Guardian

Comment is Free contributor, Abdel al-Bari Atwan, praises terrorist attacks in Eilat


H/T Just Journalism

Abdel al-Bari Atwan, editor-in chief of the London-based pan-Arab newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi, and CiF contributor, who dreams of Iranian nuclear missiles raining down on Israel, and was last seen using Comment is Free as a platform to justify violent religious extremism, was recently quoted praising the terrorist attacks in Eilat which resulted in eight Israeli deaths.

According to a translation from MEMRI, al-Bari Atwan recently wrote:

 [self-sacrifice] operation near Eilat had put the Arab revolutions back on track: “This attack put the spotlight back on the most important struggle – [the struggle] for the honor of the Arab and Islamic nation,

Resistance is a legitimate right as long as land is occupied and the people and holy places are humiliated… Any democratic change that is born out of the Arab revolutions but does not embrace the resistance will be [only] a partial and superficial change, incompatible with the principles of Arab and Muslim honor. Democratic revolution and resistance to the occupation are two parallel lines… complementing one another…    

The Eilat operation, as I see it, corrected the course of the Arab revolutions and refocused them on the most dangerous disease, namely the Israeli tyranny. This disease is the cause of all the defects that have afflicted the region for the past 65 years… [emphasis mine]

No, it’s not surprising.

But, I’d love to know at what point the Guardian’s continuing sanctioning of voices who openly support terrorism, violence, and decidedly reactionary politics, will earn them the universal reputation as a newspaper which makes a mockery of the values which liberalism has historically championed. 

14 replies »

  1. Mr. Atwan, and others of his ilk, have long since passed the point at which they should have been expelled from the UK.
    I find it hard to believe that, considering some of his inflammatory statements, grounds cannot be found by the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute him and deport him from this country.
    All we need is a Government with the ‘backbone’ to enforce the laws of this country and remove him and others.

    • Actually, what is needed is group of people willing to back a respected attorney who can launch the necessary lawsuit to have the man expelled or imprisoned.

      There is a group of attorneys now in the UK who have been quite effective on several fronts combating illegal anti-Israeli activities. Those in the UK who oppose people like Atwan should take a look at this group and support them:

      http://www.uklfi.com/index.htm

      UK Lawyers for Israel

      UKLFI is a group of lawyers that supports Israel using their legal skills.

      UKLFI employs advocacy, legal research and campaigning in order to combat attempts to undermine, attack or delegitimise Israel, Israeli organisations, Israelis, and / or supporters of Israel.

      • AKUS thank you.
        That is a very useful and interesting link with some very useful articles and legal opinion on the site.

    • …but remember…it is Robert Spencer who is inspiring violence … in part by exposing vermin like Atwan…

  2. Adam

    “……But, I’d love to know at what point the Guardian’s continuing sanctioning of voices who openly support terrorism, violence, and decidedly reactionary politics, will earn them the universal reputation as a newspaper which continually makes a mockery of the values which liberalism has historically championed……”

    The Guardian doesn’t just sanction voices which openly support terrorism. According to the editorial of May 20, 2011, they also support terrorism as a positive example to the Arab world – even after offers of peace by Israel.

    “…….The negotiators of Fatah had stopped negotiating, and the fighters of Hamas had stopped fighting. Both had to respond to a simple idea: if one million Egyptians can fill Tahrir Square demanding Palestinian rights, why can’t Palestinians, who taught the Arab world how to mount insurrections, and mounted two intifadas of their own?…..”

    Its one thing to admire peaceful protesters against Arab despots, its entirely another to equate that to willfully blowing up civilians and calling it an example to the Arab world. Mind boggling.

    • I agree with you, Tom, and particularly with your last paragraph. The Guardian lost all contact with civilised values when it invited Hamas terrorists and fellow travellers blog for it (and in the latter I include Ben White) and, worst, by its fawningly sickening obituary for Nizar Rayyan, suicide bomber recruiter and supporter of terror from Gaza, who even sent his own son on a suicide mission.

      There’s a fine line indeed between free speech and inciting or endorsing Islamist terror. I hope that this blog watches the Guardian carefully and reports it to the police when it crosses that line, as it most surely will.

      • Hi Sarah

        I don’t mind if the Guardian remains a haven for left wing opinion, but I wish they would get rid of the one(s) responsible for article selection at the Guardian. I’ve read the Guardian for the last two years, and they give an undo amount of opinion space to authors that delegitimize Israel (like Ben White). As you mention, they even brought Hamas to the picnic (now there’s a neutral opinion….).

        And I’m not quite sure how the editor retained his job after that editorial. At the least, he should have been forced to issue an apology for all the people that he offended. Not to mention that the second intifada came on the heels of an offer of peace by Israel which made the editorial dishonest – at best.

        Indeed, these are surely not the times to encourage Islamic terrorism, and when they cross the line, someone should take them to task (although they have lawyers as well that advise them).

        • They should clear out all the staff at the Guardian, save the clerical staff who don’t influence policy decisions, and start again under new management. If hypocrisy were a criminal offence, Rustbucket would be in prison for a long time.

          Were the Guardian left, right or centre I wouldn’t give a damn frankly, but it giving column space and inches to terrorists and those who support terror (without any disclaimer that the views these “people” give do not represent those of the Guardian) makes it at least complicit in encouraging Islamist extremism.

  3. What makes offensive content illegal
    Not all offensive content is illegal.

    The Terrorism Acts 2000 and 2006 made it illegal to:
    •have or share information that could be useful to terrorists
    •share information that urges people to commit or help with acts of terrorism
    •glorify or praise terrorism

    Examples of what makes terrorist or extremist content illegal are:
    •speeches or essays calling for racial or religious violence
    •videos of violence with messages of praise for the attackers
    •chat forums with postings calling for people to commit acts of terrorism
    •messages intended to stir up hatred against any religious or ethnic group
    •instructions on how to make weapons, poisons or bombs

    If you are unsure whether content is illegal or not, please report it to the police using the link below.

    http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJusticeAndTheLaw/Counterterrorism/DG_183993

  4. “who dreams of Iranian nuclear missiles raining down on Israel”

    I wonder whether Mr. Atwan also dreams of retaliatory missiles raining down on Mecca?

  5. Is this the same Atwan idiot who, when questioned about the conflicting information coming through about the Arab spring and throughout the Arab world in the media, retorted that people should be allowed to believe what they wanted and he was allowed to believe what he wanted, even conspiracy theories.

    Says it all really

  6. It is not just terrorism against Israel which gets the thumbs up from the Guardian – it would appear, according to the hapless cif commentator, Alex Vines, that ‘marginalisation’ of northern Nigerian communities as well as Goodluck Jonathan’s religion have fed the sense of ‘resentment’ and ‘discontent,’ leading, it should come therefore as no surprise, to the utterly inevitable bombing of a United Nations building in Abuja.

    What a surprise it would be if someone appearing in the liberal (I hesitate to use this word with out the pre- or suffix, fascist) Guardian were to present Islamic acts of terrorism as precisely that, without resorting to the expedient of inventing excuses which do not bear close scrutiny.

    • I think that the sky would fall in. Black would become White and Berchmans would become Dershowitz.

      • I doubt that Berchmans could become Dershowitz, however much you may believe in miracles JerusalemMite. He’d have to have a brain transplant.

        Actually, I think Berchmans is some sort of outdated robot who’s on a loop and who cannot deviate from his programme. He should be slung onto the scrapheap or used for spare parts.