Brits, Bibi’s Poodles, Arrest Sheikh Salah Preparing to Address Parliament
The Tory British government, ever Bibi’s loyal poodle, has arrested Sheikh Raed Salah, head of the Islamic Movement (Northern Branch) the day before he was to address the UK parliament at the invitation of an MK. Doing Bibi’s bidding seems to be a trademark of the current government, which also today inveighed against those participating in the Gaza Flotilla, who are rumored to have at least one boat which departed from a Scottish port.
Apparently, the Sheikh, Israel’s leading Islamist leader, is persona non grata as the leader of a legitimate Israeli political-religious movement (albeit one the government attempts to criminalize every chance it gets). The fact that he’s been convicted by Israel of trumped-up charges of assaulting a police officer is enough to get him deported. But one wonders why they bothered to allow him into the country in the first place. It makes the Brits look like they’re afraid of the ideas of someone they themselves permitted entry. What’s he gonna do? Poison the minds of UK’s Muslim community? Turn them against the Tory government’s milquetoast approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? They’re already against this government’s Middle East policy. Hard to imagine Salah could make things any worse for them.
Perhaps this is a sop thrown to Bibi because Parliament still hasn’t, as far as I know, repealed the provision allowing arrest warrants for visiting Israeli officials and IDF officers. This has been high on Israel’s list since it’s meant that no senior Israeli officials could visit England for some time without fearing arrest.
The British tabloid press have blared headlines claiming that Salah was a banned person, implying that he entered Britain surreptitiously. Considering that he entered via Heathrow and certainly must’ve had a visa to do so, this appears to be a lie.
I should make clear that I am criticizing Britain’s pusillanimousness not because I’m a fan of Salah or agree with his views. But unlike David Cameron and Bibi Netanyahu, his views don’t scare me and criminalizing them will only drive Israel’s Muslims farther toward the extremes (which perhaps is what Bibi wishes). The Bush administration cancelled a visa issued to Tariq Ramadan and refused him entry for years until, under pressure of a lawsuit, Pres. Obama’s Justice Department changed course and allowed Ramadan into the U.S. By the way, the Republic did not collapse as a result. Similarly, Israel imprisoned Norman Finkelstein when he attempted to enter and refused Noam Chomsky entrance as well. Apparently, their ideas were so dangerous that Israel might’ve combusted spontaneously had a single Israeli heard them.
74 thoughts on “Brits, Bibi’s Poodles, Arrest Sheikh Salah Preparing to Address Parliament – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم”
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
Maybe Raed Salah was going to address Parliament with his version of what happened on the Mavi Marmara last year. For many hours he was announced among the killed, but it turned out to be a Turkish citizen who looked very much like Raed Salah.
Ali Abunimah among others asks the question whether Raed Salah was the target instead of a Turkish engineer:
your right. I remember clearly that in the morning after, there were many reports and rumors floting about that he was killed. I remember some people blaming Israel for TARGETING HIM SPECIFICLY.
I also remember ZERO apologies for those lies.
And you’re presuming the IDF didn’t WISH to kill him as they apparently did in 2000 when he was seriously wounded??
I’m talking about the lies propogated at the time of the Ravi Marmara incident regarding Salach supposed demize.
you’re trying to deflect, rather weakly.
And you know the “lies” weren’t propagated by the IDF which may’ve actually wanted to kill him? Can you prove who started the “lies?”
“And you know the “lies” weren’t propagated by the IDF which may’ve actually wanted to kill him? Can you prove who started the “lies?””
I don’t care. I do know that he WASN’T killed. I also know the IDF actually filmed him and distributed those images to prove the point that he was not targeted\killed\used his blood for passover matzot.
I didn’t bring that subject up, by the way.
Did you know the Shin Bet tried to contract with Chaim Pearlman to assassinate Salah? It’s in Haaretz if you don’t believe me. So the notion that they might try to assassinate him on the Mavi Marmara is NOT at all far fetched.
“Did you know the Shin Bet tried to contract with Chaim Pearlman to assassinate Salah? It’s in Haaretz if you don’t believe me. So the notion that they might try to assassinate him on the Mavi Marmara is NOT at all far fetched.”
ah, so were now talking about notions that they might do something. which, BTW, they didn’t.
a wise man one said:
“You seem to specialize in speculation, don’t you?”
perlman released those recordings after he was arrested for, wait for it… murdering palestinians. those recording were made in 2000 (when, allegedly, the shin bet was trying to recrute him), the recording were released in july 2010 (which was, AFTER the mavi marmara incident took place). during those 10 years, it seems that the zionist plot to assisnate raad was either unsucceful or NONEXISTANT.
“And you’re presuming the IDF didn’t WISH to kill him as they apparently did in 2000 when he was seriously wounded??”
wow! that sentence ends not with one, but with TWO question marks, you must be right then.
there’s no mentune of said event on his wikipedia entry, not in english nor in hebrew, nor is there any mentune when googling his name. no news reports, that I’ve seen, corroborate that information. please enlighten me on this matter.
Only unsuccessful because Pearlman refused. He’s a pretty efficient killer so one may assume had he tried he might’ve succeeded.
Well golly if it’s not in Wikipedia it must never have happened right? Because Wikipedia, esp. entries raked over by hasbarists w. a fine toothed comb never omit facts inconvenient to Israel, do they? And I guess because YOU haven’t been able to find a reference that too much mean the event never happened. But you never stopped to think that perhaps your research skills aren’t up to the job or that you were sloppy or lazy. Because I & several others found such references. But it took a little digging which apparently you didn’t or couldn’t muster.
the truth of the matter is that he was suffered a light head injury the first day of the 2000 riots (I didn’t find the exact circumstance and reason for the injury, yet).
he calmed it was an assassination attempt. well, he would, wouldn’t he? he also claimed this:
“ואנחנו לא אלו שהרשינו לעצמנו לאכול ארוחה שמבוססת על לחם וגבינה בדמם של ילדים”
“הציונות העולמית רעה לכל העולם. אין מדינה בעולם שלא סובלת מהציונות העולמית. אפילו הדגים בים ואפילו העופות בקיניהם.”
Are u claiming he said this in Hebrew? If so what is the original source, meaning who heard him say this? And if in Arabic who heard him say it & who translated?
And if yr answered is MEMRI try again.
I also read online that he was seriously wounded with an IDF bullet to the head in 2000. The article said he almost died, but I haven’t verified that. Can anyone else?
Yes, you’re right, Richard. Raed Salah, who was the Mayor of Umm al-Fahem from 1989 to 2001, was wounded on the first day of the October 2000 revolts.
Nothing about him being a very popular mayor for 12 years nor being wounded on his wikipedia page. Maybe it’s considered details.
“Yes, you’re right, Richard.”
no he’s wrong. the article says he was wounded on the first day (which, btw, is something that I found very little information about anywhere)
but it does NOT say:
“was seriously wounded with an IDF bullet to the head in 2000”
It’s not an “article” but from the inquiry by the Or Commission. I think “Or” is a Jewish name …. And you apparently didn’t read it before answering Richard above, did you ?
“It’s not an “article” but from the inquiry by the Or Commission.”
if you’re such a pedant for details, it’s a summery of facts from the or investigation.
and apparently you didn’t read it before answering Richard. it doesn’t say he “was seriously wounded with an IDF bullet to the head in 2000″, just that he was wounded, with no reference to the type of injury, nor to its severity. I’m still waiting for Richard to provide proof of that statement.
@ Deir Yassin
the following link is to the Or Commission statement, i didn’t find the any reference to your statement that he was seriously wounded, The reference to his incident his actually contradictory to your description of the events:
“מכתב מתייחס למעורבותו האישית של שיח’ ראיד, אשר נפגע קלות מכדור גומי במהלך אירועי יום 1.10.00”
A letter about the personal involvement of Sheikh Raed Salah who was slightly wounded from a rubber bullet during the incidents on 1.10.00
so would you be able to refer me to the exact wordings of the Or committee referring to your claim that Sheikh Raed Salah was seriously wounded ?
Have you ever been struck in the head by a rubber bullet? Or any projectile whatsoever? If you had you would never say such a head wound is “slight.” Any bullet wound to the head is very serious & even if there is no major damage any head wound bleeds profusely. Too bad I don’t have a picture of how his “slightly wounded” face looked that day.
@ Ital L
“Actually contradictory to your description of the event”
Are you a Hasbara-machine in Edelstein’s basement spewing crap without reading your opponents ?
Maybe you should actually read my comment before answering, and not mix me up with Richard. We are NOT the same person, and I NEVER stated Raed Salah was ‘seriously wounded’. I never described anything by the way. I wrote than Raed Salah was wounded, basta, and linked to the Haaretz-resumé of the Or Commission.
I don’t read Hebrew, and can thus not read the report, but I do believe that Haaretz has no interest in lying about the Or Commission on Raed Salah being wounded.
You stated on June 30 at 2:24 that you had found NO mention of Raed Salah being wounded. You’re not talking about ‘seriously’ or ‘lightly’, in his head or elsewhere, but no mention what so ever. Than was 12 hours after I posted the link to the Haaretz-resumé of the Or Commission, and I thus conclude that you didn’t read that link before answering.
Try to be a little consistent, guys ! I know your job is ungrateful: defending The-Only-Democracy-In-The-Middle-East no matter what. Lipstick on a pig …
That was in and article one a diff. website. Are u claiming he’s wasn’t?
@ Deir Yassin,
when you are saying “Yes, you’re right, Richard.” After he claimed that Raed Salah you are reiterating his claim, care to write in a different language ?
i am claiming that your statement that Raed Salah was seriously wounded is wrong. can you link to the article where you saw he was seriously wounded ? I couldn’t find it anything in English or in Hebrew.
Here is one reference:
And I hadn’t even known about this little incident:
Right now, I can’t find the specific source which indicated he’d been seriously wounded, but I’d characterize any bullet wound to the head & especially one that might’ve been a deliberate attempt to kill or main him to be a “serious wound.”
1. The way you define the seriousness of one’s wound is irrelevant, these are medical terms with concrete medical definitions and they are not open for interpretation, one can not define himself as lightly wounded or seriously wounded.
2. You link to two websites, one is located in Nashville and used a fake phone number to register his contact information (1.717171717) and the other is located in England, and you are trying to pass them as credible sources for middle east affairs ? are you serious ? as you often say please show me a source in Arabic or Hebrew.
If the sheikh was seriously wounded it would have made so much noise there would have been articles about it all over the Israeli media (check up how much noise the rumors about his wounds made a year ago) the absence of such articles are a proof that he wasn’t.
And as someone already told you, if the Shin-Bet / Border Police / IDF wanted him dead, he would have been dead by now. There was no attempt to kill him.
This website is registered in the U.S. Yet I’d classify it as having something useful to say about the conflict. Is it really yr.claim a British website can’t have anything useful to say on this subject??
As for not registering using a real phone# surely you jest. A very large number of websites register w. fake info because they don’t want nudniks like u bothering them. In fact, Masada 2000 is registered at the address of the cryogenic facility preserving Ted Williams’ body. The phone number is for a postal box facility in Sacramento, CA.
As for head wounds, your invocation of alleged expert medical terminology to determine whether a wound is slight or serious is laughable since you haven’t offered any proof that the wound was slight.
“Here is one reference:
In 2000, Israeli troops shot him in the head in what was considered by observers to be an assassination
that’s a reference?!
you’re joking, right?
it’s more likely that YOU are the joke.
So what specifically are you disputing from the source (& yes, of course it’s a source). That he was shot in the head? That there are individuals who considered it to be an assassination attempt? You wouldn’t question that because if you did you’d either be ignorant or a liar since we know that both statements are patently true. Now you may not like the fact that some think the IDF or Border Police were trying to kill him. And it may not even be objectively true. But the source didn’t state categorically that it WAS an assassination attempt. Merely that followers of the Sheikh believe it.
And sorry those who believe this don’t take orders from you. Not yet anyway.
By the way, I’m amazed by the biased article on wikipedia concerning the Islamic Movement in Israel.
Out of the eight references, seven are Israeli, and only one – a MA thesis at John Hopkins University – written by an Arab, but the link goes to a site in Hebrew. Six of the eight references are in Hebrew – on a English wikipedia page.
I guess the organized “explanation” has been working overtime.
If you check the Talk page for the Wikipedia article, you will find that it is simply a translation of the Hebrew Wikipedia article on the same subject.
That is the reason why so many of the references are in Hebrew.
Yes, I guess that why. I still find it amazing that the only Arab source, a MA thesis from John Hopkins University is cited in its Hebrew version. I guess Isam Abu Raia wrote his thesis in English, and Hebrew is preventing lots of people from verifying the sources. I’ve never seen an English wikipedia page with 75% of the sources in Arabic.
I better repost some informations on the Zionist editing of ‘wikipedia’:
The Yesha spokesperson is talking about the Gaza Flotilla as a privileged topic;
CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) – a right-wing pro-Israeli lobby as its name says – has been involved in placing its members on the wikipedia editing board.
The link is actually to a piece in Hebrew by Dr. Danny Rabinowitz, a professor at Tel-Aviv University.
In it, he cites the Hopkins thesis from Isam Abu Raia with respect to one of the sentences in his article.
The link provided (which presumably came from the original Hebrew version of the article) contains the information that was included in the Wikipedia entry.
I would be surprised if the full thesis itself was actually available online. Most likely, it’d be available through the Johns Hopkins University library system in a hard copy.
You apparently didn’t get my point on the bias of ‘wikipedia’ on sensible topics such as Israel/Palestine.
It doesn’t matter – keep on ‘explaining’ how it functions.
The bottom line is that one ‘side’ is heavily overrepresented in this ‘wikipedia’ entry. And if Isam Abu Raia’s thesis is only represented throught the analysis of an Israeli author, no matter whether he is an intellectual, it’s even more one sided.
This ‘wiki’ page on the Islamic Movement in Israel is based on only Israeli sources. I’ll let people draw their own conclusions.
I’m sorry. I didn’t intent to monopolize this thread, and I’m not particularly a fan of Raed Salah and his world vision.
Hebrew Wikipedia is notoriously biased & right wing on these general subjects. I’d suspect any Hebrew article translated into English on a similar subject.
Deïr Yassin, if you are looking for reliable published sources of information on Islam for use in Wikipedia I’d recommend searching for “JISC Digital Islam” on the British Library http://ethos.bl.uk/SearchResults.do;jsessionid=5BCE15A3EE97B8B3BACDA6EE3136756E“>EThOS service. They have over 250,000+ full text theses for free and JISC digitized 950+ PhD theses in the area of Islamic Studies.
JISC also digitized the British Cabinet Papers from 1915-1980 including thousands of declassified items dealing with Palestine.
What horror !
The abuse of the british law system can go both ways.
yeah. I remember the arab outcry when Gert Wilders was denied entrance to the UK.
I don’t remember him entering under a false name, and gettign arrested either.
That’s because Salah wasn’t on a Watch list nor denied entry when he did arrive. Can you provide a shred of evidence he was? If not, you’re either lazy, biased, or a liar. Which is it?
“That’s because Salah wasn’t on a Watch list ”
there are reports that he was.
“nor denied entry when he did arrive”
that’s true. I don’t know the reasons, there are various speculations why that happened.
“Can you provide a shred of evidence he was”
I know only what I read from the media. As I don’t regard written media reporting as “proof”. I concur, I can’t.
“If not, you’re either lazy, biased, or a liar. Which is it?”
I don’t agree with you. think of that as you may. but generaly when someone points thier finger, they have four pointing back at them.
that said, and for what it’s worth, I don’t think you are lazy. as for the other two, one is debatable, the other is obvious.
There are reports the moon is made of green cheese. Is it?
You seem to specialize in speculation, don’t you?
Being arrested is merely a consequence of having entered whilst subject to a banning order.
Entering while under a banning order seems to have been effected with false papers.
Had he done THAT in the United States, Richard, he would already have endured physical abuse and possibly “enhanced interrogation”.
I recall the case of Miss Singh, who was shackled and kept without water for 24 hours, for attempting to LEAVE the United States on a visa that was four days overstayed. She had been in the United States to make a public relations film about Anglo-American relations, on behalf of the Foriegn and Commonwealth Office. As she observed to the American officials who chained her up “I don’t see anyone in here who isn’t brown.” I think I mentioned this when attempting to help over El Al’s abusive (and unlawful) search of Prof. Bradshaw at Luton Airport.
Where necessary, British officials will effect the arrest of any Israel who has a warrant or an exclusion order against them, no matter which side they are on in Israel’s never-ending internicine struggle. American officials (and indeed the policy) seem altogether more partial and biased.
Your description of the entire British nation as “Bibi’s poodles” when we’re perfectly happy to arrest Bibi’s ministers, is simply blind unthinking bigotry of a kind which rather too many Liberal Americans feel safe to indulge in after a hard day’s not making broad, sweeping and unjustified statements about any other ethnic group at all.
An Israeli friend has spent several months trying to persaude me that you are a hypocrite who would counternance almost any abuse for a cause you supported. You have just succeeded where she failed.
Can you prove he entered w. false papers? I doubt it. YOu haven’t offered a shred of evidence.
The rest of yr comment is completely OFF TOPIC. I don’t need you lecturing me about U.S. immigration policies which have nothing to do w. the matter at hand. Stay on topic.
That’s nasty, churlish & downright obtuse. Clearly from what I actually wrote (noting several times I was criticizing David Cameron & the Tory gov’t) you’re misconstruing my meaning & doing so in bad faith. You’re putting me in a very bad mood. Not the best idea.
You see now, that’s precisely what I mean. I simply don’t have the patience for this nonsense. You’re on moderation & if you can post a few comments that aren’t as obtuse as this one, I’ll remove you. But keep on in this bad form & your presence here may no longer be welcome.
And you’ve succeeded in convincing many of us that you’re a nitwit.
He didn’t enter with false papers. His lawyer states that he was perfectly open about who he was and why he had come to the UK. I doubt the lawyer is lying, as use of false papers would be very easy to prove at the deportation hearing. This is why people are questioning whether the ban was actually in place when he arrived, as he would have been stopped at the airport if it had been. It looks as though it was imposed suddenly due to behind-the-scenes pressure. Now he is fighting his deportation order, and suing several British papers for libel and defamation. I have a funny feeling that the government is going to end up with egg on face.
As a Brit myself, I didn’t get the feeling that Richard was calling us Bibi’s poodles – I took it for granted that he meant the government. When the bill to repeal the universal juridiction laws went through the Commons, only Plaid Cymru and the Green Party (the latter with its one solitary MP) opposed the changes. Of the three major parties, only thirty-two MPs voted against the bill – all of them Labour and all of them acting in defiance of the Party whip. Not one Conservative or Lib Dem voted against that change. Not one. I expected as much from the Tories, but the Lib Dems? It was a betrayal of everything they’ve ever said on Palestine prior to getting a slice of the power pie. I won’t be voting for them again in a hurry. This is the very definition of poodle behaviour – as is the fact that our current Prime Minister is a member of ‘Conservative Friends of Israel’.
In fact, the next time I go on a demonstration in England I may carry a photo of a poodle as my banner. A white one with its legs and tail dyed blue, as they sometimes are in those pedigree dog shows. With David Cameron’s face.
(Yes, I’m cross with my government. Can you tell?)
He wasn’t about to “address Parliament” he was going to address three New Labour MPs who had booked a committee room without specifying who they had invited to speak.
They weren’t representing their own party, let alone Parliament, as it was their own party that asked them not to invite a banned person into the House.
There is absolutely NO proof he was a banned person unless you wish to use the tabloids as arbiters of who is on this list.
He was about to address members of Parliament (& I assume many others). Big deal. What’s yr problem? It doesn’t make much of a diff. whether he was going to address three MKs or 400. Essentially what I wrote is correct.
The British Home secretary had issue a travel ban before his arrival. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/29/sheikh-raed-salah-arrest-london
I think we can all agree that the guardian is not a tool of hasbarha and it can be relied on in this case.
I’ve heard a claim that the Home Office says it placed him on a Ban list. However, neither he nor his British solicitors ever were notified about this & as far as Salah knew he was not. He used his Israeli passport to enter the country and was not detained, which indicates that when he entered he was NOT on a ban list. However, the ruckus in Parliament after he arrived along w. the geshreys fr. the Jewish Chronicle immediately got the Home Office’s attention & he was banned & arrested.
Medawar:He wasn’t about to “address Parliament” he was going to address three New Labour MPs who had booked a committee room without specifying who they had invited to speak.
Yeah, thats why his name is on the posters along with the other guest speakers.
Or are you refering to Committee Room 2A at Parliament, in which he spoke for an hour? on Monday? the day before his arrest? That room?
Which was about the same time that this was happening:
Mr Speaker: Last but not least, I call Mr Mike Freer.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con): The Home Secretary will be aware that Mr Raed Salah has been invited to speak in the palace precincts. Given this man’s history of virulent anti-Semitism, will the Home Secretary ban him from entering the UK?
Mrs May: The Home Office does not routinely comment on individual cases. I will seek to exclude an individual if I consider that his or her presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good, and the Government make no apologies for refusing people access to the UK if we believe that they might seek to undermine our society. Coming here is a privilege that we refuse to extend to those who seek to subvert our shared values.
The above is a matter of record, the date is Monday the 27th of June at around 3pm, the day before Salahs arrest. Clearly Mr Freer, a member of Conservative Friends of Israel, a British parliamentary group affiliated to the Conservative Party and dedicated to strengthening business, cultural and political ties between the United Kingdom and Israel, is asking for Mrs May to ban Salah from the UK. not enforce a ban. Mrs May’s response is that basically she will look into it, not she has already banned him, or banned him a week ago.
Medawar, naughty, naughty. You didn’t tell us how badly you’d screwed up yr facts. If we didn’t know better we might even think you were arguing in bad faith.
Thanks Rod for setting the record straight. Next time Medawar, you might want to do a better job of research. Perhaps you can work together with yr alleged British friend who’s persuaded you that I’m a no-goodnik.
The charges of assaulting an Israeli police office were hardly trumped up. The assault was caught on camera.
Sure, the same way Border Police thugs lied when they claimed that Ezra Nawi, a non violent pacifist, assaulted them too.
So you are saying – what? That the film refutes the testimony of the witnesses in the Raed Salah trial?
Have you actually SEEN the film? Are you claiming that it does NOT show him assaulting an Israeli police officer?
And I can find 500 YouTube videos showing Border Police & IDF assaulting Palestinian protesters. They do it routinely, they do it just because they can. I have no doubt that if there is such footage that it also shows (or would show if it wasn’t edited) the initial assault of the officers which provoked a response from Salah. So if you can show me a video that shows the entire incident from beginning to end, & which is unedited then I’d be happy to watch it. But if it’s an edited video produced by your kind to smear Salah & prove that he’s a vile, disgusting murderous human being, then no thanks.
A video produced by “my kind”? What precisely is “my kind”?
The hasbara kind.
“Only unsuccessful because Pearlman refused.”
And the Shin Bet, of course, had nobody else that could carry out such an assassination…
I can’t help but feel that if they had wanted Raed Salah dead, he would be dead by now It surely couldn’t be to difficult to arrange a little “accident”.
What a delightful notion. Perhaps you wouldn’t mind if yr political opponents arranged for a little accident to happen to you at the hands of MI5?? That would be funny, wouldn’t it? About as funny as what you suggested in a fit of snark or wit.
I was merely pointing out that it would be possible to do, if the Shin Bet wanted him dead. I did not advocate such a course of action – so I suggest you read what I actually wrote.
Suggesting it would be easy to kill someone or easy for Shabak to do so comes perilously close to that.
I suggest you examine more closely the context of what I said. You claimed that the Shin Bet had tried to have Raed Salah assassinated and that the only reason they failed was because the person they turned to and asked to do it, refused.I pointed out that that the Shin Bet is hardly dependent on Pearlman for carrying assassinations. Therefore, my conclusion is that Raed Salah is not on a Shin Bet hit list because if he were, they would no doubt have got him by now. You know perfectly well this is what I meant. To say that I am therefore advocating his assassination smacks of intellectual dishonesty on your part.
There are many reasons why the Shabak might want to farm out an assassination to a Jewish terrorist & not do it itself. There could be many reasons why they would ask Pearlman to do it & not other Jewish terrorists. The fact that he has not been killed does not in any way mean they would not wish him killed or might not have attempted it. The U.S. gov’t tried to assassinate Castro many times in various ways & guess what, he’s still alive. But not for want of trying.
Though Shabak routinely assassinates Arabs, it generally does not kill them inside Israel when they’re Israeli citizens. That would mean crossing a red line & mean a new moral low which perhaps it isn’t prepared for (yet).
As for my alleged intellectual dishonesty, if I heard you say you were opposed to Shabak assassinating Palestinians that would assuage my doubts about yr willingness to see the secret police engage in this practice.
UK detains Palestinian-Israeli leader Salah
Leader of Islamic Movement in Israel detained during speaking tour to Britain for breaching alleged travel ban
June 30, 2011 at 1:15 PM
A video produced by “my kind”? What precisely is “my kind”?
Richard Silverstein says:
June 30, 2011 at 7:24 PM
The hasbara kind.”
I fail to comprehend your drift. What is “the hasbara kind” and what, precisely have I said, for you to place me in this category?
Someone displaying ideological partisanship favoring Israeli gov’t policy and statements over all others & seeing the world from the perspective of same.
Really? I somehow gathered, from other posts on this site, that the term implied someone recruited by one of the Israel Government agencies (usually for financial remuneration), to present Israel’s case in international forums (technically, that should be fora). Am I now to understand that anyone who points out a single factual or logical flaw in any one of your arguments, without expressing any ideological opinion whatsoever, is also to be included in this group?
BTW – you avoided answering the second part of my question. Let me remind you what it was: what, precisely have I said, for you to place me in this category?
Richard Silverstein says:
July 1, 2011 at 11:39 AM
“There are many reasons why the Shabak might want to farm out an assassination to a Jewish terrorist & not do it itself. ”
But, according to things you have regularly written on this site, one must conclude that – in your opinion at least – Pearlman is not the only Jewish terrorist whom the Shin Bet could have used to carry out such an assassination.
“Though Shabak routinely assassinates Arabs, it generally does not kill them inside Israel when they’re Israeli citizens.”
That’s one more reason for assuming that they were not trying to assassinate him in the particular incident you described, surely.
“As for my alleged intellectual dishonesty, if I heard you say you were opposed to Shabak assassinating Palestinians that would assuage my doubts about yr willingness to see the secret police engage in this practice.”
I am not on trial here, Richard, and I don’t have to assuage your doubts or prove anything. YOU are the one who accused ME of advocating the assassination of Raed Salah – so why don’t YOU go ahead and prove your claim. All you have proved so far is that the only people who are welcome to comment here free from the threat of ad hominem insult on your part, are those who unequivocally toe the party line as dictated by Richard Silverstein.
Good Jewish assassins are hard to come by. Most of them are already in the Kidon black ops unit. So no, there wouldn’t be many besides Pearlman, & the latter has a very good record of killing them. So he was a natural.
Touchy, touchy. Why won’t you state explicitly that you do not support assassination of Israeli Palestinians? Since you refuse to answer the question & in the law silence equals assent, we can only assume that you’re OK with this practice. Which may be why you wouldn’t be so terribly upset if someone did kill the Sheikh. You of course can answer the question by telling us you would oppose his killing by the government of the Jewish terror underground. When you say this explicitly then I’ll withdraw my statement.
Silverstein claims:”In the law silence equals assent”.
Indeed? So if an accused person uses his legal right to remain silent, he’s actually confessing his guilt, is he?
I think you know better than that.
In fact, whether or not a person avails themselves of the right to remain silent, it is still up to the accuser to prove them guilty. You have failed to do so in my case – but I congratulate you on your clever strategy for diverting the discussion from the question in hand, which was the likelihood – or lack thereof – of the shooting of Raed Salah being an assassination attempt by the Shin Bet.
How dreary. “Silence is assent” is a very common, well known & well understood legal doctrine. Look it up. There are thousands of reference to the phrase in a Google search I just did. The fact that the Fifth Amendment allows for witnesses to be silent and not construed as guilty is a right specifically enumerated in the Amendment. So of course in this one instance silence is not assent. But in most other instances it is.
You are confusing the right to remain silent with the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate oneself. The right to remain silent almost always includes a provision in law that adverse inferences cannot be made by a judge or jury from a defendant’s refusal to answer questions prior to or during legal proceedings such as a trial. You are, as usual, evading the issue, which was, in this case, the likelihood, or unlikelihood, of the Shin Bet having attempted to assassinate Raed Salah. You apparently think that by diverting attention to falsely accusing me, I and everyone else, will forget the original accusation against the Shin Bet. Now, I don’t pretend to KNOW whether or not they made any such attempt. I believe, however, that on the basis of the evidence (or lack thereof) presented here, that this is unlikely.
Silverstein says: “Good Jewish assassins are hard to come by”
But I thought the West Bank settlements were crawling with rabid right-wing Jewish terrorists, just aching to murder Palestinians! Don’t you think they’d be any good at it?
They prefer killing & maiming them when they’re defenseless & shepherding sheep or tending olive groves. Jewish assassins don’t like to attack Palestinians when they might get killed by their supporters in retaliation. And most Jewish terrorists actually are chicken shit & choose to do things like torch mosques & olive trees. They also like to beat up Palestinian boys, women, etc. Picking on people who are well defended or their own size isn’t their style.
I could, of course, make the obvious reply to this – but I’m sure it has already occurred to your readers, so I won’t bother.
Sorry, but I had to laugh when I read this article today:
Of course an “unamed” source, and of course an order like that only gets sent to a single terminal at a single airport just before the flight suspected of carrying the targetted individual is due to arrive. Which places a hermetic seal around the UK, preventing those people who have such orders placed on them from entering. Makes so much more sense than when such an order is issued that it be sent to all entry points of the UK for cross referencing against passenger manifests for all arriving transportation. [/sarcasm]
It also seems the UK government are hell bent on making sure Salah has difficulties in appealing the deportation.
BTW, Richard – possibly my memory is playing tricks on me (and I’m sure you will correct me if I’m mistaken), but wasn’t Chaim Pearlman released without being charged? So to take it as a proven fact that “has a very good record of killing them (i.e. Palestinians)” falls rather wide of the mark, wouldn’t you say?