day at the Twin Towers to be absent from their work on September 11, 2001, and this is really what happened! Were 4,000 Jewish clerks absent [from their jobs] by chance, or was there another reason? At the same time, no such warning reached the 2,000 Muslims who worked every day in the Twin Towers, and therefore there were hundreds of Muslim victims.”

In a sermon in 2007, as reported by the Israeli left newspaper, Ha’aretz, Salah said:

“We have never allowed ourselves to knead [the dough for] the bread that breaks the fast in the holy month of Ramadan with children’s blood,” he said. “Whoever wants a more thorough explanation, let him ask what used to happen to some children in Europe, whose blood was mixed in with the dough of the [Jewish] holy bread.”

Most dishonestly, Hearst writes that “Salah has served two terms of imprisonment in Israel, two years for funding proscribed charities”.

Of course, one of the “charities” Hearst alludes to is Hamas – a group which cites the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in its very founding charter to “prove” that Jews are trying to take over the world, is dedicated to Israelis destruction, and is designated as a terrorist group by the U.S., EU, UK, Australia, Canada, Japan, and even Jordan.

Hamas leader Ismail Haniya holds a portrait of Sheikh Raed Salah, after the Islamist leader was arrested in London

Further, Salah, in 2007, incited Palestinians to engage in violence under the pretense that Israeli authorities were going to destroy the he Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Salah has also defended honor killings and said that homosexuality is “a great crime”, adding: “such phenomena signal the start of the collapse of every society. Those who believe in Allah know that behavior of that kind brings his wrath and is liable to cause the worst things to happen.”

During the space of about one week, in late June and early July, and again, more recently (Sept. 20th), the Guardian devoted eight posts (stories, commentary, and letters) to the UK’s decision to detain Salah – all of which, like Hearst’s latest piece, were sympathetic to the radical preacher.

After Salah was detained by UK authorities in late June, Salah’s Islamic Movement blamed the “Jewish lobby” for the arrest, which they said served to protect the “Zionist narrative.”

David Hearst’s latest apologia for the Islamic extremist preacher – which, tellingly, was published verbatim at the site of “Friends of Al-Aqsa“, a pro-Hamas UK organization which advocates Israel’s elimination – demonstrates that such antisemitic conspiratorial narratives continue to find fertile ground on the pages of the Guardian.

Guardian again airbrushes Raed Salah’s extremism, antisemitism, and terrorist affiliations (cifwatch.com)
American Nazi “Prophecy”, Raed Salah, and Dr Daud Abdullah: Deja Vu? (cifwatch.com)

Guardian again airbrushes Raed Salah’s extremism, antisemitism, and terrorist affiliations

September 20, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Al-Aqsa Mosque, anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, Conal Urquhart, Delegitimization, Guardian, Islamic Movement in Israel, Raed Salah | by Adam Levick | 8 comments

There seems to be no limit to the lengths Guardian reporters, editors, and commentators will go to hide undeniable evidence of Palestinian extremism.

During the space of about a week, in late June and early July, the Guardian devoted seven separate pieces (news items, commentaries and letters) defending the antisemitic radical preacher, Raed Salah, and demonizing his opponents, after Salah was detained by UK Authorities out of concern that his extremist views could promote violence and threaten public order.

Today, the Guardian’s Alan Travis, “Theresa May defends decision to exclude Palestinian activist from UK, Sept. 20th, again excludes any information which would indicate precisely why the UK acted as they did.

Writes Travis:

The home secretary, Theresa May, has defended her decision to exclude the Palestinian political activist Sheikh Raed Salah from Britain..[emphasis mine]

Of course, characterizing Salah as merely a “political activist” represents yet another example of the Guardian’s ongoing attempt to white wash Salah’s record.

To sum up the cut and dry case against Salah:

He endorsed classic anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about 9/11, reportedly advanced the Medieval blood libel against Jews, acknowledged providing funds to Hamas, has often used his authority as leader of the Islamic Movment’s Northern division to incite thousands of his followers to riot (and begin a Third Intifada) under the pretense that the Al-Aksa was in danger of being destroyed by Israeli authorities.

And, as an interview in 2003 made clear, Salah’s views on the rights of women and gays (and the virtues of Jihad) represents a classic example of his religiously inspired extremism.

More broadly, The Islamic Movement, which he leads, has clear goals of indoctrinating Israeli Arabs with his Islamist ideology (an effort the Movement calls da’wa).

In short, Raed Salah is an Islamic extremist – and an unrepentant antisemite, misogynist and homophobe - who associates with terrorist movements and encourages his followers to engage in violence.

In a June 29th apologia of Salah by the Guardian’s Conal Urquhart, titled “Britain accused of collaborating with Israel on Salah arrest” – a title which would suggest that Israel is some sort of rogue terrorist state for which any bi-lateral cooperation is “collaboration” – dismissed the case against Salah, thusly:

Salah is despised by Israel’s right wing and his arrest was used as an opportunity by one member of the Knesset to launch his own “Raed Salah bill”. Alex Miller of the Israel Our Home party said the bill would prevent people such as Salah, convicted of aiding a terrorist organisation, from using government-funded institutions. [emphasis mine]

Yes, it’s simply chilling that the Israeli “right wing” would deny government funding to those who incite hatred and violence and aid terrorist
organizations committed to Israel’s destruction.

To the Guardian, even efforts by Israel to defend itself from violent, religious fanatics with proven ties to terrorism is a sign of its intolerance and illiberalism.

Mondoweiss or David Duke? Raed Salah’s defenders reach a new low. (cifwatch.com)
Sheikh Raed Salah: The Indictments (cifwatch.com)
Harriet Sherwood, and the Guardian’s continuing ideologically inspired sins of omission (cifwatch.com)
Raed Salah Week continues at the Guardian, offering the sage analysis of Noam Chomsky (cifwatch.com)
The Guardian: Fuelling Denials of Antisemitism (cifwatch.com)
American Nazi “Prophecy”, Raed Salah, and Dr Daud Abdullah: Deja Vu? (cifwatch.com)

American Nazi “Prophecy”, Raed Salah, and Dr Daud Abdullah: Deja Vu?

July 15, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: 9/11, Antisemitism, Blood Libel, Cross Post, CST, Islamic Movement in Israel, Jewish Conspiracy, Mark Gardner, Nazism | by Guest/Cross Post | 7 comments

This is cross posted from the blog of the CST, by Mark Gardner

Allegations of antisemitism are mounting against Sheikh Raed Salah of the Islamic Movement, as legal squabbles continue over Britain’s attempts to deport him back to Israel.

Salah’s public relations defence is being led by MEMO (Middle East Monitor), a UK Islamist lobby / media group under the directorship of Dr Daud Abdullah, a senior operator in the UK Islamist scene.

MEMO describe Salah as “the Gandhi of Palestine“, but they will now need to overcome a new allegation: that he - Salah, not Gandhi - wrote an article citing an antisemitic American Nazi hoax, the “Franklin document”. (More commonly known as the “Franklin prophecy”.)

As we shall see below, this is not the first time that Dr Daud Abdullah has found himself in the company of this particular American Nazi hoax.

First, a brief recap -

Last week, CST blog ran what claims to be a transcript of a speech by Salah repeating the Christian medieval ‘Blood Libel’: the filthy lie that Jews use the blood of children for making Matzos.

Then, on the Daily Telegraph blog, Michael Weiss ran what claims to be a scan (see here and here) of an Arabic language article by Salah, stating that “4,000 Jews…4,000 Jewish clerks” were warned to avoid work in the Twin Towers on 9/11. This supposedly appeared in the 5th October 2001 edition of Sawt al-Haq w’al-Huriyya (Voice of Justice and Freedom: the journal of Salah’s Islamic Movement in Israel, Northern Branch). It has been translated by MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute. According to MEMRI, Salah’s article includes this:

Considering these endless mysteries, [we may conclude that] the unique mover had no problem adding yet another unprecedented mystery to American history, which is [has always been] riddled with ambiguities and with 1,001 questions, from the [Benjamin] Franklin document until today.

MEMRI claim that the next paragraph contains the antisemitic 9/11 hoax:

…to warn the 4,000 Jews who worked at the World Trade Center, so that they did not come to work on September 11, 2001, which is what actually happened. Was it a coincidence that 4,000 Jewish employees were absent from work, or what? On the other hand, this warning did not reach the 2,000 Muslims who worked at the World Trade Center. Consequently, there were hundreds of Muslim victims.

So, what is this “Franklin document” that MEMRI claim was cited by Salah immediately preceding the 9/11 hoax?

The “Franklin document / prophecy” is a foul little antisemitic hoax, written in the mid 1930s by an American Nazi, William Dudley Pelley. It falsely claims to be a contemporary account from 1789, of a speech by Benjamin Franklin warning against Jewish immigration to the USA “because they are vampires”. In 1942, Pelley was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment for Nazi sedition.

This is not an antisemitic hoax that is especially well-known. It is not, for example, on a par with the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion; nor with the aforementioned Blood Libel, or even the thoroughly modern 9/11 lie. It is one for aficionados.

Of course, time will tell if the allegations against Salah in regard to the “Prophecy”are true, or if he himself has also fallen victim to a vicious forgery (and elaborate mistranslation). Nevertheless, it is not the first time we have seen the Franklin hoax here in Britain in a pro-Palestinian (rather than Nazi) context.

One version of it, entitled “Prophecy of Benjamin Franklin in regard of the Jewish race”, caused a minor outrage when it was distributed as a flyer by pro-Palestinian students to those queueing to enter a student debate at Manchester University in February 2002. The flyers bore the name General Union of Palestine Students. The debate motion was to boycott Israeli goods. It failed, but the preamble stated “Anti-Zionism or criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism” and Jewish students suffered antisemitic attacks in the days after it. (See para 203 of Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitsim pdf, here.)

There is, however, a slightly more extreme variant of the “prophecy”. This is entitled“The Jewish Threat on the American society”. (Both versions appear to be carried on, for example, the notorious American neo-Nazi website, Stormfront.) It warns of Jews:

…they are Vampires and Vampires do not live on Vampires. They cannot live only amongst themselves

…I warn you gentlemen if you do not exclude Jews for all time, your children will curse you in your graves.

This is the version that appeared, in its entirety and without further comment, in issue 2 (Oct-Nov 2000 / Rajab-Sha’ban 1421H) of the English-language Muslim Association of Britain magazine, “The New Dawn”.

Two scans of this appear below. The first shows the article close up. It is short, so you should read it in full.

The second scan shows the article in context, comprising the bottom quarter of page 6 (the “Opinion” page). The only other thing on the opinion page is a continuation of the front page article. This is by Dr Daud Abdullah, one of two people then on the editorial board of The New Dawn, in addition to the General Editor.

This was before Dr Abdullah’s stint at the Muslim Council of Britain, and well before his current role as Director of Middle East Monitor.

CLICK TO ENLARGE

And here, in context:

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Sheikh Raed Salah: The Indictments

July 8, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, Community Security Trust, Guardian, Islamic Movement in Israel, Raed Salah, Temple Mount | by Guest/Cross Post | 12 comments

This is cross posted from the blog of the CST

Sheikh Raed Salah, the leader of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, is currently in prison in the UK awaiting an appeal hearing against his deportation from the UK.

His case has attracted a great deal of media and political attention, mainly because he entered the UK despite being subject to an exclusion order, and was then arrested in London; the exact circumstances of which are now the subject of a Home Office investigation. In considering the circumstances of Salah’s appeal, the Court will look at the grounds of the original decision to exclude Salah, reports of which have led to libel complaints against the Daily Telegraph and the Jewish Chronicle.

Salah and his supporters have claimed, variously, that the antisemitic comments he is alleged to have made have been fabricated; that even if he did make those comments, he has never been charged with antisemitism in Israel; or that he was tried but acquitted of those charges. These defences are not all consistent, and in fact his main UK supporter, Middle East Monitor, amended one of its press releases which had initially claimed that Salah had never been charged with antisemitism, to say instead that he had been charged but “was never convicted due to lack of evidence”.

It now appears that Salah does face a charge of inciting antisemitism in Israel, and that this charge relates directly to the ‘blood libel’ speech he is alleged to have given in Jerusalem in 2007. CST has obtained a copy of two outstanding indictments against Salah, both issued by the Jerusalem Magistrates Court and signed by the Jerusalem District Attorney. Both are dated 23rd June 2011, although we believe that the first indictment – the ‘blood libel’ – was first issued in January 2008.

Salah had previously been tried and acquitted in 2010 on charges of assaulting a police officer and taking part in an illegal gathering, both of which related to the same 2007 Jerusalem rally. These charges do not appear in the indictment CST has obtained, which appears to cover different allegations. After his 2010 acquittal, Salah was quoted in the Jerusalem Post as saying that “all of the four remaining cases against me should be closed.” The indictments described below may explain what he was referring to in that quote.

The full text of both indictments, in Hebrew, can be downloaded here. We have provided translated excerpts, below. It should be noted that the speech in the first indictment is a translation of Hebrew which is itself a translation from Arabic, which may explain why the wording is confusing in some parts.

Indictment One – inciting racism and inciting violence

General Section:

1. The defendant is the leader of the northern wing of the Islamic Movement in Israel.

2. During the month of February 2007, [construction] work was undertaken in the Mughrabi [Mugrabi] Gate at the entrance to the Temple Mount. This sparked protest and riots by the Arab public.

3. On 15 February 2007, the Jerusalem court forbade the defendant from being in vicinity of the Old City of Jerusalem or within a distance of 150 metres from it for a period of 60 days (B”S 2181/7).

A. The Facts:

4. On Friday 16/2/07, around 10:00 hours, the defendant arrived in Jerusalem joined by hundreds of supporters from the north of Israel. Following the Police order, which limited worshippers’ entrance to the Temple Mount, and following the order noted in Section 3 above, the defendant and his supporters congregated in Ben Hadeeya Street in the Wadi Joz neighbourhood of Jerusalem, to listen to a speech by the defendant and for Friday prayer.

5. The defendant used a makeshift stage and a sound system to deliver his speech to around a thousand people and numerous media representatives who were present.

6. During the speech, the defendant stated, inter alia, the following:

“We are now in this area, the blessed, the lucid and blessed with purity, if not for the disturbances and disruptions inflicted on us by the Israeli occupation, which should be removed G-d willing, like others were eliminated in the past”

“After the Rafah camp crime you are told that the Israeli establishment wants to build a temple that will be used as a prayer house to G-d. How insolent and what a liar he is. He who wants to build a prayer house for G-d; it is inconceivable that he should build a house for G-d when our blood is still on his clothes, and our blood is still on his doors, and our blood is in his food, and our blood in his drink, and our blood passes from one terrorist general to another terrorist general”.

“And thus we proceed in our path and are not fearful except of G-d blessed is His name. We are not afraid, only of G-d. That is why I say, those who think they have a bleeding history owners of generals and slaughters, those, if they think that by inciting against us on Channel 1 and Channel 2, those who think the are inciting against us on Channel 10 [all three main Israeli TV channels that broadcast the news] and Galey Tsahal [IDF radio station], we not fearful except of G-d. The most beautiful moments in our destiny will be when we meet G-d as shahids [martyrs] in the premises of the Al-Aqsa mosque.”

“That is why I say this in a clear manner and with no hesitation: you who incite against us, don’t let the ranks on your shoulders tempt you. These ranks and stars on your shoulders are made of the skulls of our shahids. These are ranks of shame and not ranks of glory. They are ranks of disgrace and not ranks of honour. I am surprised by you. Whichever one of you who kills more of us, gets promoted to higher ranks”.

“As we are here preparing for prayer in the compound of the blessed “Al-Aqsa” mosque. Here all the clouds of discrimination will clear over the skies of holy Jerusalem. On that very day all the streets of holy Jerusalem will be purified of the blood of the innocents whose blood was allowed [to be spilled] and whose souls were removed by the soldiers of the Israeli occupation, who are occupying the holy ”Al-Aqsa” mosque. And yes, then the almond trees of Jerusalem will blossom once again, and the leaves of the olive trees will be green again, and the honour will be returned to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and the honour will be returned to all the mosques and churches. Not only this, for we are not malicious and will not be malicious, and we will also protect the honour of the Jews’ synagogues. We are not a nation that is based on values of envy. We are not a nation that is based on values of vengeance. We have never allowed ourselves, and listen well, we have never allowed ourselves to knead the bread for the breaking of the fast during the blessed month of Ramadan with the blood of the children. And if someone wants a wider explanation, you should ask what used to happen to some of the children of Europe, whose blood would be mixed in the dough of the holy bread. G-d all mighty, is this religion? Is this what G-d wants? G-d will confront you for what you are doing…”

“We are not alone in this struggle. It is possible that they will come to me and tell me that you are inciting. They want to destroy for us “Aqsa” and they come and tell me that I incite. So, my brothers, I tell you yes, and I tell you that we are not alone in this struggle. And I would like to say to every sane person. I want to say that to every sane person, that the battle instigated by the Israeli occupation forces against holy Jerusalem and against the blessed “Al-Aqsa” mosque has not been resolved until now. Indeed some of the visions of this battle started officially in the year 1948 CE. Since that year the Israeli establishment continues its war against holy Jerusalem and the blessed “Al-Aqsa” mosque. In the years gone by a bloody scene has taken place there, and this was in the year 1967 CE. There was a campaign there that the Israeli occupation establishment, which is occupying the holy Jerusalem and the blessed “Al-Aqsa” mosque, continues. It continues to perpetuate the battle. The battle still continues…but we emphasise that we are not alone in this battle, with the help of G-d. We ask all Muslims and Arabs in the Islamic and Arab present, if they were to be a judge or a scientist or a political party or a public institute or an organised branch or a nation. We covet of them now, for now is their duty to aid the Palestinian nation. Now is their duty to implement an Islamic-Arab Intifada from ocean to ocean, in support of the holy Jerusalem and the blessed “Al-Aqsa” mosque.”

7. The speech was interrupted from time to time by the crowd with chanting: “G-d is great” and “With spirit and blood we redeem you Aqsa”.

8. As the speech and prayer concluded, the crowd started rioting and throwing stones towards the police forces that were in the vicinity. During the rioting, three Border Police officers were injured.

9. Through the defendant’s actions, which are described above, he advertised a call for acts of violence and encouragement for violent acts, which, according to the content and the circumstances in which it [the speech] was given, there is a realistic possibility of it leading to an actual act of violence, and he advertised them with the intention of inciting racism.

B. The legislative provisions according to which the defendant is accused:

1. Inciting to violence – Criminal offence Section (A)2D144 of the penal code 1977 (hereinafter: the law).

2. Inciting racism – Criminal offence Section (A)B144 of the law.

Indictment Two – Obstructing a Police Officer in the line of duty

A. The Facts:

1. On 17/4/11, around 15:30 hours, the defendant and his wife arrived from Jordan and requested to enter Israel via the Allenby Border Terminal (hereafter:the terminal).

2. Entry procedures to Israel via the terminal include, inter alia, luggage and body searches of the travellers. Because of the defendant’s public status, the defendant and his wife were directed to a separate, inner wing of the terminal for the search.

3. The defendant fully cooperated in the process of searching his suitcases and the body search performed on him. At a certain point, a female police officer asked the defendant’s wife to accompany her behind a curtain in order to conduct a body search on her.

4. At this moment, the defendant began to shout that he refuses to allow a search of his wife on grounds that it insults his and his wife’s honour. The defendant stood, with his wife standing behind him, and prevented the female officer from approaching his wife. The commander of the terminal, who was present, explained to the defendant that this is a legal procedure and informed the defendant that he is violating the order and obstructing the police, and asked the defendant to calm down and exit the examination room (hereafter:the room).

5. The defendant continued to shout and to oppose the search, and even told his wife to exit the room and refuse the search, even though it was clarified to him that the search would be done in an enclosed space and by a woman. Following his behaviour, two officers were invited to the area, who forcibly removed the defendant from the room, and instructed him to wait outside the room, in the wing’s corridor.

6. The officers clarified to the defendant that he was obstructing their work, and requested of the defendant to wait seated on the bench in the wing’s corridor, adjacent to the entry door to the examination room (hereafter: the door). Following a loud argument, the defendant sat on the bench, while two officers were standing nearby, with their backs to the closed-door.

7. The defendant sat on the bench for about two minutes, and then rose abruptly and tried to forcibly enter the room, while pushing the officers with his hands, and kicking the room’s door in order to open it. The officers caught the defendant, and removed him a distance from the door, and instructed him to sit on the bench.

8. The defendant sat on the bench, but got up after a short while, stood in front of the officers blocking his way and pushed the officers towards the door with his body. The officers forcibly pushed the defendant, and sat him down on the bench.

9. The defendant’s kick on the room’s door also hit one of the officer’s hip, causing a slight injury.

10. In the actions stated above, the defendant committed an act meant to intentionally obstruct the officer while performing his legal duty and thereby frustrate his work.

B. The legislative provisions according to which the defendant is accused:

Obstructing a police officer in the line of duty – Offence according to Section 275 of the law

There are a few points that it is important to stress. The first is that Salah denies all of the allegations, and also denies that he is antisemitic.

The second is that while Salah does appear to have been charged in Israel with inciting antisemitism (contrary to his initial claim), he has not yet been tried on those charges (contrary to his subsequent claim), and therefore has not been convicted of that offence. CST is in no position to assess the truthfulness or otherwise of any of the charges listed here, which we believe are due to be heard in an Israeli court next year. It is not clear from the indictment whether or not recordings exist of Salah’s speech, although it does list, as prosecution witnesses, representatives of Israeli media organisations and police officers who , it says, “receiv[ed] recordings from” Israeli TV and radio stations (this is in section C of the first indictment, on pages 3/4, entries 7,8, 9, 11, 12 & 13).

This second point touches on a third, wider point, which is more relevant to the UK environment in which CST operates. While it was to be expected that Salah’s supporters would produce a one-sided (and at times hysterical) response to the allegations against him, it was disappointing that the Guardian in particular, and some Members of Parliament, were not more cautious in accepting, and at times regurgitating, their propaganda. Antisemitism is a serious allegation. That means that it should not be made lightly; but it also means that, once made, it should be taken seriously by the mainstream media and by those who wish to campaign for Palestinian rights.

The Guardian: Fuelling Denials of Antisemitism (cifwatch.com)
Raed Salah Week continues at the Guardian, offering the sage analysis of Noam Chomsky (cifwatch.com)
On anti-Semites and their enablers: Guardian editorial defends radical anti-Semitic preacher, Raed Salah (cifwatch.com)
At the Guardian, it’s Sheikh Raed Salah – O – Mania! (cifwatch.com)
The Guardian’s bias in covering Sheikh Raed Salah (cifwatch.com)

Raed Salah Week continues at the Guardian, offering the sage analysis of Noam Chomsky

July 5, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Antisemitism, Comment is Free, Delegitimization, Ghada Karmi, Guardian, Hezbollah, Islamic Movement in Israel, Khmer Rouge, Noam Chomsky, Raed Salah | by Adam Levick | 8 comments

Chomsky in a tete-a-tete with Hezbollah's Nasrallah

The Guardian, not content with six pieces (news items and commentaries) already published defending the anti-Semitic radical preacher, Raed Salah, and demonizing his opponents, decided to publish two additional apologias (Letters: Double standards over Salah arrest, July 4) from ferocious critics of Israel – Ghada Karmi and Noam Chomsky.

Evidently, the Guardian felt that Karmi, an outspoken proponent for the end of the Jewish state, and Chomsky, who believes the U.S. is “the world’s greatest terrorist state“, has defended the Khmer Rouge, expressed support for Hezbollah, and has likened Zionism to Nazism, could provide unique, and thoughtful, insights into the UK’s detention of Salah.

While Chomsky’s letter characterized Salah – who’s advanced anti-Semitic conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 – as an important voice for “rights” and “justice”, Karni chastised the UK for failing to arrest Israeli leaders, who she characterizes as “war criminals”, and advances the blatantly false claim that “Raed has committed no crime in Britain or elsewhere.”

Karmi, evidently writing without the services of an internet search engine, neglected to inform her readers that Salah was imprisoned in Israel after acknowledging funding Hamas, served time for assaulting a police officer, and has been banned from Jerusalem for repeatedly engaging in incitement to violence.

More broadly, in eight pieces and over 3000 words in the course of a week, the Guardian has displayed a disgraceful, if characteristic, obsession with the “cause” of an extremist preacher with a proven record of anti-Semitism, support for designated terrorist organizations, and incitement to violence.

Of course, the ubiquity of such profound moral inversions at the Guardian – regarding radical Islam, Israel and anti-Semitism – doesn’t render such ideological pathos any less outrageous or shameful.

On anti-Semites and their enablers: Guardian editorial defends radical anti-Semitic preacher, Raed Salah (cifwatch.com)
On the “Guardian Hamas support network” (cifwatch.com)
The Guardian’s bias in covering Sheikh Raed Salah (cifwatch.com)
Haneen Zoabi defends anti-Semitic Islamist preacher: Accuses UK Zionist lobby of controlling British politics (cifwatch.com)
What the Guardian won’t report: Raed Salah’s not so liberal views on women, gays, and Jihad (cifwatch.com)
At the Guardian, it’s Sheikh Raed Salah – O – Mania! (cifwatch.com)
The Guardian and “powerful” Jews (cifwatch.com)

The Guardian: Fuelling Denials of Antisemitism

July 4, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, Comment is Free, Cross Post, CST, Guardian, Islamic Movement in Israel, Islamism, Muslim Brotherhood, Raed Salah, University and College Union | by Guest/Cross Post | 21 comments

This is cross posted by Mark Gardner at the blog of the CST.

The [June 3oth] Guardian editorial, concerning the detention by UK Border Agency of Sheikh Raed Salah, leader of the Islamic Movement in Israel, typifies the bias with which most Israel-related antisemitism is treated by large swathes of the liberal-left and far-left. It is no surprise: after all, the Guardian is the single most influential purveyor and reflector of such attitudes.

The editorial is summed up by its 2nd paragraph:

What has made our government so agitated by his presence? Is it the fact that the sheikh was accused in some British newspapers and one website of making antisemitic statements, which he says were fabricated, and for which he has started libel proceedings? If so, the home secretary is applying a higher threshold for the public good in Britain than Israel itself applies to a man it has not been shy of prosecuting on other issues. Repeated attempts to outlaw the Islamic Movement for incitement have failed in Israel’s high court. Mr Salah has not been convicted of antisemitism, and spoke recently on a platform in Tel Aviv University.

The editorial ends, for good measure, with a snide swipe at Israeli Jewish racists, casually conflating them with Israel as a whole:

In a separate celebration, Jerusalem Day, rightwing Israeli activists marched into the Arab Old City shouting slogans such as “Muhammad is dead”, “May your village burn”, and “Butcher the Arabs”. This is racist incitement for which no action is being taken. Should Britain be taking lessons from Israel on incitement?

A reference to the antisemitism that is fairly endemic in many Muslim majority countries and utterly embedded in Islamist movements would surely have been more relevant when discussing (and so readily dismissing) whether or not Salah has a record of making antisemitic statements. Or, indeed, as to whether or not British Jews, and the British Government should be expressing concern about him.

This Guardian editorial, however, like the constituency it educates and reflects, clearly cares far, far more with bashing Israel than it does with seriously contemplating anything to do with Islamist antisemitism; why Jews have every right to fear it; why British Jews have every right to request Government protection from it; and why the British Government has every right to deny people entry on the back of this.

The Guardian editorial also reinforces and mirrors another aspect of the anti-Israel left’s response to the specific furore over Sheikh Salah: its gushing acceptance of his assurance that he is no antisemite; its ready belief that the widely quoted allegations regarding “Blood Libel” are somehow a fabrication; and in believing that all charges relating to this alleged speech have been dropped.

We cannot be sure which of the antisemitic allegations the Guardian is aware of (the “Blood Libel” is not the only one), so we cannot really know which of the denials it accepts: but time will tell if the Guardian’s sources are as accurate as it (and Salah’s other defenders) obviously believes them to be.

Nevertheless, the symmetry between the instinct that this Guardian editorial displays, and that of the formal anti-Israel lobby is profound. Jewish concerns are essentially ignored. There is no serious attempt to contemplate them, nor to ask for their sources. Alan Rusbridger’s dismissal of anti-Israel media impact on antisemitism epitomises the attuitude.

Would other minority groups’ concerns be so readily ignored? No.

Would a far right activist facing antisemitism allegations be presumed the victim of a fabricated smear campaign? No.

Would a far right activist denying such allegations be simply believed at his, and his lawyer’s insistence? No.

When Sarah Palin mentions the “Blood Libel”, cue screaming Guardian articles. The contrast with their editorial on Salah, and their previous news reporting on it, tells you all that you need to know about the selective and predetermined outrage of the paper (and much of its constituency) when it comes to antisemitism.

Yesterday, CST Blog noted the unprecedented call by Communities & Local Govt Secretary, Eric Pickles, for the Equalities & Human Rights Commission to investigate the University and College Union for institutional antisemitism. Our article concluded:

…this is a potentially crucial moment in the struggle against the institutional antisemitism of UCU and similar bastions of far Left anti-Zionism.

The Guardian is certainly not the UCU, but some (perhaps most) of its staff clearly need to learn many of the same key lessons about treating antisemitism seriously.

The actual facts relating to why Salah was banned (the supposed subject of the Guardian editorial), was also covered this week on CST Blog.

We emphasised that the banning was clearly the consequence of Government having very recently tightened up its definitions of “extremist” in the review of Prevent counter-extremism strategy, including its disparaging mentions of the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-i-Islami circles in UK. Had Salah made his UK Brotherhood facilitated visit earlier in the year, perhaps he would have been admitted: but he did not. Our article included:

Jewish communities have every right to fear the antisemitism that permeates pan-Islamist politics. It should (but will not) shame those supposed anti-racists who offer unconditional support to Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat types here in the UK and around the world, and who consistently lie that Jewish concerns about antisemitism are a fake cover for Israel.

The Guardian editorial makes one solitary mention of the Prevent review, sneeringly stating:

If the home secretary is unwise enough to start applying her “prevent” policy to all Palestinian activists Israel has a problem with, Britain will face a backlash in the Arab world.

And there it is. Essentially, where Jewish communal concerns have been expressed as being about antisemitism: those are casually transformed into “all Palestinian activists Israel has a problem with”. The transition is so seamless, you have to wonder if the leader writer even realises what he or she has done. Which says it all, really…except, the clue lay in the title of the editorial all along:

Palestinian activists: unwelcome guests?

Not “Alleged antisemitic activists: unwelcome guests?”, nor “Muslim Brotherhood activists: unwelcome guests?”.

The editorial fuels and reflects all of the antisemitism denials of the anti-Israel movement. It is the same mind-set. Really, this has nothing to do with antisemitism, nor with a serious review of Prevent. Really, its all about Israel calling the shots over our Government; and what Israel wants, Israel gets. Israeli lies and Israeli control, all aided and abetted by its UK surrogates. “Antisemitic? Impossible, I hate racism, especially antisemitism. Nope, not me, guv. Oh, and by the way, not him either.”

On anti-Semites and their enablers: Guardian editorial defends radical anti-Semitic preacher, Raed Salah (cifwatch.com)
At the Guardian, it’s Sheikh Raed Salah – O – Mania! (cifwatch.com)
On the “Guardian Hamas support network” (cifwatch.com)
The Guardian, Haneen Zoabi and Raed Salah – a Case Study of the Red-Green Alliance (cifwatch.com)
Haneen Zoabi defends anti-Semitic Islamist preacher: Accuses UK Zionist lobby of controlling British politics (cifwatch.com)

On the “Guardian Hamas support network”

July 2, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Antisemitism, Guardian, Hamas, Islamic Movement in Israel, Islamism, Raed Salah | by Adam Levick | 1 comment

It’s always reassuring to see other blogs call the Guardian out on their anti-Semitism, visceral hostility towards Israel and craven apologies for radical Islam, and Harry’s Place really let it rip recently in noting that even the BBC’s coverage of the Sheikh Raed Salah row was reasonable and balanced in comparison to the Guardian’s ideologically driven whitewash of the radical Islamist preacher.

Here’s the money quote from Lucy Lips at Harry’s Place:

“What a fucking outrageous thing to do: to defend an outspoken racist, extremist and homophobe by accusing his critics of being racists and pawns of Israel!

This, incidentally, is the reason that the Guardian has a reputation for being part of this country’s Hamas support network.”

While we tend to avoid using the “f” bomb (and other tempting four letter words) at CiF Watch when condemning the Guardian, I think Lucy’s passionate outrage was worth quoting unedited.

As the Guardian’s notoriety continues to grow, we fully intend to savor every well-deserved invective.

At the Guardian, it’s Sheikh Raed Salah – O – Mania! (cifwatch.com)
The Guardian’s bias in covering Sheikh Raed Salah (cifwatch.com)
Haneen Zoabi defends anti-Semitic Islamist preacher: Accuses UK Zionist lobby of controlling British politics (cifwatch.com)
The Guardian, Haneen Zoabi and Raed Salah – a Case Study of the Red-Green Alliance (cifwatch.com)
On anti-Semites and their enablers: Guardian editorial defends radical anti-Semitic preacher, Raed Salah (cifwatch.com)
What the Guardian won’t report: Raed Salah’s not so liberal views on women, gays, and Jihad (cifwatch.com)

At the Guardian, it’s Sheikh Raed Salah – O – Mania!

July 1, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, Delegitimization, Guardian, Hamas, Islamic Movement in Israel, Obsession, Raed Salah | by Adam Levick | 6 comments

Artist's abstract rendering of Guardian's Israel coverage over the last few days

So, you’re a Guardian reader and you wan’t to know what’s going on in Israel. Hmmm….let’s go to their Israel page and find out.

Surely there’s something of interest in the Holy Land: Jerusalem, politics, culture, the religious-secular divide, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Israel’s bilateral relations? Nope. It’s Sheikh Raed Salah, everyday, all the time!

I guess the only good news relating to the Guardian’s obsession with the tragically misunderstood extremist preacher is that they haven’t had time to demonize Israel over their efforts to prevent the pro-Hamas flotillas from breaking their blockade.

On anti-Semites and their enablers: Guardian editorial defends radical anti-Semitic preacher, Raed Salah (cifwatch.com)
The Guardian’s bias in covering Sheikh Raed Salah (cifwatch.com)
The Guardian, Haneen Zoabi and Raed Salah – a Case Study of the Red-Green Alliance (cifwatch.com)
Haneen Zoabi defends anti-Semitic Islamist preacher: Accuses UK Zionist lobby of controlling British politics (cifwatch.com)
What the Guardian won’t report: Raed Salah’s not so liberal views on women, gays, and Jihad (cifwatch.com)

On anti-Semites and their enablers: Guardian editorial defends radical anti-Semitic preacher, Raed Salah

July 1, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Al-Aqsa Mosque, anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, Comment is Free, Delegitimization, Guardian, Islamic Movement in Israel, Raed Salah, Temple Mount | by Adam Levick | 15 comments

It should be noted that this blog tries arduously to avoid the hyperbole and rhetorical excesses which defines so much of the political blogosphere. While we are unapologetic in our support of Zionism and opposition to anti-Semitism, we back up every claim we make.

While we’re not shy in calling out those CiF and Guardian contributors who advance arguments which fall squarely into the accepted definition of anti-Semitism, we have also soberly noted the distinction that, while the institution has allowed ‘Comment is Free’ to become a platform where antisemitism and the delegitimization of Israel thrives, management and editors likely do not themselves hold anti-Semitic views.

However, their obsessive coverage of the Sheikh Raed Salah row over the last few days have – consistent with the editorial line of the paper we have monitored and attempted to contextualize since our founding in August of 2009 – has led me to reconsider our characterization of the institution as one which merely passively accepts anti-Semitism to one whose ideological impulses may indeed represent something much darker.

Today’s official Guardian editorial in defense of Raed Salah (Palestinian activists: unwelcome guests?) is the sixth apologia of the radical Islamist preacher they’ve published in three days.

To sum up the cut and dry case against Salah:

He has endorsed classic anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about 9/11, reportedly advanced the Medieval blood libel in a sermon, spent time in Israeli jails after acknowledging providing funds to Hamas, has often used his authority as leader of the Islamic Movment’s Northern division to incite thousands of his followers to riot under the absurd pretense that the Al-Aksa is in Danger of being destroyed and that Israeli authorities were planning to build a new Temple on the Temple Mount, and has called for a Third violent Intifada in response.

And, as an interview in 2003 made clear, Salah’s views on the rights of women and gays (and the virtues of Jihad) represent the nadir of religiously inspired extremism.

More broadly, The Islamic Movement, which he leads, have clear goals of indoctrinating Israeli Arabs with his Islamist ideology (an effort the Movement calls da’wa).

In short, Raed Salah is a Islamic extremist, and an unrepentant anti-Semite, misogynist and homophobe who associates with terrorist movements and encourages his followers to engage in violence.

Yet, for some reason, none this easily obtainable information about Salah’s record of extremism, hate, and incitement found its way in the Guardian editorial, a polemic which, however, did find a way to weave into the story the alleged stray racist remarks by a few Israelis during the last Jerusalem Day march in the Old City – in an editorial which also characterized as an example of Israeli “far right-wing” intolerance a proposed a Knesset bill that would merely prohibit Israelis convicted of aiding terrorist organisations from entering government-funded educational institutions.

The decision by the UK Home Office to deport Salah was based on a quite sober and rational decision that his presence could “threaten community harmony and therefore public safety”. Salah is not a citizen of the UK and the government is under no obligation to allow him admission into their country.

Moreover, the Guardian’s reaction stands in stark contrast to their coverage, in 2009, of Geert Wilder being denied entry into the UK for much the same fear of incitement and the possible disruption of public order – a story which was covered quite matter-of-factly, and non-controversially.

Upon reading the Guardian’s latest defense of Raed Salah, and their attack on Israel and the UK’s decision to detain him, it’s becoming harder and harder to avoid reaching the conclusion that Guardian management, at the very least, is unable to make moral distinctions between democracies and those who manipulate the language of democracy and human rights to undermine those very democratic institutions; evidently deems as perfectly acceptable the view that the Jewish state should cease to exist; and is complicit in excusing and ignoring anti-Semitism;

Far from the the “liberal voice” they claim to represent, the Guardian (under the ideological cover of anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism, and anti-racism!) glorifies violence, has become apologists for reactionary radical Islam and – more relevant to the mission of this blog – a driver, legitimizer, and, yes, enabler of anti-Semitism.

Haneen Zoabi defends anti-Semitic Islamist preacher: Accuses UK Zionist lobby of controlling British politics (cifwatch.com)
The Guardian’s bias in covering Sheikh Raed Salah (cifwatch.com)
The Guardian, Haneen Zoabi and Raed Salah – a Case Study of the Red-Green Alliance (cifwatch.com)
Conal Urquhart quotes Ben White as a source in Guardian’s second whitewash of anti-Semitic preacher (cifwatch.com)
What the Guardian won’t report: Raed Salah’s not so liberal views on women, gays, and Jihad (cifwatch.com)

The Guardian, Haneen Zoabi and Raed Salah – a Case Study of the Red-Green Alliance

June 30, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Guardian, Haneen Zoabi, Islamic Movement in Israel, Islamism, Muslim Brotherhood, Raed Salah | by Israelinurse | 7 comments

On June 29^th 2011, hours after Sheikh Raed Salah had been arrested in London, The Guardian published an article in his defence on its ‘Comment is Free’ website by Haneen Zoabi.

There are three elements to this story and despite the fact that they may appear to come from different worlds, they in fact have more in common than may first meet the eye. Their binding factor is one: Israel.

Haneen Zoabi is an Arab-Israeli (from Nazareth) member of Israel’s parliament on behalf of ‘Balad‘ – an acronym for ‘Brit Leumit Democratit’ or National Democratic Alliance. It is a secular far-Left Arab party formed in 1995 by Azmi Bishara and others as an expression of dissatisfaction with the Oslo Accords, which were supposed to bring about a two-state solution. Its members reject the concept of a Jewish State – and therefore Jewish self-determination – and seek to establish a bi-national secular one in its place to which Palestinian refugees would be given ‘the right of return’. Concurrently, it supports the establishment of a Palestinian state in the territories captured by Israel from Egypt and Jordan during the Six Day War, including part of Jerusalem.

Raed Salah is also an Arab-Israeli – head of the radical northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel (or, as they prefer to be known, the ‘Islamic Movement in ’48 Palestine’) – and a resident and former mayor of the city of Um El Fahm. The movement’s origins can be traced back to the days of the Arab revolt in Mandate Palestine in 1936, but it gathered momentum as a result of the co-operation between Haj Amin al Husseini and its parent organisation (also that of Hamas), the Muslim Brotherhood. The signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 was accepted by the movement’s more moderate southern branch –a move which created a permanent rift between it and the northern branch, which rejected the agreements. The underlying principles of the northern branch are similar to those of Hamas: the rejection of Israel’s right to exist, the establishment of an Islamic state (as part of the Caliphate) in its place and the implementation of Sharia law. It also supports the ‘right of return’ for Palestinian refugees.

In other words, despite the fact that, according to Salah’s ideology, Haneen Zoabi would no longer have the right to be a secular, uncovered, educated female Arab politician, the ‘red’ of the far Left finds common ground with the ‘green’ of the Islamist movement on one subject: the desire to eliminate the Jewish State from the map.

Salah and Zoabi have another thing in common: both were aboard the ‘Mavi Marmara’ last May when Muslim Brotherhood-linked IHH activists viciously attacked and wounded Israeli soldiers trying to prevent the ship from breaching the naval blockade on Gaza and nine of them were killed as a result. Photographs taken aboard the ship at the time yet only recently published apparently show Zoabi in the vicinity of Turkish activists armed with guns.

Here is Salah in action after the flotilla:

And where is the Guardian in all this? Well, it frequently gives a platform to anti-Zionists and in particular those of the far-Left variety, in accordance with the ideologies and activities of some of its own staff such as Seumas Milne. It also frequently acts as a voluntary platform for members of Hamas and sympathisers of that Islamist movement. It is, in other words, the place where red and green meet in order to promote their anti-Israel message and at no time was that more obvious than during the aftermath of the 2010 flotilla which was dutifully promoted by the Guardian according to red/green dictates.

Like Salah and Zoabi, the Guardian too appears to reject the option of negotiation as the preferred manner of solving the Arab-Israeli conflict; its active participation in the ‘Palestine Papers’ affair which effectively put the lid upon the Palestinian Authority’s ability to negotiate anything indicated that Farringdon Road is definitely in the Hamas camp.

So let us now examine Zoabi’s arguments in favour of Salah, as published by the Guardian. Immediately she tries to attribute the blame for Salah’s arrest to Israel and its supporters, whilst at the same time playing the ‘Islamophobia’ card. According to British statements on the subject, Salah was arrested under Section 3 of the Immigration Act of 1971 which, to the best of my knowledge,’ Israel and its supporters’ had no part in drafting. Obviously, Zoabi cannot credit the UK authorities with possessing minds of their own.

She refuses to recognise the unpleasant fact that, like many other countries, both Britain and Israel have seen a worrying rise in the popularity of various strains of the Islamist movement in recent years and that measures to limit incitement against non-Muslims, Muslim apostates, women, homosexuals and members of other ethnic groups are part and parcel of a democratic country’s responsibility towards its citizens of all stripes. Raed Salah is not the first (and will probably not be the last) Islamist (or other) hate preacher to be denied entry to or deported from the United Kingdom and that fact has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘Islamophobia’ or clandestine behind the scenes operations by a mythical ‘Zionist lobby’.

Is it surprising that the Guardian should permit Zoabi to promote such ridiculous claims on its virtual pages? Not in the least: it has frequently allowed Islamists and their supporters to sound warning bells of ‘Islamophobia’ (as opposed to the real phenomenon of anti-Muslim bigotry) on its pages as part and parcel of the campaign by British Islamists to silence debate. As for the all-powerful ‘Zionist lobby’; this, of course, is one of the favourite themes on CiF and is promoted by former Foreign Office types, Arabists and Islamists alike.

Zoabi’s falsehoods continue with the statement that:

“Because I took part in the first freedom flotilla to break the illegal and inhuman siege of Gaza, the Israeli establishment has waged a propaganda campaign against me, accusing me of “terrorism”, and demanding the withdrawal of my parliamentary immunity and citizenship. This will be difficult to implement, but it threatens my political legitimacy and defines me as a “risk”.”

Of course she conveniently forgets to mention that as a Knesset member she swore that “I pledge myself to bear allegiance to the State of Israel and faithfully to discharge my mandate in the Knesset.” Sadly for Haneen Zoabi, the right to collaborate with enemies of her country and to attempt to facilitate the increased influx of weapons from the Iranian regime she so admires into Gaza with the sole purpose of their being used to kill, injure and terrorize the civilians who pay her generous salary is not included in her job description. She also neglects to mention that the sanctions enacted against her following her flotilla escapade were at most symbolic; as she herself said in an interview with ‘electronic Intifada’ “ The three parliamentary sanctions are nothing — I mean nothing — because I can still use my civic passport”.

Zoabi then goes on to dismiss criticisms of Salah as ‘fabricated’:

“Unable to produce any legal evidence, the Israeli establishment and its supporters in Britain accuse him of antisemitism. Salah has rebutted the fabricated allegations behind these claims and instructed his lawyers to begin legal action against those repeating them.”

“It appears that the charge of antisemitism is being used as a way of suppressing criticism of Israeli policies. Since when has the struggle for equality become a form of racism? Since when have states that boast of their democratic credentials acquired the right to arrest people for their political views?”

A quick tour around Salah’s (Zoabi endorsed) ‘struggle for equality’ and ‘political views’ shows him to be a supporter of the notion that Jews were pre-warned about the 9/11 terror attacks, a condemner of America’s action against the “martyr” Osama Bin Laden and a radical homophobe. That alone would probably be enough to drastically reduce his Brownie points with the British Home Secretary but has nothing to do with Israel.

On his home turf, Salah is best known (apart from funding Hamas and having spent five months in prison for assaulting a policeman) for being a very successful inciter of violent riots. His favourite tactic is to whip up fervour by telling his listeners that Israel is attempting to destroy the Al Aqsa mosque.

“On Friday the leader of the Islamic Movement’s northern branch told followers that should Muslims have to choose between renouncing the al-Aqsa Mosque and becoming martyrs they will choose the latter.

“Should the State of Israel make us choose…we will clearly choose to be martyrs,” said Sheikh Raed Salah in the annual al-Aqsa convention in Umm al-Fahm. “We are a nation that does not give up, we will die and win; the al-Aqsa Mosque is not a matter that can be given up on, and we shall win, God willing.”

Thousands of Muslims heeded Salah’s call and made their way to Jerusalem’s Old City early Sunday. Police initially restricted access to the compound – both to tourists and visitors – as a precautionary measure, after learning that residents of east Jerusalem were urged to “come to protect the Mount.” Large police forces were deployed in the Old City as well.”

At a lecture at Haifa University in 2009 he said:

“We love life, our families, our homes and our children, but if they suggest that we give up our principles and holy sites, we would rather die and we will welcome death.”

Salah claimed that the government continued constantly to dig tunnels under the Temple Mount and the al-Aqsa Mosque, and that Netanyahu was planning to complete during his current term what he did not complete during his first one – “to dig additional tunnels under al-Aqsa and rebuild the Temple on the Temple Mount.”

The Muslim students responded by chanting, “Allahu Akbar” (God is great).”

It is, of course, the prerogative of the British Home Secretary to decide that it is not in the public interest to allow such an obvious master in the incitement of violence to have free access to the already problematic sections of radicalised youth in her society.

No amount of crying wolf by Haneen Zoabi can transform that into ‘Islamophobia’, just as Israeli opposition to the actions of those who seek to deny Jews the right to self-determination should not be categorised as racism. The Israeli public and government have nothing against Salah and Zoabi because they are Arabs or Muslims; any objections are to their (often violence-related) actions taken as part of their red/green campaign to destroy the Jewish State.

Salah, Zoabi and the Guardian obviously cannot understand the difference. That could well be because none of them have pristine reputations themselves when it comes to anti-racism, and their repeated references to a ‘pro-Israel (ie Jewish/Zionist) lobby’ influencing policy in foreign countries, both in this article and others, are just the tip of that particular iceberg.

Of course the rich irony of it is that of all the countries in the world, Israel and the United Kingdom are members of quite a small but select club of those which would allow people such as Zoabi and Salah such a free rein to disseminate their lies and propaganda, and that especially excludes the types of country which members of the red/green alliance revere and would emulate if their wishes concerning the end of the Jewish State ever came true.

Conal Urquhart quotes Ben White as a source in Guardian’s second whitewash of anti-Semitic preacher (cifwatch.com)
The Guardian’s bias in covering Sheikh Raed Salah (cifwatch.com)
Guardian and Independent coverage of second flotilla omits key facts (cifwatch.com)
Azzam Tamimi’s big ‘Arab Spring’ lie. (cifwatch.com)
The tangled web they weave – the eminence noir behind the “Freedom Flotilla 2″ (cifwatch.com)
‘Freedom Flotilla 2′ – Update 4 – ‘Brothers’ in Arms (cifwatch.com)

What the Guardian won’t report: Raed Salah’s not so liberal views on women, gays, and Jihad

June 30, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, Delegitimization, Islamic Movement in Israel, Islamism, Jewish Conspiracy, Raed Salah | by Adam Levick | 6 comments

H/T to Just Journalism for finding a 2003 Ha’aretz interview with Raed Salah, the radical Islamist preacher who has become a cause celeb among the Guardian”intelligentsia” since he was detained on Tuesday by British authorities due to their concerns he would promote an extremist agenda.

Click image to see video at MEMRI

The questions were posed by Ha’aretz correspondent, Jalal Bana.

JB: Was what happened in the United States on September 11 an act of terrorism or of jihad?

Salah: ”Your question suggests that you want to reach an answer before we know who was behind that action. Does the United States know who perpetrated the attack? Certainly not. And it is not I who say this, but the secretary-general of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, who declared that the U.S. does not yet have proof about whom perpetrated the attack.”

(Also, see this even more explicit promotion, by Salah, of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories relating to 9/11)

JB: Do 70 virgins await shahids – martyrs – in paradise?

Salah: ”On this matter, we have proof. It is written in the Koran and in the Suna [the traditions about the life of Mohammed]. This matter is clear. The shahid receives from Allah six special things, including 70 virgins, no torment in the grave, and the choice of 70 members of his family and his confidants to enter paradise with him.”

JB: What is your opinion of the legislation now being discussed in the Knesset, which would grant Muslim women rights similar to those of Jewish women in matters of personal status?

Salah: ”That bill is tantamount to a war on Islam. It is an attempt to dictate different, foreign values that are neither Muslim nor Palestinian values.”

JB: But why shouldn’t Islamic women have the right to choose whether they want their case to be heard in a civil court or a sharia court?

Salah: “There is a difference between freedom, and damage and destruction under the slogan of freedom. We are in favor of freedom for women, which preserves their religious and national identity. We are against fake slogans that are called freedom. The bill would give civil courts the possibility of intervening in every Islamic matter. What we fear is that in the future there will also be intervention [by the Knesset] in the question of the Waqf [Muslim religious trust] lands. That will be a blow to Islam and no one can know what its consequences are liable to be.”

JB: What is your opinion of homosexuality?

Salah: “It is a crime. A great crime. Such phenomena signal the start of the collapse of every society. Those who believe in Allah know that behavior of that kind brings his wrath and is liable to cause the worst things to happen. There is no solution for this, unless the individual’s faith is strengthened.”

The Guardian’s bias in covering Sheikh Raed Salah (cifwatch.com)
Haneen Zoabi defends anti-Semitic Islamist preacher: Accuses UK Zionist lobby of controlling British politics (cifwatch.com)
Conal Urquhart quotes Ben White as a source in Guardian’s second whitewash of anti-Semitic preacher (cifwatch.com)
The tangled web they weave – the eminence noir behind the “Freedom Flotilla 2″ (cifwatch.com)

Conal Urquhart quotes Ben White as a source in Guardian’s second whitewash of anti-Semitic preacher

June 29, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, Conal Urquhart, Delegitimization, Guardian, Islamic Movement in Israel, Osama bin Laden, Raed Salah | by Adam Levick | 57 comments

Earlier, we cross posted Elder’s piece on the Guardian white wash of the anti-Semitic Islamist preacher, Raed Salah (the leader of the Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel who spent two years in jail after confessing to funding Hamas) which noted that 6 of the 13 paragraphs of the piece (on Salah’s recent arrest in the UK) was devoted towards defending the radical preacher, and not one fact, from easily available evidence with anyone who has access to Google, of the grotesquely anti-Semitic sermons he’s given – including a 2007 speech where he reportedly accused Jews of using children’s blood to bake bread.

Not content with that blatantly misleading article, by Alan Travis, the Guardian provided Conal Urquhart an opportunity to pen an even more ideologically driven apologia for Salah, who quoted one of the most obsessively anti-Israel activists in UK, Ben White, as a source for story – describing the author of the book “Israel Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide” merely as “a writer and activist.” Urquhart quotes White as saying:

“The same government that sent police to arrest a Palestinian civil society leader from his hotel bedroom is changing UK legislation explicitly to facilitate the entry of accused Israeli war criminals,”

Salah, the “Palestinian civil society leader” who White contrasts favorable with Israel’s democratic leaders, said the following in 2007 which led to his arrest for incitement:

“We have never allowed ourselves to knead [the dough for] the bread that breaks the fast in the holy month of Ramadan with children’s blood…Whoever wants a more thorough explanation, let him ask what used to happen to some children in Europe, whose blood was mixed in with the dough of the [Jewish] holy bread.”

Salah also referred to Osama Bin Laden as a martyr and, according to The JC, Salah called Jews “butchers of pregnant women and babies”, and said “the Creator meant for [Jews] to be monkeys and losers.”

Of course, White, who has expressed sympathy for those who are anti-Semitic, would naturally view Salah with sympathy, and it’s only natural that Urquhart would quote him as a reliable source.

Urquhart’s journalistic malfeasance, however, hits a crescendo when, from the second to the last paragraph, he characterizes the hate preacher merely as someone “is despised by Israel’s right-wing.”

Evidently, you have to be on the “right-wing” to morally object to a vile bigot who advances the most crude and odious anti-Semitic narratives. It’s as if, for activists at the Guardian like Urquhart, mouthing support for the rights of Palestinians automatically inoculates you from charges of racism.

Pro-Palestinian activism by Guardian reporters is so uncontroversial that they largely don’t even attempt to hide their political sympathies.

While of course not all anti-Israel bias is informed by hatred of Jews, it is beyond doubt that the institutional bias against Israel at the Guardian is often informed by a willingness to turn a blind eye to clear and unmistakable evidence of even the most explicit anti-Semitism.

The Guardian’s bias in covering Sheikh Raed Salah (cifwatch.com)
What the Guardian won’t report: Notorious anti-Semite, Gilad Atzmon, a featured speaker at flotilla fundraiser (cifwatch.com)
Guardian levels false allegations at Israel over the use of white phosphorus (cifwatch.com)
Guardian and Independent coverage of second flotilla omits key facts (cifwatch.com)
Professor Robert Wistrich: “The Guardian is second to none when it comes to the delegitimization of Israel” (cifwatch.com)

The Guardian’s bias in covering Sheikh Raed Salah

June 29, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Al-Aqsa Mosque, Cross Post, Elder of Ziyon, Guardian, Islamic Movement in Israel, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Raed Salah, Sheikh Raed Salah, Umm al-Fahm | by Guest/Cross Post | 5 comments

This is cross posted by Elder of Ziyon

From The Guardian:

Sheikh Raed Salah, a leading Palestinian activist, has been detained in London after he entered the UK while banned from the country.

Salah, the leader of the Islamic Movement in Israel, was detained on Tuesday night by police.

The home secretary, Theresa May, said officials from the UK Border Agency were taking steps to remove Salah from the country. She said an investigation had been launched into how he managed to get into the UK.

…Sarah Colborne, director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), insisted that Salah was the leader of a legitimate political organisation. He rejected all forms of racism, including anti-semitism, she said.

“Sheikh Raed Salah is the leader of the Islamic Movement in Israel, the largest movement for Palestinians in Israel,” Colborne said.

“This is a legitimate organisation which Israel has never moved to ban.

“Raed Saleh regularly speaks at venues across Israel where he has considerable support amongst the Palestinian citizens of Israel, who make up a fifth of the population.

“Sheikh Raed has been elected as mayor of his home town, Um al-Fahm, three times. He has never been convicted of anti-semitism in Israel.
“Before coming to Britain, he faced horrific allegations of anti-semitism, which he completely refuted.”

This article is a perfect example of media bias.

The entire article is 13 paragraphs long – and of those 13, fully 6 are given to someone defending Raed Salah.

There is nothing in the article that mentions any possible reason why Salah might be considered undesirable. It doesn’t mention why he has been arrested and imprisoned in Israel, or his ties to Hamas, or his regular incitement against Jews (every week or so he confidently declares that Israel plans to demolish the Al Aqsa Mosque, trying as hard as he can to inflame Muslim passions and start a new intifada.) To the Guardian, he is simply a “Palestinian activist.”

Even worse, the Guardian allows an apologist for Salah to assert that he is not anti-semitic.

Just one problem:

He is.

And it doesn’t take too much effort to prove that.

From Ha’aretz, January 29, 2008:

The head of the Islamic Movement in Israel’s Northern Branch, Ra’ad Salah, was charged Tuesday in Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court with incitement to violence and racism, over a fiery speech he gave a year ago in which he invoked the blood libel.

During the speech at the February 16, 2007 protest in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Wadi Joz, Salah accused Jews of using children’s blood to bake bread.

“We have never allowed ourselves to knead [the dough for] the bread that breaks the fast in the holy month of Ramadan with children’s blood,” he said. “Whoever wants a more thorough explanation, let him ask what used to happen to some children in Europe, whose blood was mixed in with the dough of the [Jewish] holy bread.”

“Great God, is this a religion?” he asked. “Is this what God would want? God will deal with you yet for what you are doing.”

The rally was called to protest the planned Mughrabi bridge construction in Jerusalem’s Old City. Addressing the 1,000-strong crowd and assembled press, Salah accused Israel of attempting to rebuild the Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount while drenched in Arab blood.

“Whoever wants to build a house of God should not do so while our blood is still on his clothes, on his doorposts, in his food, in his drink, being passed along from one terrorist general to the next terrorist general,” he said.

Following the speech and Friday prayers, the crowd began rioting and throwing stones at police. According to the prosecution, Salah’s speech constituted a “call to commit acts of violence and encouragement of acts of violence, which given the content and context, there was a real possibility that it could lead to acts of violence.”

The prosecution said Salah made the remarks “with the objective of inciting racism.”

In an interview with Ashams radio, Salah said in response that, “I am willing to repeat before the court all the things I said at the Friday sermon in Wadi Joz or any other meeting with journalists.“

“Our statements are the products of conviction, and I will not recant,” he continued.

Salah was released from prison in 2005 after serving some two years for having contact with a foreign agent, as well as financial crimes related to the Islamic Movement.

This is not only a problem with the Guardian. No other newspaper coverage of Salah regularly mentions his blood libel, which is a piece of information that should be attached to his name every single time it is mentioned in a news report.

But The Guardian deserves to be singled out here for an article that is completely void of context and that is nearly 50% apologetics for a terrorist supporter, regular inciter to violence and an unabashed anti-semite.

Azzam Tamimi’s big ‘Arab Spring’ lie. (cifwatch.com)
Details on investigation and arrest of Palestinians in connection with Fogel family murders (cifwatch.com)

VJBRHNFNHNS9

Twitter Updates

Propaganda by wife of Islamic Jihad terrorist, Khadr Adnan: Courtesy of the Guardian : http://t.co/A2IsEX9X via @wordpressdotcom 1 hour ago
Seumas Milne or Ahmadinejad? Guardian warns attacking Iran would be 'criminal aggression': http://t.co/3yXqLcYI via @wordpressdotcom 7 hours ago
Why do you conceal this context? http://t.co/E3fQ4ryF MT @AsaWinstanley: Stunning graphic illustrates context of Adnan's hunger strike 8 hours ago
@anthonypermal glad to hear that. 8 hours ago
.@huwaidaarraf bet this video of terrorist #KhaderAdnan makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. http://t.co/E3fQ4ryF 9 hours ago
9/11 troofer shilling for a terrorist tweeted by terror supporter > MT @huwaidaarraf: Richard Falk: Saving #KhaderAdnan's Life and Legacy 9 hours ago
@anthonypermal glad to hear it; but seeking a justification to murder Jews in cold blood....think about that. 9 hours ago
.@anthonypermal justifying suicide bombings eh? How lovely. 9 hours ago
Its so chic to shill for a terrorist http://t.co/E3fQ4ryF MT @sysh: Cool #infographic about Hunger Strikes. Feat. #KhaderAdnan 9 hours ago
Not this speech though! http://t.co/E3fQ4ryF >>MT @VanZaqq: RT @anthonypermal: The Hunger Strike Infographic. This chilled me.. #khaderadnan 9 hours ago
Clip of Israeli Amb to UK, Daniel Taub, blasting Deborah Orr at 'Big Tent for Zionism' conference: http://t.co/4TB3wkWp via @adamlevick 10 hours ago
#KhaderAdnan: "Who among you is the next suicide bomber?" http://t.co/E3fQ4ryF 12 hours ago
Would you let your children watch this video? #KhadersVictory4Palestine http://t.co/pzMthe71 13 hours ago
@Dima_Khatib Yes it counts to glorify a man who encourages suicide bombing. Wonderful! #KhadersVictory4Palestine http://t.co/pzMthe71 14 hours ago
Warning: don't watch this video if yoú're not tough http://t.co/pzMthe71 ##KhadersVictory4Palestine 14 hours ago
Do you know who you're praising? Adnan is no hero http://t.co/pzMthe71 ##KhadersVictory4Palestine 14 hours ago
Watch this video of #KhaderAdnan that the anti-Israel activists don't want you to see http://t.co/E3fQ4ryF 14 hours ago
.@JessicaMontell are you proud of yourself? http://t.co/E3fQ4ryF 14 hours ago
Does this sound like innocent? http://t.co/E3fQ4ryF MT @z4k8: RT @lsarsour: There are 100s of #KhaderAdnan in #palestine - innocent people.. 14 hours ago
This life or the afterlife? http://t.co/E3fQ4ryF >> MT @HopesProject: #KhadersVictory4Palestine you definitely taught us life, sir!!! 14 hours ago

Tag Archive

The Guardian’s long crusade in defense of radical Islamist Raed Salah is dealt a heavy blow.

The Guardian continues to run interference for the radical antisemitic preacher, Raed Salah

Guardian again airbrushes Raed Salah’s extremism, antisemitism, and terrorist affiliations

American Nazi “Prophecy”, Raed Salah, and Dr Daud Abdullah: Deja Vu?

Sheikh Raed Salah: The Indictments

Raed Salah Week continues at the Guardian, offering the sage analysis of Noam Chomsky

The Guardian: Fuelling Denials of Antisemitism

On the “Guardian Hamas support network”

At the Guardian, it’s Sheikh Raed Salah – O – Mania!

On anti-Semites and their enablers: Guardian editorial defends radical anti-Semitic preacher, Raed Salah

The Guardian, Haneen Zoabi and Raed Salah – a Case Study of the Red-Green Alliance

What the Guardian won’t report: Raed Salah’s not so liberal views on women, gays, and Jihad

Conal Urquhart quotes Ben White as a source in Guardian’s second whitewash of anti-Semitic preacher

The Guardian’s bias in covering Sheikh Raed Salah

CiF Watch: A Technorati Top 100 “Politics” and “World Politics” Blog

CiF Watch Report on Extremists & Terror Supporters Behind ‘Global March to Jerusalem’

CiF Watch Newsletters

Gaza Rocket Counter

Join our Facebook Page

Follow CiF Watch on Twitter

Follow Blog via Email

Recent Posts

CifWatchers

Blogroll

Recent Comments

Twitter Updates

CiF Watch Tag Cloud

Archives

Fair Use Notice

Terms of Use

Follow “CiF Watch”

Tag Archive

Related articles

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

CiF Watch: A Technorati Top 100 “Politics” and “World Politics” Blog

CiF Watch Report on Extremists & Terror Supporters Behind ‘Global March to Jerusalem’

CiF Watch Newsletters

Gaza Rocket Counter

Join our Facebook Page

Follow CiF Watch on Twitter

Follow Blog via Email

Recent Posts

CifWatchers

Blogroll

Recent Comments

CiF Watch Tag Cloud

Archives

Fair Use Notice

Terms of Use

Follow “CiF Watch”