Tag Archive

You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Raed Salah’ tag.

Racist Alliance: Behind the scenes of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine and Pluto Press

November 23, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Amnesty International, Azzam Tamimi, Board of Deputies of British Jews, Hamas, International Solidarity Movement, Raed Salah, Russell Tribunal | by Israelinurse | 125 comments

Richard Millett’s recent post on the subject of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine’s (RToP) book launch held at Amnesty International’s London premises (where else?) provides a good opportunity to take a look behind the scenes of such an event and to examine the connections of some of the various players and the manner in which some anti-Israel activists attempt to co-opt legitimacy to their campaign by intellectualising it.

The book in question is entitled ‘Corporate Complicity in Israel’s Occupation’ and is based upon the ‘evidence’ presented at the RToP session in London last year. Its editors are Asa Winstanley and Frank Barat and it is published by Pluto Press.

Asa Winstanley is heavily involved with the International Solidarity Movement and spent time in the PA controlled territories working on its behalf.

“The ISM training was yesterday and today. We had about eight new recruits, so it was a pretty good weekend session. At the end of today, we were planning how to spread ourselves around the regions that ISM covers and it was a really good vibe. We have some good activists here now and I am feeling more confident about the state of ISM. The majority of us here now are British, I think.”

Winstanley’s ISM links appear to have continued after his return to the UK and he has been involved in recruiting volunteers and fundraising for the organisation. He apparently considers his stint with the ISM to have turned him into a Middle East expert, and writes for a variety of outlets including ‘Electronic Intifada’ and ‘Ceasefire’. Winstanley’s level of ‘expertise’ on Israel can be appreciated in the following passage.

“When I lived in Palestine, on the few times I had to travel to Tel Aviv from the West Bank (via Jerusalem,) walking around the public bus stations I was struck by the sheer number of armed, uniformed soldiers who used the public bus system. Anyone who has used buses in Israel for any length of time will tell you they often have more soldiers than civilians on them.

The phenomenon is so widespread that it can only be a deliberate policy. Does some $3 billion a year in military aid from the US government not provide it with enough funding for its own troop transportation? So Israel not only uses Palestinians as human shields, but it even “hides” its soldiers amongst its own civilian population – exactly what Israeli spokespeople accuses Hamas of. Talk about projection.”

Recently Winstanley has invested much in defending the case of Northern Islamic Movement leader Raed Salah who was arrested earlier this year in the UK. (The Tribunal decision is here.) Here he is being interviewed on the subject by Dr Hanan Chehata (also press officer for Daoud Abdullah’s MEMO) on the Muslim Brotherhood-linked ‘Al Hiwar’ TV channel which was established in 2006 by Azzam Tamimi.

With lies and distortions in practically every sentence, not to mention the liberal sprinklings of ‘Israel lobby’ conspiracy theory and false accusations of ‘Islamophobia’ against the CST and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, it is easy to appreciate why Winstanley is such a hit in anti-Israel circles. Particularly interesting is his declaration that the new book he co-edited is designed to be a ‘handbook’ for those engaging in BDS.

The book’s other editor is the currently UK domiciled French activist Frank Barat who is also the co-ordinator for the Russell Tribunal on Palestine. Barat is also a member of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and the UK branch of ICHAD.

In January 2010 Barat spoke as RToP representative at one of the Palestine Memorial Week events which the RToP now organizes annually together with the Palestinian Return Centre, the Palestinian Forum in the UK, the European Campaign to End the Siege on Gaza, the Islamic Forum of Europe, FOSIS, the Muslim Association of Britain and the Islamic Human Rights Commission, among others.

The majority of these organisations have direct links to Hamas – a proscribed terror organization in the UK – and the Muslim Brotherhood. The events are endorsed by the PSC, Friends of Al Aqsa, the ISM, the Free Palestine Movement (organizer of flotillas) and Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East.

Barat is also busy on the lecture circuit: here he is for example appearing alongside a Guardian reporter at a Tower Hamlets Jenin Friendship Association event, and here, alongside Ghada Karmi and Jody McIntyre, explaining why he is an ‘activist’.

Barat also appears to have links to the ISM and in addition writes for a number of outlets including Al Jazeera, ‘Electronic Intifada’, the Palestine Chronicle and others. Here is his report for Ma’an from the recent RToP session in South Africa, written together with Al Shabaka’s Victor Kattan who was reporting from the event on Twitter.

Barat also runs his own blog where he links to, among other extremists, Gilad Atzmon, whose antisemitic resume includes leveling the explicit charge, on his blog, that Jews are indeed trying to take over the world.

Barat is also the editor of a book by Noam Chomsky and Ilan Pappe.

Here is Barat’s distinctly incomplete account of the death of Jawaher Abu Rahma.

“Jawaher probably chanted “la la el jidar” (no, no, to the wall) and walked, side by side with others, towards the Apartheid Wall and the line of soldiers, waiting on top of the hill. She then probably run away when the first tear gas were fired, regrouped, and walked back towards the wall again.

……Or maybe she did not. Not this time.

She inhaled a huge quantity of this most poisonous substance and was taken to a Ramallah hospital. She never recovered. She died. The Holy Land is not the land of miracles.”

Both Winstanley and Barat are obviously wedded more to the ‘narrative’ which promotes their careers as ‘activists’ than to the kind of objectivity and adherence to fact one would expect from the editors of books or serious publications. One must therefore ask why a publishing house would select them for that role and the answer to that question is probably best found in an understanding of the ideologies adhered to by founder and publisher of Pluto Press, Roger van Zwanberg.

Many of the authors on Pluto’s authors list are household names to those familiar with the anti-Israel scene: Alastair Crooke of Conflicts Forum, Sarah Irving, Mazin Qumsiyeh, Uri Gordon of ‘Anarchists Against the Wall’ and Ted Honderich - who published at letter at the Guardian morally justifying suicide bombing against Israeli civilians - to name but a few.

Pluto Press’ radical agenda is, however, not entirely limited to the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

In 2005, for example, it published a book (preface can be read here) entitled ‘Conjuring Hitler; How Britain and America made the Third Reich’ which, according to reviews, leans on the works of Holocaust Denier David Irving among others.

The publishing house also has its own Youtube channel, organizes events at universities and other venues and dedicates a page on its site to the Russell Tribunal on Palestine.

Roger van Zwanenberg

In addition to his activities at Pluto Press, Roger van Zwanenberg was also a trustee of the apparently now defunct ‘Gateway Trust’ (also known as the ‘Van Zwanenberg Charitable Trust’) which included Naomi Klein and former Guardian employee Victoria Brittain among its group of ‘international advisors’ and which was supported financially by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, UNESCO and Pluto Press.

He has also been a member of the advisory board of ‘Just Media’ (founded by the Palestine Chronicle’s Ramzy Baroud – also a Pluto Press author) along with Ilan Pappe, Noam Chomsky and John Pilger.

Here is Pluto Press described in its founder’s own words:

“Our niche, our rationale and our advantage in the marketing place of the world, is that we tackle the great issues of our day… the grandeur of Imperialism, war and peace locally and globally, the tyranny of oppression, and the domination of one people by another…. the great issues as seen through socialist writers (sic) eyes.”

Van Zwanenberg describes himself as a Marxist born into “a Christian family with deep Jewish roots; all my first cousins were and are deeply Jewish.” That fact is, apparently, sufficient grounds for pulling the ‘asaJew‘ card when deemed an advantage. Here van Zwanenberg has signed a 2008 ‘Jewish opposition statement to attack on Iran’ organized by ‘Jews against Zionism’. He is also a member of ‘Jews for Justice for Palestinians’.

In a 2006 article entitled “Jewish people of Israel re-enact the horrors of their German oppressors” (written as a response to the IDF’s attempt to locate and rescue the kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit), van Zwanenberg wrote the following:

“Israel and its people are now behaving with impunity, just like the State of Germany did in prosecuting the final solution. We are schooled in the belief that we must say “never again!” to such barbarity. But Israel knows that all the surrounding states are too weak to intervene. As we watch with horror the invasion of Gaza, we all feel our helplessness. All the fine words, how the horrors of the Holocaust must always be remembered, are quickly forgotten by the world’s governments as the Jewish people of Israel re-enact the horrors of their German oppressors—the horrors that their mothers and fathers underwent 60 or more years ago.

Just as Nazi Germany could not survive for long, so too, a brutal Israel, brutalizing her own and all the surrounding people, cannot survive for long. As things stand, I cannot see how that demise will come about. But the acts of evil we are now witnessing cannot last without having deep and lasting effects on all of us.” [emphasis mine]

In 2008 van Zwanenberg lent his name to a campaign for the reinstatement of a German academic, Ludwig Watzal, removed from his tenure at an official periodical after making a series of anti-Semitic remarks. Coincidentally or not, Watzal had produced a glowing review of one of Pluto Press’ publications the previous year.

Van Zwanenberg appears to consider himself proficient in understanding what he terms “so-called Terrorism”, supports BDS and is an ardent promoter of ‘anti-Imperialism’:

“Western and Eastern interests are everywhere, shipping into and out of the Suez Canal; the struggle to own or control mineral resources; but above all, the fear of “Political Islam”. The Western powers fear of political Islam is a dominant force driving the US to war throughout the region. Some will argue, as I would, that this is thoroughly misunderstood. But the hatred of all things Islamic is a mantra which is everywhere in Western media. The ruling and political classes use this fear to drive their own “War against Terrorism”.”

In 2007, following the controversy over an American publisher’s distribution of the Pluto Press book “Overcoming Zionism”, van Zwanenberg said that:

“Many presses in the United States are frightened of the pressures that the lobby can place on them,” van Zwanenberg said. “We get authors from the United States, precisely because they can’t obtain adequate representation elsewhere, and we have a good reputation for scholarly work on the subject of Israel and Palestine, and we probably have the best collections of any university press in that area.”

“Van Zwanenberg added that the attempts by “the Israel lobby” to cut off Pluto’s American distribution channel were an attack on free expression. “The lobby is very powerful and very well-financed, and small presses like us could be destroyed by these people,” van Zwanenberg said. “They are a threat to our existence and to free speech.” “

Of course in reality no-one is threatening van Zwanenberg’s free speech or the existence of his business, but free speech is a two-way street.

Members of the public have the right (and perhaps the obligation) to be aware of the extremist ideologies which motivate the publication of the type of quasi-academic work produced by publishers such as Pluto Press, particularly when it comes as a result of collaboration with a ‘tribunal’ which misleadingly affords itself quasi-legal status and faux ‘human rights’ activists such as Winstanley and Barat with links to terror-enabling organisations.

‘War on Want’ at Russell Tribunal on Palestine: “More direct action coming.” (cifwatch.com)
Guardian Travel publishes article by Sarah Irving, former ISM activist (cifwatch.com)
Channel 4′s lying subtitles in Guardian-endorsed “Going for Gold in Gaza” documentary. (cifwatch.com)
The Tweets +972′s Joseph Dana didn’t want you to see (cifwatch.com)

Guardian dishes out dirt on Israeli Haredim, while totally ignoring Islamist threat on life of UK MP

November 2, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Antisemitism, BBC, Guardian, Harriet Sherwood, Islam, Mike Freer, Muslims against Crusades, North Finchley, Raed Salah, Terrorism | by Medusa | 17 comments

'Muslims against Crusades' demonstrating in London in 2010. The group threatened the life of MP Freer

Harriet Sherwood is never slow to condemn Israel about anything. Usually, however, her burblings are not deemed worthy by her Guardian masters to merit reader comments below such reports. However an exception was made (I suspect in order to crank up vitriol below the line) for her article on the reprehensible behaviour of Haredim towards school girls in Bet Shemesh – which many Haredim themselves deemed reprehensible and, in fact, spoke out and acted against.

However, at almost the same time, and far away from the Guardian’s fairy tale world of habitual Israeli villainy, a rather disturbing incident kicked off in the UK. You would not know about it if you read only the Guardian because it has not been reported there at all thus far, but the nasty little self-proclaimed organisation for the propagation of Islam and sharia rule, Muslims against Crusades, have been busy making their egregious presence felt in a mosque in north London. The BBC tells us all about it :

Conservative MP Mike Freer was holding a constituency surgery at the North Finchley mosque in north London when a group of 12 men forced their way into the room. The BBC article refers to Freer’s report of a message posted before the incident on the Muslims Against Crusades website which referred to the attack on Labour MP Stephen Timms, who was stabbed while holding a surgery in east London last year. (The web page has since been removed). The message referred to the attack on Mr Timms and said that it should serve as a “piercing reminder” to politicians that “their presence is no longer welcome in any Muslim area”. Not mentioned by the BBC, however, is that Mr Freer had been prominent in the campaign to deport Raed Salah.

The overweening arrogance of Muslims against Crusades is not without precedent in the UK, whose successive governments have, to their shame, caved in all too easily to similarly inappropriate and misplaced infringements upon the rights and freedoms of its citizens in London and elsewhere by such radicalized Muslims who deliberately set themselves apart and live in separate societal groups governed by sharia law. One rationale for their behaviour may be explained as follows:

The Muslim concept of hijra is used to describe a migration – or more accurately, and perhaps tellingly, a flight – and in particular the flight of Muhammad and his followers in 622 AD from Mecca, where they were persecuted, to Medina, where they established the first Islamic state. The process of migrating and establishing a Muslim community in a non-Muslim context, is an important aspect of the Muslim perception of the territorialism of the umma. It has an important place in Islamic theology and it also raises interesting questions about a significant number of Muslim immigrants who – rather than interacting with the indigent communities to which they have migrated and respecting their social mores – encourage, if not attempt to compel, that community to adopt their own view of the world.

Muslims who hold such view may see the establishment of a Muslim community in the UK as a contemporary hijra. However, Sookhdeo (2005) says that an important question arises as to which seventh century hijra they compare it: the hijra to Abyssinia in which the Muslims became contented and loyal subjects of a Christian king, or the hijra to Medina where they seized political and military power. My belief is that ‘Muslims against Crusades’ would like to imitate the hijra to Medina, as has started with the Tower Hamlets travesty, which took place with the connivance of the UK government, and spreading it elsewhere.

Turning again to the incident in the North Finchley mosque, it shouldn’t, of course, matter to anyone if MP Freer is indeed a Jew and/or gay, yet ‘Muslims against Crusades’, in stark opposition to the social mores of a multicultural UK, broke into the room where Freer was speaking and made explicitly antisemitic and homophobic remarks – reportedly calling him a “Jewish homosexual pig“.

We are also led to believe from the BBC’s account that so threatened did Mike Freer and the mosque staff feel that they locked him in a room for his own protection and the police were called. Nevertheless no arrests were made.

So far as I am aware no mosque representative has yet come forward to speak out against the reprehensible behaviour of Muslims against Crusades towards Mr Freer – a minimum gesture which would go some way to improving the image of the North Finchley Mosque and its members.

It certainly seems reasonable to expect that the government ought to show some backbone – and moral consistency – and ban Muslims for Crusades because of the group’s undeniable threat to social cohesion.

Three aspects of that incident are chilling:

The first is that Muslims for Crusades could so easily enter the building and threaten Mr Freer. We are told that there was a noisy demonstration outside the building when he arrived. Why was there no security at the doors to prevent the mob from entering?

The second (which links to the lack of security provision) is that the members of the mosque felt so incapable of asserting their right to do what they wanted within their premises that they allowed this to happen. Those readers who have heard the highly vocal Muslims against Crusades in action will be well aware of how intimidating they can be;

The third is Muslims for Crusades’ warning to politicians that “their presence is no longer welcome in any Muslim area”. This is a prime example of the results of what Sookhdeo (2005) calls the “sacralisation of space” which follows on from the Muslim hijra. As Sookhdeo writes:

“..Two other Islamic principles [besides hijra] are important subjects of debate among contemporary Muslims. The first concerns ‘sacred space’. Islam is a territorial religion. Any space once gained is considered sacred and should belong to the umma forever. Any lost space must be regained — even by force if necessary. Migrant Muslim communities in the West are constantly engaged in sacralising new areas — first the inner private spaces of their homes and mosques, and latterly whole neighbourhoods (e.g., Birmingham) by means of marches and processions. So the ultimate end of sacred space theology is autonomy for Muslims of the UK under Islamic law….”

We know that these have happened in Tower Hamlets in London and elsewhere in the UK, but the government seems deaf, dumb and blind to this latest no-go area and grave threat to social cohesion.

On the website of ‘Muslims against Crusades’ they warn that MP Freer is “an avid promoter of teaching homosexuality and lesbianism in schools”.

The statement on Freer ends by adding that “Islam will dominate the UK and the world.”

What will it take, I wonder, for the UK to wake up?

The Guardian’s long crusade in defense of radical Islamist Raed Salah is dealt a heavy blow. (cifwatch.com)
Another adherent to radical Islam welcomed by the Guardian (cifwatch.com)
Blogger, heal thyself (cifwatch.com)

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)

CiF Watch’s new Newsletter has hit the stands!

July 18, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, Comment is Free, Delegitimization, Guardian, Jim Bollan, Newsletter, Raed Salah, Robin Shepherd | by Adam Levick | Leave a comment

Message from Managing Editor, Adam Levick

Friends,

Guardian Assistant Editor Michael White’s admission that his paper is indeed biased against Israel represented a rare flash of introspection and honesty from an institution which has shown itself otherwise to be remarkably thin-skinned in the face of criticism that their animosity towards Israel is inconsistent with their desire to be the “world’s leading liberal voice”.

More recently, the prolific Robin Shepherd characterized the Guardian’s “antipathy to the Jewish state” as nothing short of “fanatical.”

An overstatement? Hardly.

The Guardian’s coverage of the UK’s detainment of Sheikh Raed Salah, the extremist head of the Islamic Movement’s Northern Division, represented the ideologically driven anti-Israel bias of the paper at its worst. As we pointed out (and as you’ll see in posts linked to below), the Guardian continually airbrushed easily obtainable, and simply irrefutable, evidence of Salah’s anti-Semitism, extremism, and record of incitement. Inversely, those who opposed Salah were typically referred to as “right-wing” Israelis.

Salah’s kid glove treatment is further evidence that, for the Guardian, advancing the rhetoric of Palestinian rights inculcates even those who are most egregiously, and viscerally, hostile to Jews (and Israel’s very existence) from charges of anti-Semitism – a troubling dynamic which this blog arduously tries to expose.

Recent Highlights

On Anti-Semites and their enablers: Guardian editorial defends radical anti-Semitic preacher, Raed Salah
Adam Levick commented on the Guardian’s ideologically driven coverage of the Sheikh Raed Salah row – which included 7 reports (stories, commentaries, editorials, and letters) – and explains the significance of their consistent whitewash of Salah’s undeniable record of extremism, anti-Semitism, misogyny and homophobia in the context of their broader hostility towards Israel. (Read post here)

CiF Watch leads charge in opposition to Scottish council’s boycott of Israel
CiF Watch commented extensively on the 2009 resolution by West Dunbartonshire to boycott Israeli goods, and sent out an Action Alert notifying those concerned with the discriminatory act how they could take part in efforts to overturn the resolution. (Read post here)

CiF Watch exposes incriminating emails by West Dunbartonshire’s pro-boycott Councillor, Jim Bollan.
Adam Levick posted about emails, obtained by CiF Watch, by one of the passionate proponents of WD’s Israel boycott, Jim Bollan, where he explicitly referred to Hamas as “Freedom Fighters”. Additional posts revealed Bollan’s comparison between Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and Nazi Germany’s treatment of the Jews, and his refusal to even condemn the perpetrators of the Fogel Family Massacre.

Israelinurse exposes extremist and terrorist affiliations of “flytilla” activists
While efforts by Hamas-inspired flotilla (and “flytilla”) activists to break Israel’s Naval blockade (against deadly weapons being smuggled into Gaza) was a complete failure, that didn’t stop the Guardian from whitewashing the extremist, and terrorist, affiliations of the participants. (See Israelinurse’s stellar reports, demonstrating what the Guardian didn’t report, here and here.)

Recent Press

CiF Watch Managing Editor, Adam Levick, interviewed about CiF Watch and the fight against anti-Semitism.
Adam Levick was interviewed, about the issue of anti-Semitism and the role CiF Watch plays in exposing and combating this bigotry at the Guardian and Comment is Free, by Daniel Vahab, a freelance writer who’s currently conducting research for a book he’s writing on the subject of contemporary anti-Semitism.

CiF Watch ranked by Technorati as a Top 100 Blog

Technorati, the definitive blog ranking site, lists CiF Watch as a Top 100 blog, in the category of World Politics – a testament to both our increasing web traffic, as well as the number of other blogs who link back to us. To all of our loyal fans, and friendly bloggers, thanks, as always, for your support!

What Can You Do?

There are 3 simple actions you can take to make our work more effective:

(1) Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

(2) Forward this newsletter to at least 5 friends and as many others by clicking here.

(3) Email us at contactus@cifwatch.com if you see something in the Guardian that makes your blood boil.

Harriet Sherwood, and the Guardian’s continuing ideologically inspired sins of omission

July 11, 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, Harriet Sherwood, Rachel Corrie, Raed Salah, Terrorism | by Adam Levick | Leave a comment

As we noted over the course of 7 Guardian pieces on Sheikh Raed Salah, and as Israelinurse noted (here and here) in her pieces on the “flytilla” activists - and, indeed, as this blog has been observing since it’s founding – the Guardian’s capacity for airbrushing out their protagonists’ undeniable record of extremism and anti-Semitic bigotry is one of the defining characteristics of their ideologically driven anti-Israel agenda.

Harriet Sherwood is no stranger to this phenomenon – as her surreal characterization of the slain anti-Israel, pro-Hamas, activist, Vittorio Arrigoni as a “peace activist” testifies to – and her piece today (Rachel Corrie’s family claim Israeli military withheld vital video evidence) is another prime example of how selectively leaving out certain details, facts or context about an event or “activist” can effectively serve to vilify Israel to a degree as damaging as outright lies, distortions or invectives.

Sherwood’s piece, written after covering Cindy Corrie’s press conference at the American Colony Hotel yesterday, noted the Corrie family’s contention that Israeli authorities withheld key evidence pertaining to their civil trial against the state.

Sherwood then provided the following account of the events in March 2003 which led to Rachel Corrie’s death:

Rachel, from Olympia, Washington state, was killed while attempting to protect the home of a Palestinian family in the Rafah area of Gaza from being demolished by Israeli troops in March 2003.

As I noted in my post yesterday, the incident occurred while IDF forces were removing shrubbery along the security road near the border between Israel and Egypt at Rafah to uncover explosive devices, and destroying tunnels used by Palestinian terrorists to illegally smuggle weapons from Egypt to Gaza. Corrie and her fellow ISM “activists” were interfering with a military operation to legally demolish an empty house used to conceal one of these tunnels.

Whether Corrie actually believed, at the time, that she was merely protecting an Arab home which was going to be demolished, by the IDF, for no particular reason is besides the point.

As it’s eight years later, and nobody can possibly contest that the Israeli authorities were engaged in an anti-terror operation at the time of Corrie’s death – that is, the IDF was trying to uncover explosives which were intended to kill more Israeli civilians in the context of a violent Intifada which would ultimately claim over 1000 innocent Israeli lives – a responsible journalist not inspired by ideological driven antipathy towards the Jewish state would necessarily include such a pertinent fact about the events on that fateful day.

As with the Guardian’s refusal to conduct even a rudimentary investigation into Sheikh Raed Salah’s record of incitement, anti-Semitism, and extremism, even when not explicitly advancing anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist canards, the reporters’ (and CiF columnists’) continuing sins of omission regarding the malevolence of anti-Israel “activists” has an equally pernicious effect.

In contextualizing the Guardian’s narratives about Jews and Israel – and as our series of “What the Guardian won’t report” posts attempt to demonstrate -what they don’t report is often as important as what they do.

Harriet Sherwood, Egypt’s opening of its border with Gaza, and the photos not posted (cifwatch.com)
Rachel Corrie’s family claim Israeli military withheld vital video evidence (guardian.co.uk)
Mondoweiss or David Duke? Raed Salah’s defenders reach a new low. (cifwatch.com)
Fool’s Prophecy: Harriet Sherwood’s latest compelling tale of Israeli oppression…that hasn’t yet happened (cifwatch.com)
If Arnold Roth held a news conference at the American Colony Hotel, would the Guardian cover it? (cifwatch.com)
Harriet Sherwood erroneously places Knesset on Arab Farmland (cifwatch.com)
The Guardian smells blood: Harriet Sherwood sees a possible Third Intifada “as frustration mounts”. (cifwatch.com)
Harriet Sherwood’s talent for avoiding use of term “terrorist” when characterizing Palestinians who’ve murdered Israeli civilians (cifwatch.com)
A brief note to Harriet Sherwood on her return to Jerusalem (cifwatch.com)
Harriet Sherwood feels Hamas’ pain (cifwatch.com)
Resistance: The JNF, and Harriet Sherwood’s continuing delegitimization of the Jewish state (cifwatch.com)
Vicious hate unleashed by Guardian readers inspired by Harriet Sherwood’s attack on Geoffrey Alderman (cifwatch.com)
What Harriet Sherwood won’t scream about: 92 y/o Palestinian woman, on Hamas TV, wishes for the massacre of Jews (like in Hebron) (cifwatch.com)
On Sherwood’s implosion (cifwatch.com)
The Facebook Wall of a “Peace Activist” (cifwatch.com)
L’Affair Sherwood just got more interesting (Guardian reporter engages in possibly illegal phone recording) (cifwatch.com)
Harriet Sherwood story in Guardian quotes Richard Falk in accusing Israel of ethnic cleansing (cifwatch.com)

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)

The Guardian’s “Respected American Academic”: Noam Chomsky

July 5, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, Guardian, Harry's Place, Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah, Noam Chomsky, Raed Salah | by Israelinurse | 2 comments

In characteristically ‘fair and balanced’ form, and apparently fully embracing its role as self-appointed defence advocate for Raed Salah, the Guardian published two more letters in support of the Islamist Sheikh currently detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure on July 4^th.

One of the letters is from veteran anti-Israel campaigner Noam Chomsky and its content does little to surprise. What is interesting, however, is a report on Harry’s Place which would suggest that the letter/article first appeared on the website of the Hamas support group MEMO but was then later removed and at a subsequent juncture appeared on the Guardian letters page.

Imaginative minds can only speculate as to the goings on behind that scenario; after all, it wouldn’t be the first time that the proximity of views between the Guardian and MEMO has been revealed and noted.

What is slightly more surprising was the apparent need to promote Chomsky’s letter further on the ‘Middle East Live‘ liveblogging section of the Guardian’s news section where, among news of renewed violence in Tahrir Square and the Syrian town of Hama, Matthew Weaver squeezed in the earth-shattering news that:

“The respected American academic Noam Chomsky has written to the Guardian to condemn government plans to deport the Palestinian activist Sheikh Raed Salah.”

Not just any old academic, one notes, but a ‘respected’ one. Presumably that word is intended to add gravity and authority to the Chomsky epistle but, rather, it indicates the type of person considered to be worthy of admiration at Guardian HQ.

Chomsky’s record is famously rich, but one of his more egregious actions was his decision to spend a week visiting Hizbollah in Lebanon in 2006, which included a meeting with Hassan Nasrallah who, weeks later, rained over 4,000 rockets down on northern Israel, killing dozens of civilians.

During the visit, Hizbullah’s ‘Al Manar’ TV station quoted Chomsky as saying:

“Hizbullah’s insistence on keeping its arms is justified… I think Nasrallah has a reasoned argument and [a] persuasive argument that they [the arms] should be in the hands of Hizbullah as a deterrent to potential aggression, and there is plenty of background reasons for that. So until, I think his position [is] reporting it correctly and it seems to me [a] reasonable position, is that until there is a general political settlement in the region, [and] the threat of aggression and violence is reduced or eliminated, there has to be a deterrent, and the Lebanese army can’t be a deterrent.”

One has to wonder if the people of Lebanon, who have seen Hizbollah take over their country in recent months, without needing to fire a shot, and anxiously await the outcome of the indictments of the Special Tribunal on Lebanon, would agree with the Guardian’s definition of Chomsky (the terrorist supporter) as ‘respected’ – likewise the Syrian and Iranian protesters who found themselves being attacked by Hizbollah thugs brought in by their respective regimes to help quell dissent.

But at least they now know the type of person whom Guardian editors find worthy of respect.

At the Guardian, it’s Sheikh Raed Salah – O – Mania! (cifwatch.com)
On the “Guardian Hamas support network” (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 and “powerful” Jews

July 4, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, Comment is Free, Guardian, Haneen Zoabi, Jewish Power, Raed Salah, Riazatt Butt | by Adam Levick | 69 comments

Riazatt Butt is CiF’s Religious Affairs correspondent, and her column, “Divine Dispatches”, in the Belief Section of CiF, represents a round-up of sorts on religious news in the UK and around the world. Her reports are sometimes cheeky and irreverent but, more often than not, sober and descriptive.

Her June 29th report focused on a group for those who have been alienated but wish to remain within the Anglican family, the LGBT issue within the Church of England, and the search for the next Chief Rabbi of the UK.

Regarding the latter issue, which touched on the Reform-Orthodox divide within the UK Jewish community, and other issues effecting the decision, Butt noted the “changing demographic of Britain’s small but powerful Jewish communities” – a narrative about Jewish influence, it should be noted, that Butt has explored on at least one other occasion.

Of course, anyone with a serious grasp of the history of anti-Semitism would immediately recognize this familiar trope about Jewry. No matter how small the Jewish community relative to the total population in the countries they live, their “power” and influence is always magnified – typically in the context of suggestions as to their injurious effects.

Even in the U.S., where Jews enjoy freedoms and prosperity unparalleled in Diaspora history, the term “Israel lobby” (or “Jewish Lobby”) has become shorthand, largely within progressive political circles - a pejorative suggesting that the organized Jewish community has a harmful influence on U.S. foreign policy.

In a previous post we commented on Haneen Zoabi’s CiF essay decrying the detention, by British Authorities, of radical Islamist preacher Raed Salah, where she accused the UK “Zionist” community of controlling British politics.

As noted in the post, the Jewish community in the UK (about 300,000) represents a minuscule percentage (less than 1/2 of 1%) of the overall British population.

Further, as anyone who reads this blog would surely know, this “powerful” Jewish community is somehow unable to control the Guardian’s habitual demonization of the Jewish state, nor other manifestations of obsessive Israel hatred (and anti-Semitism) in the media, as well as by Islamists, pro-Palestinian “activists”, and NGOs.

Globally, Jews make up approximately 2/10 of 1% of the world’s population.

Muslims make up 23%. Christians represent 30%.

Sixty-six years after the Holocaust, it is horribly dispiriting that the charge that Jewry is too (or, at least, disproportionately) powerful has become practically a banality.

The Guardian: Fuelling Denials of Antisemitism (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)
The Guardian: Platform of choice for Iranian anti-Israel propagandists (cifwatch.com)
Professor Robert Wistrich: “The Guardian is second to none when it comes to the delegitimization of Israel” (cifwatch.com)
“As a Jew” explained (cifwatch.com)
What the Guardian won’t report: Notorious anti-Semite, Gilad Atzmon, a featured speaker at flotilla fundraiser (cifwatch.com)
On why many liberals continue to ignore explicit anti-Semitism in the Palestinian media (cifwatch.com)
The Guardian grants licence to voice expressing alarm over the injurious effects of organized Jewish community in U.S. (cifwatch.com)
Image accompanying Guardian ‘letters to the editor’ post condemning Israel evokes classic canard (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)

Twitter Updates

Propaganda by wife of Islamic Jihad terrorist, Khadr Adnan: Courtesy of the Guardian : http://t.co/A2IsEX9X via @wordpressdotcom 46 minutes ago
Seumas Milne or Ahmadinejad? Guardian warns attacking Iran would be 'criminal aggression': http://t.co/3yXqLcYI via @wordpressdotcom 6 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 8 hours ago
9/11 troofer shilling for a terrorist tweeted by terror supporter > MT @huwaidaarraf: Richard Falk: Saving #KhaderAdnan's Life and Legacy 8 hours ago
@anthonypermal glad to hear it; but seeking a justification to murder Jews in cold blood....think about that. 8 hours ago
.@anthonypermal justifying suicide bombings eh? How lovely. 8 hours ago
Its so chic to shill for a terrorist http://t.co/E3fQ4ryF MT @sysh: Cool #infographic about Hunger Strikes. Feat. #KhaderAdnan 8 hours ago
Not this speech though! http://t.co/E3fQ4ryF >>MT @VanZaqq: RT @anthonypermal: The Hunger Strike Infographic. This chilled me.. #khaderadnan 8 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 9 hours ago
#KhaderAdnan: "Who among you is the next suicide bomber?" http://t.co/E3fQ4ryF 11 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 13 hours ago
Warning: don't watch this video if yoú're not tough http://t.co/pzMthe71 ##KhadersVictory4Palestine 13 hours ago
Do you know who you're praising? Adnan is no hero http://t.co/pzMthe71 ##KhadersVictory4Palestine 13 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

Racist Alliance: Behind the scenes of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine and Pluto Press

Guardian dishes out dirt on Israeli Haredim, while totally ignoring Islamist threat on life of UK MP

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

Harriet Sherwood, and the Guardian’s continuing ideologically inspired sins of omission

Sheikh Raed Salah: The Indictments

The Guardian’s “Respected American Academic”: Noam Chomsky

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

The Guardian and “powerful” Jews

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

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:

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:

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”