Guardian source honours convicted terrorists.

Usually presented as an historian, Sami Abu Shehadeh has been repeatedly quoted by Guardian writers as a source of information on the subject of Jaffa (Yaffo).

Sami Abu Shehadeh

 Last summer saw an article by David Hearst which quoted Abu Shehadeh extensively and was addressed by Anne at Anne’s Opinions and Cif Watch. Prior to that, Harriet Sherwood also relied heavily upon information from Abu Shehadeh in her Observer piece about ‘settlers’ in Jaffa which we addressed here.

As we pointed out at the time:

“Abu Shehadeh is hardly some tweedy local history buff, but a seasoned political activist with a specific agenda for whom history is but an integral part of an ideological arsenal deployed in the service of dismantling the Jewish State.  As secretary of the political party Balad in Jaffa, Abu Shehadeh is one of the chief organizers of demonstrations against the establishment of “settlements”, as he terms them, in this neighborhood in Israel’s largest city.

Balad opposes Israel as a Jewish state and advocates its replacement with a bi-national state which would include over four million official Palestinian “refugees” taking advantage of the ‘right of return’.

Abu Shehadeh is also a founder of the Jaffa Popular Committee for the Defence of Land and Housing Rights, aka the Popular Committee against House Demolition in Jaffa, a signatory of Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) and a board member of Zochrot; an organization devoted to promoting the Nakba narrative and working to achieve the Palestinian ‘right of return.’ Zochrot is also an endorser of the Free Gaza movement – an organization (which includes the International Solidarity Movement), behind the recent violent flotilla incident, in co-operation with IHH, a radical organization with proven ties to terrorist organizations such as Hamas.” 

Further information regarding the activities of Mr. Abu Shehadeh has recently come to light via ‘Mynet‘.

It appears that in December 2011, Jaffa council member Abu Shedadeh presented awards on behalf of the Jaffa Youth Organisation – which he also heads – to two convicted terrorists released under the terms of the Gilad Shalit deal.

“The evening’s compere went on stage and announced that the Jaffa Youth Organisation is happy and proud to present certificates of appreciation to the guests of honour  Ziada (57) and Burgal (48), residents of Lod, whom he described as “heroic activists receiving recognition for their struggle”. The audience went wild and welcomed them with thunderous applause.”

Mansour Ziada and Muchlas Burgal were found guilty of throwing a grenade at an Egged public bus travelling from Ramle to Tel Aviv on the morning of Friday, June 5th 1987. Fortunately, the grenade failed to explode, but one person was injured by glass splinters. The two were arrested and tried three months later. Ziada was supposed to remain in prison for the rest of his life and Burgal was scheduled for release in 2027.

Hundreds of children and adolescents were among the 400 invitees present at the ceremony organized by Abu Shehadeh’s group.

“During the ceremony the audience watched a play which had as its central character a Jewish settler. On stage the settler was seen spraying tomb-stones with the words ‘price tag’, wandering around the neighbourhoods of Jaffa and persuading local residents to become collaborators with the Israeli authorities.”

Sami Abu Shehadeh’s activities as a member of several extremist organisations were obviously not deemed by Guardian reporters to be reason enough to disqualify him from being quoted at length as an authority in the past.

So, it will be interesting to see whether his part in honouring the activities of convicted terrorists will be enough to persuade the likes of Sherwood and Hearst that interviewees such as Abu Shehadeh do nothing to contribute to ‘fair and balanced’ reporting.  

141 replies »

  1. Just some fun stick prodding:

    “demonstrations against the establishment of “settlements”, as he terms them”

    He…and pretty much the entire world.

    “Balad opposes Israel as a Jewish state and advocates its replacement with a bi-national state”

    Isn’t this also in Likud’s charter? Strictly speaking, Likud’s charter isn’t specific as to whether it wants a single democratic state or a binational state.

    • Oh, is that so, diletante? Do you speak for “the entire world”? Don´t you have balls to speak for yourself, right?

      BTW, once upon a time, “the entire world” thought the earth was flat. You still do, debutante.

        • “Actually, that’s a myth. The world was not held to be flat.”

          It was. Not in the Middle Ages as most people think, but in Antiquity most people did hold the world to be flat. The Greeks were among the first to assume otherwise.

          • In fact Erathostenes, using simple but ingenious trigonometry managed to calculate the Earth´s circumference. Sill, debutante is an enthusiastic flat-earther. A great scholar, anthropomorphically speaking.

        • I remember that item. The weird thing about it is, Muslim astronomers in the Middle Ages, like Christian and Jewish ones, believed in a spherical earth. Meaning, in effect, that the Islamic world has regressed in comparison to medieval times!

          • the Islamic world has regressed in comparison to medieval times!

            By that logic you could take certain contemporary talk of God having given land to the Israelites and say “the Jewish world has regressed in comparison to medieval times”. Which would likewise be nonense.

            Less of the hypocritical bigotry, please.

            • “By that logic you could take certain contemporary talk of God having given land to the Israelites…”

              By that logic?! Did the Jewish people stop believing in Middle Ages that God has given land to the Israelites?

              “Less of the hypocritical bigotry, please.”

              Politically correct shaming doesn’t work on me, Pretz.

    • Dubitante – you do yourself no favours by giving in to knee-jerk reactions based on your own stereotypical bias.

      Read the article properly: does ‘pretty much the entire world’ REALLY think that Jews living in apartments in Jaffa are living in ‘settlements’?

      No- that’s the terminology used by people who think Jews shouldn’t be allowed to live anywhere in the Middle East as a sovereign nation: people such as Sami Abu Shehadeh. Do you belong in that category?

      • I have no problem with Jews living in Jaffa, why would I? Nor do I have a problem with Jews living in Ramallah. The problem arises when Jews living in Palestine think they live in Israel. That’s a problem.

          • Oh, stop talking shite. What has dubitante said here to deserve that label?
            And why don’t you ever criticise the many posters on this site who have posted racist anti-Arab comments?

            • I did! I criticised your hysterical church-lady “shame-on-you” style, so much so that you stopped using it.

              As for sh*t-talking, that´s in your genes, and maybe only genetic therapy could help. Meanwhile, go patronize your mom.

        • No, the problem arises from the sort of vision of the world that stipulates (and applies) the death penalty on people who sell land to Jews. Had there been no laws like this throughout history there’d be no need for Israel, but since there are and since an Israel has been made necessary it needs to protect itself.

          Dubious, who has no sense of history and no appreciation of what perception of the motives of others millennia of persecution gives you, takes the Jews’ self-defensive reaction for the cause

      • Has he referred to e.g. Tel Aviv as a “settlement”?
        Perhaps Shehadeh was referring to Jews-only housing? Which you presumably wouldn’t have a problem with?

    • Yeah, Jews can be terrorist too. And mafiosi. Yeah,, Jews aren´t perfect. Or do you have such deafening double-standards that you hold some people to different standards of perfection, debuntante? Sounds a bit racist. Shame on you, diletante!

      • I happily condemn terrorists of all flavours, but then I don’t suffer from ultra-nationalism.

        The article is criticising a Guardian source for honouring what it describes as “convicted terrorists”. You and I both know that honouring terrorists is quite acceptable for a great many Zionists. I was just wondering why the double standard?

        Could it be that we hold Palestinians to a different standard?

        • You do NOT condemn terrorist of all flavours. That´s your mask of fake objectivity. So much so, that you think palestinians are poor eternal victims and Zionists are “ultra-nationalists”.

          You don´t fool anybody with your fake humanitarian mask. Why don´t you go to pro-palestinian blogs, or even to CiF to condemn palestinians terrorism and ultra-rejectionism?

          • I view all the mainstream media as pretty pathetic (the Guardian included) and wouldn’t spend a great deal of time on any of their websites.

            The distortions we see in Zionist propaganda are of interest to me. And this website, although a little pantomime at times, is an interesting example of the ultra-nationalist indy media.

            And like I’ve said before, the anarchist in me can’t resist poking ultra-nationalists with a stick.

        • You are lying through your teeth, dubitante. I would even go so far as to suggest that you don’t even realise how crazy you sound.

          You are ready and willing to support the sort of Islamist ultra-nationalism which hates Jews and non-Muslims under the guise of “freedom” and yet you never have criticised the behaviour of the Palestinians towards their own people or to Jews/Zionists.

          By failing to criticise Palestinian terrorism, here or elsewhere, and giving a one-sided and utterly distorted picture of what you think is going on, you reinforce Palestinian barbarism of every description by giving it a free pass and in that way you discriminate against Palestinians by not holding them to the same standards of civilised behaviour (towards their own people and others) as you do Israel or other civilised western nations.

          In other words you are a hypocrite of the first order and had you any insight or the sense of shame which comes with it, you wouldn’t dare to show yourself here.

          • I am never shy to condemn Palestinian terror. I make no excuse for it. Not ever.

            The pro-Israel bias of the mainstream media in the UK has been proven time and again, and there are no shortage of voices condemning what they see as “Islamic terror” – but when it comes to condemning Israeli terror, the voices are a little quieter.

            • dubi disingenuously claimed:

              “am never shy to condemn Palestinian terror. ”

              Really? Where? Direct us to such posts.

              And where have you condemned Islamist terror, committed against people ALL OVER THE WORLD?

            • Hey, dilletante, show us citations from this pro-Israel bias. BTW, you just showed your whitewashing of Islamic terror by writing “Islamic terror”. Some people might be upset when their loved ones are dismembered by Islamic terror, though maybe you´d say “dismembered”. What a douche-bag!

              • The acts of terror are committed by people, not by Islam, and not by Muslims as a collective. Perhaps you should learn from the definition of anti-Semitism used by this site. Holding Islam or Muslims in general responsible for the actions of the few is one of the pillars of racism.

                    • dubi, Which terrorist attacks were perpetrated by people wearing the Star of David?

                      – 9/11
                      – 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103
                      – 7/7/05 bombing of London transport
                      – murder of London policewoman Yvonne Fletcher
                      – bombing of Madrid trains
                      – bombing of Bali
                      – Mumbai India massacre
                      – poison gassing of Kurds of Halbja Iraq
                      – dynamiting of the 1,500 year old Buddahs of Bamiyan Afghanistan
                      – attempted sneaker bomber
                      – attempted underwear bomber

                      Or were the above acts of terror committed by the “religion of peace”?

                • Oh, you are so wise, dilletante. So, from now on, when you accuse Zionists of ANYTHING. without naming each individual you actually refer to, you´ll be a committed racist. So much for your professorial pretense.

                  In any case, you proved yourself a hypocritical Judeophobe anyway, so you surely qualify as a pillar of racism (anthropomorphically speaking),

        • Terrorists are those who deliberately kill civilians and those who celebrate these ugly manifestations. Israel has never sanctioned the killing of the innocent.

            • of course that would suffice as an answer for you since you have no examples to give me.

              Israel mourns for and apologises for the killing of the innocent. If deliberately done it is regarded as a crime as in any other civilised country. This is why those who support the Palestinians unquestioningly are grievously wrong. The Palestinians celebrate the killing of Israeli citizens, hand out sweets and dance in the street.

                • You mean the Jenin hoax? The al-Durah affair? The organ-harvesting libel? Etc, etc.

                  More grotesque piruettes from dilletante-in-chief. Yeah, the lies of you and your ilk will be denied and exposed. Get used to it. Meanwhile, anthropomorphic prof, take a break and go read the Hamass charter.

      • Of course dubitante does! He/she/it would have no raison d’etre if Israel ceased to exist.

        See Serendipity’s post below for how dubitante is complicit in Palestinian barbarism by failing to condemn it.

    • Not to defend the events that took place at the King David Hotel and Deir Yassin but there’s a few things to note:

      – Irgun sent warning to the hotel that a bomb was planted. For whatever reason, these warnings were ignored/not taken seriously. The attack itself was in response to the British operation ‘Agatha’ in which thousands of Jewish militants were arrested and countless intelligence documents seized. Irgun intended to destroy the part of the hotel that housed the British military command amongst other ‘establishments’ integral to British rule and control in the mandate.

      – Many of the ‘atrocities’ at Deir Yassin were either grossly exaggerated or completely fabricated and the attack aimed to secure military objectives. Not that this excuses the reckless execution and murder of tens of innocent people but the there’s a distinction that needs to be made. What military objective are Palestinian terrorists trying to secure when blowing themselves up in pizza parlors and discos? Do they target the building itself and give warning of impending attacks? Have Palestinian terrorists being responsible for ground breaking peace treaties [e.g. Begin -> Sadat]? Obviously one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorists but I disagree that a double standard exists here.

      • As soon as you start down the path of “this terrorism is not as bad because it is ideologically sound” you end up condoning terror.

        Do you not think that when Palestinian terrorists attack Israeli civilians they see it as striking against a great injustice or that it is ideologically sound? We can’t have it, not from any side. Do you think that when settlers or IDF soldiers commit acts of terror against Palestinians they think they’re committing terror? Or do you think they think its ideologically sound?

          • Hey, calling German “nazis” in WWII is a pillar of racism. You should name each and every of the 60 million Hitler admirers you are referring to.

        • If you are unable to make distinctions based on fact and reason you are in pre-adult stage, where everything is a giant jelly mess, everything is equivalent, from planned mass murder to sefl-defense.

          That´s the kind of intellectual bankrupt that you display, repeatedly. You are no “doubter”, just another Jew-hater which tries to hide behind a pseudo-intellectual mask. It doesn´t work, dilletante, Try another tactic, like at least being honest. Assume your hatred! C´mon, even Streicher was more honest than you.

    • dubi, Of ALL smug, self-righteous people to cite double standards.

      Let’s see dubi,

      You cite the bombing of the King David Hotel and the pseudo massacre of Dear Yassin.

      Here is a list of Islamofascist attacks, massacres that I doubt you would cite because it would be counter-revolutionary, “islamophobic”, truth-telling.

      – 9/11/01 – 4 passenger planes are hijacked and 3 are flown into occupied office buildings
      – 7/7/05 – London bus and underground bombings
      – bombing two US embassies in Africa, killing hundreds of Africans
      – bombing USS Cole
      – bombing of Pan Am 103 – inflight
      – interrupted inflight bombing by sneaker bomber richard reid
      – interrupted inflight bombing by underwear bomber
      – recent Christmas day bombing of churches in Nigeria
      – bombing trains in Madrid
      – islamist threats of massacres against the UK and Europe
      – sniper murder of London policewoman Yvonne Fletcher
      – Mumbai India massacre by Islamofascist terrorists from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
      – near nuclear war between Pakistan and India
      – safe harbor in Pakistan for the late War Criminal Osama bin Laden
      – death threats against writer Salman Rushdie
      – death threats against Danish cartoonists
      – death threats against producers of South Park cartoon show
      – death threats against ex-Muslim Hirsi Ali
      – murder of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh
      – assassination of US Senator Robert F. Kennedy
      – Beslan elementary school massacre
      – 1993 truck bombing of New Yorks WTC – blind sheik in prison for life
      – 8 year Iraq/Iran war
      – Iraqs invasion of Kuwait
      – Saddam Husseins use of poison gas, a WMD, on the Kurds of Halabja Iraq – 5,000 dead
      – genocidal threats against the US and Israel by the Islamic Republic of Iran
      – massacres of Coptic Christian community in Egypt
      – rape of journalist Lara Logan in Tahrir Square Egypt
      – beheading of captives like journalist Daniel Pearl
      – Beltway sniper
      – Fort Hood massacre by an islamist psychiatrist
      – the necessity of checkpoints at every airport in the world and reinforced cockpit doors to prevent another 9/11 atrocity
      – cursing and spitting on parading British soldiers in Luton by islamofascists
      – bombing of churches in Pakistan

      The above is the tip of the iceberg of past islamofascist atrocities.

      HAPPY NAKBA dubi and the rest of your klan!

      • You haven’t mentioned the ongoing Muslim slaughter of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan by suicide bombing.

        Dubitante, have you written about it and condemned it and other Islam-inspired violence in th world on your blog?

        (I’d go and look but I wouldn’t want you to get a hit and anyway it’d probably be a wasted effort on my part).

        So come here with a link to your unequivocal condemnation of Islamist violence and terror to save us all the trouble.

        • I don’t write about every injustice on Earth. Like I said before, I’m not Amnesty International, I don’t try to be.

          This blog doesn’t write about the pro-Israel bias in the BBC for example. Nor does it write about the portrayal of the Roma gypsies in the European print media. Why? Because it’s not its area of interest.

                • The best known example of such scholarship would be from the Glasgow University Media Group.

                  Their extensive research is the largest study ever conducted on the topic and can be found in the book “More Bad News From Israel”.

                  • Glasgow University Media Group.

                    Yes dubi for you they are certainly scholars. For the majority they are an extremely biased far left propaganda organisation.

                    And would be so kind to comment on the Balen report? (including the decision of the BBC not to publish it)

                    • 8 nanoseconds it took you to resort to attacking the Group. Are you aware of any scholarship contradicting their findings?

                      “And would be so kind to comment on the Balen report? (including the decision of the BBC not to publish it)”

                      I have a pretty low opinion of the BBC, but it’s impossible for me to comment on the Balen Report as I haven’t read it. I cannot understand how the BBC can spend license fee payers money on fighting the legal case though.

                    • It took a bit more than 8 nanseconds, but to visit their website and reading about their actions giver a pretty clear picture about them.

                      So you don’t have an opinion on a report copmissioned by the BBC itself reporting about their ant-Israel bias. Understandable.

                      BTW after mistakenly clicking on your name I was directed to your twitter account. It didn’t take even a picosecond to see who are you Dubi. Congaratulations to your pal “I can understand why some people are antisemites” Ben White (benabayad)…
                      I suggest you to read this you will like it very much.

                    • Read the book. Look at their research. Criticise their methodology. That’s good, you SHOULD be doing that.

                      But don’t decide that you just don’t like them. That’s lame, and it’s not an argument.

                    • Look at their research. Criticise their methodology. That’s good, you SHOULD be doing that.

                      Not exactly Dubi. I don’t waste my time to study third rate crap published by pseudo-scholarly political organizations.

                      And of course I don’t have an opinion on the Balen report, how could I? I haven’t read it. Have you?

                      Naturally I didn’t because they tried hide its content from the public, and wasted hundreds of thousands pounds of public money to beat the Freedom of Information Act. If they thought that their reporting on the I/P conflict cwould stand any criticism why the supression?

                    • “Not exactly Dubi. I don’t waste my time to study third rate crap published by pseudo-scholarly political organizations.”

                      I’m amazed that you can write of research so easily, considering it has some pretty favourable reviews from some masters of the subject, including Edward S. Herman.

                      “Naturally I didn’t because they tried hide its content from the public, and wasted hundreds of thousands pounds of public money to beat the Freedom of Information Act. If they thought that their reporting on the I/P conflict cwould stand any criticism why the supression?”

                      I only wish I had your level of clairvoyance. Without reading either of these pieces of work, you have deduced their content and reviewed their methodology. Outstanding.

                      Now you keep telling yourself that’s what an unbiased person does.

                    • I only wish I had your level of clairvoyance. Without reading either of these pieces of work,…

                      No need to be jelaous Dubi. Every reasonable person arrived at the same conclusions regarding the content of the Balen-report. (Ben White and his twitter friends not included naturally.)

                      …you have deduced their content and reviewed their methodology.

                      Exactly so. I do this with many other crap like Stalin collected works, the Mein Kampf, the Electronic Intifada, the Aryan Nation etc. etc.

                    • At least I now understand how your views are formed. You don’t need to read anything…you just….know. It’s easy to see how you stray so far from reality now.

                      I wonder how may other CifWatchers use clairvoyance in the same way, how many of your friends here don’t need to read these things.

                  • At least I now understand how your views are formed. You don’t need to read anything…you just….know.

                    Yes Dubi, I have to confess that I’m able to form a strong opinion on Fascism without studying Goebbels writings (based on the history of my family), on socialism without reading Lenin’s collected works (based on my own experience in the ex Soviet workers’ paradise) and on pseudo-intellectual racist Jew-haters like yourself without studying your (certainly very exciting and objective) legal opinions (based only on reading your posts.)

                    It’s easy to see how you stray so far from reality now.
                    If you say so… This “distancing myself from reality” keeps me, my family and my fellow Israelis safe from your murderous friends and allows me to laugh heartily on your legal opinions.

                    • At least be honest, you know nothing about the researchers in question, and your sole reason for thinking the research is “crap” is that you don’t want to agree with it.

                      The purpose of scientific research is to enlighten the mind. You might read it and take issue with the methodology, that’s fine.

                      But unfortunately, you’re stuck in a feedback loop. You discount anything that doesn’t reinforce your beliefs. You have pretty much ruled out the possibility of learning. It’s very sad.

                    • You discount anything that doesn’t reinforce your beliefs. You have pretty much ruled out the possibility of learning.

                      Huge mistake Dubi. I was a member of “Shalom Ahsav” a voter of Meretz, but the facts on the ground (witnessed by myself and not learned from some obscure media group) forced me to learn and change my opinion. Naturally the outright antisemitism and anti-Israel hate of the Western pseudo left (represented for example by many of the Guardian writers and contributors, by many of the human science faculties of British academy, by the so called human rights organisations and charities and last but not least your type of single-subject “human right warriors”) and the outright hypocrisy of the UN and the EU didn’t help much

                      It’s very sad.

                      For you certainly. Being a loser is not a picnic.

                    • Do you really think that I have anything to demonstrate for an amusingly ignorant anti-semite like you? Do you really think that I could learn anything from websites whose goal to eliminate me and my country and asserting laughable crapola contradicting every facts I can see every day with my own eyes?!

                      These kind of trash is only for the Haughton-Mondoweiss-White axis whose proud members are ready to believe and distribute every smears and outright lies about Israel in order to justify their hate of the Jews.

                      BTW I liked your factual statement about Hamas accepting the two-state solution. This astonishingly ignorant joke proves the value of your sources and your perception of reality. And you are a legal expert specialising on the I/P conflict!? You couldn’t make it up…

              • What “established scholarship”?

                If it the bias existed it would be demonstrated in the BBC itself and it isn’t.

                There was a time when the BBC let some of the truth get out but it doesn’t in these perverted days.

                Why are you so dictatorial? Marxism or Islamism or both? Or some unfortunate disorder?

        • A key tenet of anti-Semitic writing, or indeed any any racist writing, is holding the collective responsible for the actions of the few.

          If I was to write an article holding all Jews responsible for the actions of the IDF, or the state of Israel, or settlers, that would be anti-Semitic.

          Likewise, when articles and posters on here hold Palestinians or Muslims as collectives responsible for the actions of the few, we have to conclude that it too is racism.

          • I keep reading that hamass was “democratically” elected, so the majority of the inhabitants are responsible for the actions of their government.

            Who did hamass run against? Were the core tenents of the other party different from hamss regarding Israel?

            • And the nazis were pretty popular in 1930´s Germany. Demopaths expoint democracy to destroy it. But this pseudo-intellectual crack-pot dilletante can´t figure this out.

            • “I keep reading that hamass was “democratically” elected, so the majority of the inhabitants are responsible for the actions of their government.”

              Very interesting point there. Can I refer you to one of the examples of anti-Semitism used on this site:

              “Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”

              Now compare the two. You see, you are the very vile creature this site seeks to combat. Well illustrated.

              Naturally, although you display such blatant racism, your post will not be deleted, and you will not be banned, because racism is OK on this site as long as it isn’t directed at Jews.

              • dubi , Where are Arabs/Muslims, the majority as some claim, who oppose Islamofascism, oppose the Muslim Brotherhood, oppose hamass, oppose hezbullah, oppose the pro-islamist bias of British tabloids like Der Guardian, oppose andy choudarys islamist gang?

                We are STILL waiting for you to present evidence of your “long history” of opposing islamist terrorism.

                • Hams has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. They are an organisation with precious little concern for international humanitarian law.

                  “hamass deliberately used human shields to protect its offensive assets”

                  Even though no evidence was found? And even though the IDF was found to have used Palestinian children as human shields? Even though IDF soldiers were convicted of doing so?

              • You, debutante, go tell your euro-trash friends about it, as THEY are the ones that keep demanding (as if the EU had ANY credibility to demand anything whatsoever from Israel) that Israel negotiate will freely-elected Hamas, whose raison-d´être is the destruction of Israel.

                Now, either Hamas was freely elected, which means the majority of palestinians agree with it´s exterminationist objectives, and therefore
                pals will have to face the consequences of this choice; or else, Hamas is a micro-caliphate that deserves to be stopped and dismantled. There´s no “racism” here, except YOUR racism of low expectations, that hold palarabs incapable to face the consequences of their disastrous choices,

                • “that Israel negotiate will freely-elected Hamas, whose raison-d´être is the destruction of Israel.”

                  Except Hamas isn’t committed to the destruction of Israel, that isn’t the platform on which they were elected.

                  Compare this to Bibi, whose MKs were elected on a platform which does call for the destruction of Palestine, or a one-state solution, not sure which.

                  • dubi disingenuously claimed:

                    “Except Hamas isn’t committed to the destruction of Israel, that isn’t the platform on which they were elected.”

                    Really? Present evidence that hamass has altered their racist charter of 1988, the same year that islamofascists bombed Pan Am 103?

            • Even the BBC described it as a “free and fair” election. That rather isolates it from democracy. So does never having another election.

          • Oh, yes, debutante. As you did many times calling Zionists “ultranationlists” and such BS. So you are guilty by your own standards,

            But, there are many other traits of anti-Semitic writing, such as a monomaniac obsession with wronging one-side of the conflict, of holding one side to unattainble standards of perfection, of ignoring context, practicing conceptual flattening of complex issues, of using selective pseudo-legalese, intellectual dishonesty, selective outrage, etc, etc, etc.

            You are guilty on all counts. But, most of all, you are a major
            unrepentant hypocrite.

            • “Oh, yes, debutante. As you did many times calling Zionists “ultranationlists” and such BS. So you are guilty by your own standards,”

              But I don’t, unless you can quote to the contrary. I don’t believe, nor have I written that all Zionists are ultra-nationalists. I don’t believe, nor have I written that all Zionists are Jews.

              “But, there are many other traits of anti-Semitic writing, such as a monomaniac obsession with wronging one-side of the conflict”

              If that’s your definition, are you not guilty of racism on the same charge?

    • “Irgun, whose long list of exploits…”

      …did not include anything having the intention of pushing the British out of Britain. Whereas the long list of exploits by Hamas have every intention of pushing the Jews out of their equivalent: The entirety of Palestine.

      Beside the fact that Irgun members never put Jewish women and children in the line of fire. Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban and all other Muslim terrorists always do, in a cold, calculated, cynical and diabolical win-win ploy where the other side either avoids hurting the civilians, thus leaving the field open to Islamic conquest, or it fires and hurts civilians, whose wounded and dead are subsequently trumpeted by a Marxist-owned mainstream media all too willing to carry water for the Islamic imperialists.

      But what’s that for a stickler for international “law” like Dubitante? Non-state actors can do anything they want, can’t they? In the eyes of such as theorist as Dubitante who thinks morality and legality are one and the same, the Muslim imperialists come clean no matter what atrocity they commit!

  2. Hearst sources part of his story on an interview with Shehadeh. As ever CifWatch, instead of trying to challenge the truth of the article, goes on at great length trying to smear its source on an ad hominem basis.

    If Shehadeh has made a study of Jaffa history, of course it is appropriate for Hearst to make use of him when writing on this topic. Shehadeh’s other activities are irrelevant.

    Perhaps someone will go back to Hearst’s article and demonstrate some significant factual error, whether sourced to Shehadeh or otherwise.

  3. No need, everyone knows you are Anthony Posner, AKA the Blacklisted Dictator, AKA, OCD-suffering ugly git who has nothing better to do in life than arse-lick fascists and other haters

  4. There was no massacre at Deir Yassin but subsequent exaggeration by all sides suggested that there was. The difference between Israeli society and Palestinian, is that Jewish factions could seek advantage over other by accusing them of behaviour which would disgrace Jews, whereas in Palestinian society mass murder is widely celebrated and its instruments made heroes.

  5. “There was no massacre at Deir Yassin”

    I am continually amazed at the way CifWatch posters deny known facts. Much of the evidence for the Deir Yassin massacre comes from Zionist soldiers who took part or who knew those that did. You can claim all sorts of mitigating factors (most of which I would dispute) but the fact that there was a massacre is incontravertable.

    • Just recently, people like you said that the same thing about the incontrovertible so-called “Jenin massacre” and exploited it ad nauseam with grotesque relish to bash Israel non-stop. Then, even the UN accepted there was no massacre, but a serious skirmish, including the death of many Israeli soldiers that lost their life while the Israel could have simply flattend the whole region. Then, you and your ilk just forget about that and move on to other lies.

      So, cut your fake “amazement”. Israel has been the target of endless slanders by pseudo-intellectuals self-styled “judges” like you. So, if you can be skeptical about details of the so-called “Nabka” then one can also
      investigated whether the events at Deir Yassin weren´t manipulated for propaganda purposes.

    • I know, it’s amazing isn’t it sencar? I can’t imagine anti-Zionists doing that – y’know like all those posts showing how ashamed they were that Tunisians would shout death to the Jews as a way of giving Hamas a warm welcome. Denial and self-righteousness are the cornerstones of the morally bankrupt left – in bed with so many bigots and fascists.

  6. @sencar

    “I am continually amazed at the way CifWatch posters deny known facts.”

    But that is to be expected, because the calm analysis of events is alien to those that wish their facts to remain solidly in their favour.

    Truth can be slow to emerge, especially when it is the interest of some to conceal it. Men, women and children were killed at Dier Yassin, just as they are in any battle over a contested town. The reports of atrocities such as rape and the parading of captives before murder is now accepted by Arab and Jew to be a fabrication. There is not a shred of evidence to the contrary. I, on the contrary, am never amazed that the truth will be denied, because that is in the nature of man.

  7. The Hamas Charter

    Something rather interesting was done with that a couple of years ago.

    While the dead horse may wallow in the Arab fantasiya there are British Jews who don’t like Israel but do not so wallow. Someone carried out an experiment with some of them a couple of years ago.

    In yesterday’s post, I focused on a disturbing incident described by PR guru Frank Luntz in a Jerusalem Post interview — an incident in which American Jewish college students proved utterly unwilling or unable to defend Israel. But Luntz also offered a constructive strategy for how to improve this situation.

    Again, he used an example to illustrate his point: a meeting with a group of “high income, high education, politically connected” Brits who were “so hostile to Israel” that “I’d given up … There was no message that resonated remotely well with them. And I finally said ‘to hell with it. We’ll give them the Hamas Charter’” — or, more accurately, a “word for word” version taken from Hamas’s website and then “edited down to one page.”

    The results surpassed his wildest expectations: at the end, “28 of the 30 said, ‘How dare Israel negotiate with these people?’”

    Luntz’s point is simple: when people have preconceived notions about Israel, it’s very hard to dislodge those notions — to convince them, for instance, that Israel did not wantonly target civilians in last year’s war in Gaza, or has not created a humanitarian crisis there by its blockade. But it is possible to persuade them that no matter how bad Israel is, its enemies are much, much worse — and therefore even someone who dislikes Israel should nevertheless back it against those enemies.

    Though Luntz did not elaborate, it’s not hard to see why this should be so. First, people generally know much less about Hamas or Hezbollah than they think they do about Israel, so there are fewer preconceived notions to try to dislodge. Second, Israel’s enemies truly are evil and make no effort to hide it, so the case is easy to prove.

    • ““word for word” version taken from Hamas’s website and then “edited down to one page.””

      I’d love to see this one page version. Dooes it not occur to you, Ariadne, that, as edited by a Zionist admittedly highly hostile to Hamas, this single page might be just a little distorted.

      • What civilised human being would not be hostile to Hamas? Barbarity is too mild a word for its homicidal “politics”.

        And no, I don’t doubt anything in that article. I suggest you email Frank Luntz, ask for a copy and permission to post it here.

      • I see Sencar, that’s why you haven’t yet commented and condemned the shouts of ‘kill the Jews’ at Tunis airport. So wise and discerning to be doing your own research into the affair, until you know for sure it wasn’t translated by a ‘Zionist’. In fact, you’ve really got me thinking now, how much of that nasty racist stuff coming out of Germany in the 1930s and 40s was translated by ‘Zionists’? I’m so glad we have heroic and clever people like you who can liberate us from our ignorance by always speaking truth to Jewish power.

        • I doubt that there was much Jewish power about when Reuters reported on Gaza and the Pope’s visit to Israel. The article was what might be expected. But a comment at the end by Julian Rake is a great story:

          This brings to mind a surreal encounter that took place in the days after Hamas had stunned the world in January 2006 with its sweeping victory in Palestinian legislative elections. Hardline Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar was meeting with members of Gaza’s Christian community in the presence of foreign journalists (including some from Reuters)to calm any concerns Christians might have about Hamas’ intentions in light of its election showing. One journalist asked Zahar whether the popular mandate given to Hamas by the electorate would be reflected in any radical changes on social issues – like rules governing the wearing of beards for men or veils for women. Zahar waved away the question and pointed at some Christian women at the meeting saying that the way they were dressed was more than acceptable to societal norms in Gaza. He seemed totally unaware that the women he was indicating were nuns – dressed in their habits and veils!

    • But, but, …prof dilletante said that peer-reviewed mezzo-scholarly/mezzo-porn journal Der Stürmer proved incontrovertibly and anthropomorphically that Hamas don´t really intend to wipe out Israel. It´s just resistance rethoric, just like Mein Kampf.