Guardian

The Guardian helps Hamas hitch a ride on the ‘Arab Spring’


You see it all the time: a pretty girl stands on the roadside, hitching a lift. The minute a driver pulls up, a boyfriend appears as if from nowhere out of the bushes and gets in the car too. That’s exactly what’s happening in the latest CiF article by a senior terrorist – Musa Abumarzuq – which appeared on May 24th. The pretty girl is a once respectable British newspaper. The scruffy boyfriend is Hamas, and the vehicle is the so-called ‘Arab Spring’.

This is of course far from the first time that the Guardian has published opinion pieces by known and prominent terrorists. Abumarzuq himself has been published in the past, albeit under different spelling of his name, as well as Osama Hamdan and Khalid Misha’al. I have asked the following question before, but seeing as the Guardian has yet to provide an answer, readers will surely bear with me if I repeat it.

Does the Guardian commission and pay for these epistles of Hamas propaganda? If so, how do the financial transactions take place, seeing as not only is Hamas classed as a proscribed terror organisation in the UK and therefore the transfer of funds to it is illegal, but Hamdan, Misha’al and Abumarzuq are, in addition, all named individuals among those whose assets have been frozen by the Bank of England since 2004 because of terror activity or links. 

“The Bank of England, as agent for Her Majesty’s Treasury, has today directed financial institutions that any funds which they hold for or on behalf of the individuals named below must be frozen.  This is because the Treasury have reasonable grounds for suspecting that the individuals are or may be persons who facilitate or participate in the commission of acts of terrorism or (in the case of Rantisi) may be a person who commits, facilitates or participates in the commission of acts of terrorism.

Individuals:

2. HAMDAN, USAMA

      DOB: 1964

Other Information: Senior HAMAS official. Based in Haret Hreik, Lebanon

3. MARZOUK, MUSA ABU

      DOB: 09/02/1951

POB: Gaza, Egypt

A.K.A.: (1) ABU MARZOOK, Mousa Mohammed

(2) ABU-MARZUQ, Dr Musa 

(3) ABU-MARZUQ, Sa’id

(4) ABU-‘UMAR

(5) MARZOOK, Mousa Mohamed Abou 

(6) MARZUK, Musa Abu. Passport Details: No 92/664 (Egypt)

Other Information: Senior HAMAS official

4. MISHAAL, KHALID

      DOB: 1956

POB: Silwad, Ramallah, West Bank (Palestinian Authority)

Other Information: Senior HAMAS official. Based in Damascus, Syria”

It would appear, therefore, that there are one of two possibilities: either the Guardian is breaking the law by paying these men for the articles it commissions from them, or it does not pay for them at all, but chooses to act as a willing platform where they can promote their propaganda to a gullible audience, presumably as and when they desire. Either way, it is surely the public’s right – and interest – to know the nature of the financial arrangements, if any, between the Guardian and Hamas.

Abumarzuq, of course, has a long and prolific history in getting on the wrong side of the law, including being indicted in the US for Hamas racketeering charges and deported twice from Jordan.  He is a founder of the ‘Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development’ – an organization whose assets were blocked by the United States government for funneling money to Hamas in what was dubbed “the largest terrorism financing prosecution in American history”.

It is therefore disturbing to say the least that any reputable editor should consider Abumarzuq’s opinions on American policy to be objective enough to warrant publication, but of course that small matter would not stop the Guardian from doing so. One has to wonder just how much that has to do with its associate editor Seumas Milne’s well-known penchant for both anti-Americanism (yes: if you tell the Americans that 9/11 was their own fault two days after the event, that’s anti) and radical-chic terrorist hugging.  After all, besides hobnobbing with members of Hamas and Hizbollah himself at conferences in sumptuous Gulf hotels, Milne is a longtime very close friend of George Galloway of ‘Viva Palestina’ fame; they reportedly speak daily.

“……two or three” of his [Galloway’s] five closest friends are journalists. He has spoken to Seumas Milne of the Guardian and John Boothman, editor of BBC Scotland’s Holyrood Live, every day for 20 years or more. BBC news correspondent Bob Wylie is another close friend, as is Ron McKay, the man who commissioned Tony Benn’s television interview with Saddam. They, not his fellow MPs, are his political sounding boards. “

And surprise, surprise: here – courtesy of Harry’s Place just last October – is a touching snap of Seumas’ old friend and comrade George sitting right next to the (convicted in absentia)  terrorist Abumarzuq at a ‘Viva Palestina’ bash in Syria. 

However it found its way to the Guardian’s pages, Abumarzuq’s article contains some absolute corkers; text-book examples of the well-known Hamas tactic of repeating lies often enough until they become accepted truisms among its loyal groupies.

I especially liked this one:

“It never occurred to us that a time would come when we would turn against fellow Palestinians.”

So all that pushing political rivals off the top of tall buildings, kneecapping and spontaneous executions in the town square must have been done by Hamas’ evil twin?

Next, filed under ‘truth inversion’, we have this gem:

“The Israelis have reneged on every agreement signed with the Palestinian Authority.”

So remind me Musa – who instigated the second intifada and who, despite having committed themselves to the contrary under the terms of the first clause of the roadmap, is still promoting incitement in Palestinian schools, mosques and TV programs as well as naming public places and institutions after suicide bombers? Clue – it’s not the people with the blue and white flag.

Abumarzuq is especially annoyed that some might not be too keen on continuing to provide a steady flow of cash for the new Palestinian regime:

“Israel embarked on a diplomatic offensive to persuade European governments to withdraw economic assistance to the Palestinian Authority.”  

Obviously, Abumarzuq’s comprehension of European laws concerning the funding of terror is as lacking as his well-documented longtime disdain for the American equivalents.  And predictably – because it has become an essential mantra in any Guardian article on the Middle East of late – we see Abumarzuq trying to contort the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation into something to do with democracy and the ‘Arab Spring’.  

“As western governments have, individually and collectively, welcomed the democratic changes taking place in the Middle East, they should support a similar transformation in Palestine.”

“President Obama called for democracy for the entire region except Palestine. Instead of welcoming our reconciliation agreement with Fatah, he pronounced America’s deep reservations and anxiety; in total disregard for the aspirations of the Palestinian people. Someone should remind him that Hamas gained the majority in the last fair democratic elections in Palestine.”

Given that we are only too aware of the fact that Hamas’ commitment to democracy swiftly evaporated the minute it got into power, with repeat elections being long overdue and repeatedly stalled by Hamas refusal to engage in the democratic process, severe deterioration in the rights of women and minorities since Hamas began its rule of the Gaza strip and the extra-judicial murders of many of its political opponents, we might justifiably reach the conclusion that the Hamas interpretation of democracy should serve as a cautionary tale when relating to the ‘Arab Spring’ issue.

That view is further consolidated by the messages Hamas itself communicates to its people through its own media. 

H/T Jawa Report

One would not, of course, expect a die-hard Hamas member such as Abumarzuq to express any different opinions or distortions than those he parades in this article. One would, however, expect the editor of a Western newspaper to be capable of differentiating between ‘resistance bloc’ propaganda and the truth. The fact that the Guardian is not able – or willing – to do so indicates not only its complicity in normalising and mainstreaming terror, but suggests that it is in fact an active member of that ‘resistance bloc’, at least ideologically.

That fact was expressed beautifully a few weeks ago by Michael Weiss when he wrote the following words:

“It’s becoming increasingly difficult these days to determine where the al-Qassam Brigade’s unifying theory of world affairs ends and the Guardian‘s editorial line begins. This may be attributable a variety of causes including the cash-hemorraghing nature of journalism, changing British demographics, and the “radical winds” blowing in the Middle East that turn into smelly little zephyrs by the time they reach Europe. But not least among the causes is an easily fixed problem with personnel.”

Hear hear, and no amount of rapturous waffling about an ‘Arab Spring’ is going to conceal that.  

10 replies »

  1. Excellent Israelinurse, particularly, “….it is surely the public’s right – and interest – to know the nature of the financial arrangements, if any, between the Guardian and Hamas.”

    In this case the devil is, very literally, in the detail of what Hamastards actually write. They are invariably surly, self-entitled, more often than not frankly stupid, but so far as I know under UK law unless they actually incite specific acts of violence in the UK itself the Guardian can brown nose them as much as it wants.

    For myself, I have little doubt that there is a “special relationship” monetary or otherwise between the Guardian and Hamas but that any financial recompense is laundered through one of a number of Palestinian “charities.” I remain hopeful that, carried away by its own daft rhetoric, the Guardian will eventually come unglued much as the “Arab spring” has and the doomed marriage between Hamas and Fatah will.

    And the opening paragraph above is excellent, except the “pretty girl” Guardian is looking increasingly fly blown because she has whored out her values so often.

  2. “…He [ie Musa Abumarzuq] is a founder of the ‘Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development’ – an organization whose assets were blocked by the United States government for funneling money to Hamas in what was dubbed “the largest terrorism financing prosecution in American history”…”

    HairShirt, no proof because he’s far too slippery a customer, but I am inclined to agree with you.

  3. Clearly, this collaboration between the Guardian and this terrorist should be reported to the authorities – presumably the Bank of England, at least. Os there some way to do this?

  4. What a thorough investigation IsraeliNurse. This knowledge is a service to the public. I hope that this report is repeated widely so that the people know not only the source of the ‘information’ contained but the contaminated nature of the lies it reports on and the criminal nature of the people discussed. We will soon read all the lies he tells as facts btl in cif and they will become immutable truths in the minds of the Guardianistas forever.

    I echo Akus, this must be reported to the authorities.

  5. Where is Harriet Sherwood with her strong sense of morality? Unfortunately we are dealing with the wrong sections of society (let me spell it out, not Jews) otherwise she’d be on the telephone quick as a flash, giving the editor a few choice words.

  6. The Guardian Media Group is owned by the Scott Trust Foundation which is a UK registered charity – number 1027893.

    The UK Charity Commission has guidelines prohibiting connections between charities and terrorist organisations.

    http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/About_us/Ogs/g096.aspx

    UK readers may care to bring the Charity Commission’s attention to the fact that their guidelines prohibit terrorist organisations from “using charities as a base to spread propaganda”.

    • There is a much better one in the Ha’aretz
      http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/haaretz-poll-netanyahu-s-popularity-soaring-following-washington-trip-1.364068

      It’s headline:
      Despite tensions in Washington during PM’s visit, Israelis generally don’t believe Obama is hostile to Israel or that U.S.-Israel relations have been harmed, indicating that the public seems to be turning a deaf ear to analysts who criticized Netanyahu’s address to Congress.

      Seems to me that Bibi “fooled” a lot of people including the huge majority of the Israelis and the US congress. Maybe in the circles of Friedman they count as “nobodies”.

      The public thus seems to be turning a deaf ear to the many political and diplomatic analysts who criticized the prime minister’s address to Congress and who said it proved that Netanyahu was not capable of pulling the negotiations with the Palestinians out of the dangerous mire they are in.

      The public also seems to have dismissed the learned warnings that Netanyahu had generated an unnecessary confrontation with Obama, for which Israel is liable to pay a high price down the line. Apparently average Israelis – from the right, the center, and even from some parts of the left – are welcoming Netanyahu back to Israel with open arms.

      What an utter crap! These stupid members of the public! They dismissed the “learned warnings” of T. Friedman, R. Cohen, Aluf Benn, A. Eldar and last but not least MTC…

  7. Peter TH They are ignoring the warnings of the Palestinians too, those who said that they weren’t going to make peace anyway but now they’re doubly not going to make peace.

    *sob*

  8. Very interesting site and articles. Really thankful for sharing.Will surely recommend this site to some friends!

    Regards,