General Antisemitism

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


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.

5 replies »

  1. The Guardian is now in the business of defending those who defend Hitler:

    1) “Lars von Trier’s inclination to think and say things that seem unusual and insensitive is vital to the genius of a
    director who’s here to trouble us, not entertain”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/sep/22/lars-von-trier-david-thomson

    2) Lars von Trier is not a Nazi, he’s just a naughty self-publicist

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/sep/24/lars-von-trier-melancholia?newsfeed=true

    That newspaper even defends those individuals who are accused of carrying out the very worst crimes committed by the Nazis:

    John Demjanjuk should not be on trial by Michael White

    “This small cog in the machinery of Nazi evil has been tried before and the evidence found wanting, and has been reviled and disowned. Won’t that do for one lifetime?”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/dec/02/michael-white-john-demjanjuk-trial

    More from Michael White on the Holocaust:

    1) Here’s Michael White, in early 2008, on the Holocaust (my titles):

    — The Holocaust is such a bore

    “MPs had a short debate yesterday to mark Holocaust Day, a familiar ritual in many countries which causes backbenchers like Hendon’s Andrew Dismore (not Jewish himself, but hot on anti-semitism) to be dismissed in newspapers as ‘Holocaust bores.’ ”

    — Don’t be mean to the Nazis

    “My own favourite parliamentary speech on this subject remains that of the late Thatcherite economist, Lord Peter Bauer. In opposing Lady Thatcher’s 1990 war crimes bill – she used the parliament act to force it through – Bauer said approximately this: ”My Lords, I am a Jew who lost much of his family in the Holocaust. But I oppose this legislation because it is retrospective and therefore undermines the rule of law.” He then sat down. Not bad. I must check which way Mr Howard voted at the time.”

    [Links no longer working]

    2) Here, in late 2008, White criticises the extradition of Holocaust deniers, purely on principle, naturally. Look out for these special titbits: “an abuse of process in a country which has not – yet – succumbed to Germany’s “witch-hunt mentality”; “We should not forget, but it smacked of retrospective legislation, pandering again.” Jolly decent of White, however, to suggest that we should not “forget” the Holocaust:

    “Two strands of the affair trouble me. One is the restriction on free speech inherent in the laws that some countries – not Britain – have against Holocaust denial. We have broader laws against racial incitement in general, which seems acceptable to me, though not to those who believe that older public order laws would have proved sufficient.”

    “The other problem I have with this is process. When the European Arrest Warrant came into force in 2004 to help police fight cross border crime – and post 9/11 terrorism – more effectively it abolished the “dual criminality” principle.”

    Once again, in the same piece, White attacks the War Crimes Bill:

    “Holocaust denial is a lesser offence than involvement in war crimes themselves. Britain has a different problem here in that, in the chaos after 1945 when it was often hard to sort victim from persecutor, a lot of bad people slipped into this country and led quiet, guilty lives.

    In 1991 Margaret Thatcher used the parliament acts to override the House of Lords, which had thrown out her war crimes bill, passed by the Commons. The average age of current MPs in 1939 was six, one peer remarked during the debate: let it go. But some 300 suspects live on in the UK, countered the bill’s supporters.

    At the time I sympathised with the critics. It was all a long time ago, witnesses and accused were old, far away or even dead, their memories faulty at best. We should not forget, but it smacked of retrospective legislation, pandering again.

    Last time I looked there had not been a single successful prosecution. Other more recent war crimes dominate the headlines. Who’s right?”

    http://tinyurl.com/3w38vc

    ————————————————-

    “The Guardian, the newspaper I left some years ago in protest at what I saw as its vile anti-Semitism.” — Julie Burchill

    http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/bleeding-heart-ignoramuses-1.195022

    That article is well worth reading in its entirety.

  2. Since when does the UK home office have to explain its reasons for excluding people from the country? Especially to the Guardian?

    What kind of psychopaths continue to defend this man?

    Shame on you, Guardian.

    • I’d like to see a Dispatches progam called “Undercover in The Guardian” to expose the inner machinations of that rag.

  3. Here’s the reply I received from the Guardian when I wrote to complain about the publication of the letter.

    Dear Sir
    Thank you for your email about Alison Weir’s letter. When we run a
    comment piece in which someone is robustly criticised, we feel it is
    only fair to allow them a letter putting their case. We publish all
    sorts of views on letters, and publication in no way implies that we
    agree with the views expressed.
    with best wishes
    Becky (comment editor)

    So the Guardian will publish any letter no matter how vile it may be.