Weiss’ Knickers in Knot Over Sheikh Salah
Michael Weiss, that insufferable, braying pro-Israel zealot, has his knickers in a knot over Sheikh Salah’s visit to England. The Telegraph blogger began his crusade before Salah arrived, with a shot across the bow on June 22nd, in which he crowed about alleged anti-Semitic statements made by Salah. Though a number of Weiss’ claims are based on the notoriously unreliable MEMRI and Jerusalem Post, at least one is based on a Haaretz report. That paper is by no means universally reliable, it is surely a more serious source. So let’s get this out of the way, since it will surely be Weiss’ first shot when he reads I’ve had the temerity to cross him yet again after his purported Syrian government memo claiming the intelligence services led the Naksa Day protests which led to 15 dead at the hands of the IDF.
If Salah has said the things he’s alleged to have said by Haaretz then he is a truly dim figure and anti-Semite to boot. But I would note that there are laws against incitement in Israel and though Salah has been charged with violating those laws he’s never been convicted. I would think if he did say any of these things it should’ve been fairly easy to convict him. Though again, I’m not making any claims regarding whether or not he said what MEMRI and the others allege.
Further, the Israeli government has attempted to ban the Sheikh’s Islamic movement, but the Israeli Supreme Court rejected the effort. As Ian Black asks in The Guardian:
The real question about the episode is this: if Salah is tolerated in Israel, why did the UK government object to his presence?
Further, there are several anomalies in Weiss’ coverage and in his omissions from the record. First, he neglects to mention that Salah was nearly killed by an Israeli Border Police bullet to the head in the first Intifada in 2000. Second, he neglects to mention that Israeli media reports there are recordings of the Shin Bet asking accused Jewish terrorist Chaim Pearlman to assassinate Salah. Third, in Weiss’ first Telegraph post he also neglects to mention an important claim that he does make in later ones, that Salah was banned from entering Britain. This is important because later Weiss and other pro-Israel supporters claimed that he had been banned a week before his entry into England. This would make it appear that Salah was up to no good, possibly used fraudulent documents to gain entry, etc. The Israeli Palestinian leader’s own attorneys claim he was never aware of such a ban and that he entered England using his Israeli passport.
Now, it’s clear that immigrations officials do stupid things all the time in the U.S., Britain and Israel. But to allow a wanted man to enter Britain, especially an allegedly wanted Islamist—this strains credulity. Not to mention that Heathrow immigration authorities would’ve had the plane’s passenger manifest and would’ve had early warning that he was planning to land. Of course, Weiss and others might insinuate that he traveled under a false name or whatever. But there is no indication this is true.
What appears to have happened was that Weiss’ report spooked the Home Office and they immediately banned Salah, who may already have entered Britain. When he writes on June 28th that Salah “somehow” entered Britain a few days earlier, he makes it appear that his entry was based on fraud on the Sheikh’s part or incompetence on the government’s. When in truth it was likely based on fear of being beaten over the head by Weiss and his Islamophobic cronies.
But now let’s talk a bit about Michael Weiss’ hypocrisy. No matter how shady Salah’s alleged views about Jews may be, I bet the pro-Israel blogger never uttered a peep when Moshe Feiglin tried to enter Britain (did you, Michael?). Then the Home Office (under a more liberal Labor government) banned Feiglin for his undesirable racist views of Arabs. Has Weiss ever said that any Israeli racist such as Avigdor Lieberman should be banned from England? I could list twenty or thirty of his more disgusting comments made in the Israeli Knesset and on television about his fellow Palestinian citizens. But the former Moldovan bar bouncer and Kach party member is OK, isn’t he?
And if we want to talk about flaming racists, has Weiss ever uttered a word about Israeli Orthodox rabbis who urge that Palestinian citizens be put in concentration camps or that it’s just to murder their children lest they grow up to kill Jews. Yes, rabbis have said those things. Would you support their banning, Michael? And if so, will you write to the Home Office encouraging them to do so? I can provide the names and sources for their comments (and they’re not from the Palestinian version of MEMRI, but from mainstream Israeli press).
Even more importantly, Weiss’ Henry Jackson Society arranged for that handsome, dashing IDF officer Doron Almog to speak via video conference to a gathering of the pro-Israel flock eager to hear the good general opine on the topic, Ending Impunity or Decreasing Accountability?: Averting Abuse of Universal Jurisdiction. There would appear to be more than a little bit of self-interest in Almog’s appearance at such a gathering. Almog couldn’t speak in person because there was a little matter of a warrant for his arrest for ordering the deaths of 18 Palestinian civilians including women and children when the IDF assassinated Salah Shehadeh in 2003. And lest Weiss blame British law for the ‘nonsense’ of holding potential Israeli war criminals responsible for their actions, we should remember that it is Israeli NGOs like Yesh Gvul and Anglo-Israeli human rights lawyers like Daniel Machover, who have spearheaded these efforts.
No matter what you wish to say about Sheikh Salah, he’s never murdered a soul. You can’t say that about Doron Almog. What’s more, Weiss surely thinks it an outrage that such a man who ordered a bombing that killed Palestinian woman and children should be banned from Britain. What irks me about the pro-Israel flack is that he likes to play the morality card, as if his are universal values based on justice and morality, while Arab or Muslim values are based on racism and hate. He’ll never admit to you that there are just as many Israeli Jewish racists as Palestinian, and that many of them are welcome to visit England whenever they wish. In fact, I’d venture to say Weiss has broken bread in his adopted country with a few of them in his role as one of Israel’s chief apologists.
He’d do a lot better if he calmed down and wrote as many posts about the audacity of Doron Almog and Moshe Feiglin entering England, as he has in the three posts which he’s filled with the spew of yellow journalism regarding Sheikh Salah.
43 thoughts on “Weiss’ Knickers in Knot Over Sheikh Salah – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم”
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
Sheikh Salah should be sent on a long study tour of the Kerguelen Islands in the Antarctic. Somewhere nice and safe for him to navel gaze, pontificate, theorise and sort through his personal demons masquerading as nous. I feel sorry for the penguins however…
No word about yr friends Rabbi Dov Wolpe & other messianic Chabad rabbis who hold disgusting views of Palestinians. Instead of the Antarctic, I think your friends should be sent to a much warmer place to contemplate the iniquity of their thoughts.
I for one think those rabbis should be denied enterence to the UK too. for all that’s worth.
I think there’s a slippery slope phenomenon. Once you ban one person you can ban almost anyone. If you ban Rabbi Dov Wolpe does that justify banning Noam Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein or Tariq Ramadan? That’s why the whole banning thing can take you in very unpalatable directions. I’d rather err on the side of allowing everyone unless they’re a serious criminal.
Perhaps if you ruled that someone who’d broken a serious law or engaged in a hate crime in their home country should be banned in Britain. Perhaps. But then you have the problem that in Israel Palestinian citizens are far more likely to have been convicted of such crimes. Jews almost never are. That doesn’t mean there aren’t Jewish racists.
“No matter how shady Salah’s alleged views about Jews may be, I bet the pro-Israel blogger never uttered a peep when Moshe Feiglin tried to enter Britain (did you, Michael?). Then the Home Office (under a more liberal Labor government) banned Feiglin for his undesirable racist views of Arabs. ”
I didn’t hear a peek out of you regarding that either. is that within the “slippery slop” too?
Can you actually present a case in which a Palesdtinian has been convicted of a “hate crime” in Israel? Of course, I suppose that depends on how you define a “hate crime”.
Numerous Palestinian political parties, publications & organizations have been banned under those terms. I have no doubt that Palestinians have been convicted under such terms as well; & certainly thousands of Palestinians have been convicted under trumped up charges of security offenses & the like which are really intended to stifle political speech rather than prevent a security breach.
I think its perfectly clear Salah was not on a travel ban before he entered the UK, not that I actually care about Salah or his views or indeed what he has or has not done.
‘Alleged anti-semitism’? The man is definitely anti-semitic in a way that goes far beyond what could be considered ‘principled’ anti-Zionist. He’s stated that Jews received a warning to stay away from the towers on 9/11. He’s also claimed that Jews use children’s blood to bake bread, and the Islamic movement has claimed that the ‘Jewish lobby’ (not the ‘Zionist lobby’) has attempted to prevent his visit:
(As a note? The Haaretz article I cited above reports that he -was- charged with racism and incitement.)
You may object to Haaretz, which is reasonable; media coverage in the Middle-East has problems. However, I’d like to know what evidence you have that they it made up the vile anti-Jewish drek he spewed.
I’m not particularly knowledgable about the application of morality and ethics. But if you think that certain Israeli officials should be banned for racism, do you think that Raed should be banned as well for his racism?
I don’t have any evidence that he said these things or didn’t say them. I have the word of Jerusalem Post which I don’t trust and two other sources who also don’t say how they secured the statements fr. Salah & whether he said them in Hebrew or Arabic & if the latter who translated them. There is so much nonsense floating around about this man that I’d like to be sure that what he’s charged with is based on fully accurate & precise accounts. Not to mention that he and his solicitors contend he didn’t say these things. Is it possible that Salah is lying? Sure. But before I say that I want to be sure he is & that the basis for saying this is well-founded.
In fact, I didn’t say anyone should be banned. I said that if you want to start banning Islamists, why do you stop there & not include Jewish racists and possible IDF war criminals?
Well, I’ve spent some time on the net, and I can’t find any soundtrack from the speech that Raed Salah made in East Jerusalem. I’m pretty sure that if MEMRI, Pal watch – or any other of the innumerable organizations that are scutinizing everything Palestinian – had any proof they would have posted it on the net.
It’ not for Richard or anyone else to prove that Haaretz made up this story, but for the accusers to prove that Raed Salah actually said what he’s accused of.
And I know of at least one incident where Haaretz has written an article on rumours that turned out to be a pure lie, and in spite of various people contacting them, myself included, they haven’t censured the article, but continue to mention the false claims of a synagogue arsoned in the Tunisian town of El Hamma during the Tunisian Revolution. Bad luck: there is NO synagogue in El Hamma, and Tunisian Jewish community leaders have denied the rumours spread from ultra-Zionist pro-settler organizations in Paris. So Haaretz is not above suspicion.
If Raed Salah is antisemitic for mixing-up ‘Jews’ and ‘Zionists’ (which I personally regret) what do we do about the numerous Israelis here on this blog who do exactly the same ? The equation anti-zionist = antisemitic is present here on a daily basis.
When a State declares that it acts in the name of world Jewry, and many Israelis and Diaspora Jews follow, how do you think outsiders see the relation ?
Tom Pessah quotes a Palestinian friend: “Regarding Arab hatred for Jews: every time a Zionist burns a Palestinian orchard, murders a Palestinian, abuses a Palestinian, he says that Palestine is Jewish land and that he is a Jew. When an Arab hears that, do you think he’s going to hate the Zionists or the Jews ? When the Zionists constantly identify as Jews while they are abusing the Palestinians, they shouldn’t expect the Arabs and the Muslims not to hate the Jews. For that reason, Zionism hurts the Arabs and the Jews at the same time”.
Sorry. This comment was a response to Benjamin’s post.
I suppose we’re not going to get anywhere, seeing as how one of us chooses to believe the source and another chooses not to. I personally find Haaretz to be one of the more reliable papers in the region, but again, it’s a matter of opinion.
I apologize for misinterpreting your statement in regard to banning; I retract my question for you, as it was in error. As for questions on my opinion of banning entrance to the country, I am almost unequivocally against the banning of anyone from entering countries.
Mr. Yassin, if what you say about Haaretz is true, then I’d change my opinion. My own knowledge about the situation for Tunisian Jews is that (from several source, although I’m not sure how valid you would find them) a building serving as a synagogue in the southern Tunisia was burned, and was most likely not motivated by anti-Jewish sentiment.
Going into the topic of prejudices would probably outstrip the length of this post. However, I find indiscriminate prejudice against an entire group wrong, no matter what group is prejudiced and the target of the discrimination.
I swear on all that I cherish that the non-existing synagogue in El Hamma was not burned down. If you read French, there are plenty of informations on that matter. From all major MSM: Le Monde, Nouvel Obs, L’Express etc
The rumours have been spread by Samy Ghozlan and his BNVCA (National Office for the Surveillance of Antisemitisme – among most called ‘The Office for the Propagation of Antisemitism). He has by the way been temporarely excluded from the French AIPAC (CRIF) for this and many other false rumours.
Peres Trabelsi, the leader of the Djerba Jewish community has denied the incident. Chairs were stolen in front of a Jewish shrine – it’s a tiny synagogue that is not used regularly, some important man is buried there – in El Hamma and various public offices situated in the same street were vandalized, such as the cooptated Trade Union.
Maybe there’s a link between these rumours and a very busy Jewish Agency who have encouraged the Tunisian Jewish community to make ‘aliyah’, proposing them a extra amount of money. Also informations on the net.
‘Calomniez, calomniez, il en restera toujours quelque chose’
(Slander, slander, something will always stay’: it seems to be a common procedure among hardcore Hasbaradim.
I’m not a Mister. How come that on the net people often address you as a male when they have no idea of your gender ?
I don’t blame Haaretz for the initial article. They believed the rumours as everyone else. But they have mentioned it again and again in various articles though many people have contacted them. All my comments were never poplished on at least three articles. I know people who have written emails etc.
Deïr Yassin says: It’ not for Richard or anyone else to prove that Haaretz made up this story, but for the accusers to prove that Raed Salah actually said what he’s accused of.
I find when it is impossible to confirm that something has happened or indeed been said, and those relaying the “information” use endless vague qualifiers and an over abundance of the terms “allegedly”, “reportedly” and “is said to”, have come up against the very same problem.
I wonder if that is why Andrew Gilligan, the London editor of the Telegraph, is denying having received a letter from Salah’s lawyer, about that very thing.
On 24th June, lawyers acting on Sheikh Raed’s behalf served notice on Andrew Gilligan of the Daily Telegraph and Robyn Rosen of the Jewish Chronicle. These procedures began before Sheikh Raed entered the country and were publicly announced.
about the audacity of Doron Almog and Moshe Feiglin entering EnglandDoron Almog and Moshe Feiglin
Is Feiglin still banned from England? and Almog?
I wouldn’t have thought it would matter much, as most British Jews don’t subscribe to Feiglin’s views so they probably don’t care about being banned in England.
Even Melanie Philips, the author of the fairytale called “Londonistan” would find Feiglin too much for her “unrefined” tastes 😉
The first intifada was not (as you mistakenly state) in 2000. That was the 2nd intifada. The first intifada started in 1987 and had more or less fizzled out by the time of the Oslo Accords.
To Ms.(or Mrs.) Yassin,
I believe you that there was no synagogue destruction in El Hamma. On the other hand, I’m… not exactly sure that there was a conspiracy by the press to propagate the story. Of course, that’s merely my opinion.
Are you sure that Haaretz didn’t remove the article on El Hamma? I searched the English edition of it, and found no mention of El Hamma. (I can’t confirm the Hebrew edition, however, as my own Hebrew has degenerated significantly).
I apologize for assuming that you were male; I was unable to find any hint of your gender from your name.
Apparently few synagogue were attacked in Tunisia
1. The Makeshift Synagogue.
2. The El Hamma Synagogue (in french)
The Hebrew edition of Walla provides information on more incidents
and if you would like to see a video of demonstrations in front of the Great Synagogue of Tunis, and listen to the hatred chants towards the Jews, it’s available on you tube just look for Muslims Attack on Tunis Synagogue
@ Deir Yassin
The Speech of Sheikh Al-Aqsa, is available on you tube. In Arabic, no translation from Memri or PalWatch, just look.
@ Itai L
Why do you post an article in French on the supposed arson in El Hamma dated from February 1st when I posted another article from a major French newsmagazine from February 2nd with an interview of a Jewish communauty leader denying the arson. If you read French – I’m pretty sure you don’t – you’ll have dozens of articles refuting the rumors. By the way, the head line in your French article ends with a question mark. Even a propagandist like you should know what that means! The article asks: “Was the synagogue of El Hamma arsoned ?”
Tou don’t give a damn about the truth, your only purpose here is propaganda. By the way, I wonder whether you’re not IlanP recycled. You use the same procedure – but I guess it’s common to all Hasbaradim – mention the same incident in Tunis in front of the synagogue there.
I’ve never heard of any Sheikh al-Aqsa. Don’t think any Sheikh has this name !
We talk about Raed Salah here, and whether Haaretz can always be trusted.
@ Deir Yassin
Obviously you are not capable of any civilized debate, not only i am an Hsbaratista, no you made a cooperative out of me.
“I’ve never heard of any Sheikh al-Aqsa”
Sheikh Al-Aqsa has been the nick name of Raed Salah among the Israeli Arabs or the last 8 years or so.
And you’re assuming that we understand slogans used by you or supposedly Israeli Palestinians? Assume readers here need inside baseball terms explained to them & won’t understand yr shorthand.
Besides, just because Ynet claims there is a custom or idiom among Israeli Palestinians doesn’t mean it’s so.
You are absolutely right, I assumed that such a common name is well known, and if you really wish to know how commonly used the phrase is just google the phrase شيخ الاقصى (Shaykh al-Aqsa)
As to your statement about Ynet, The fact that any newspaper / blogger report about something, doesn’t mean that the even really happened.
I guess that if you choose to look to the other side and you don’t wish to know how extreme is this man, and how extreme are his statements you will see exactly what you are looking for. If you would like to see him calling for Jihad, please look at the following: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsU7zUUuY-c&feature=related
And how could anybody know that your ‘sheikh al-Aqsa’ was in Arabic ? You write it in an English sentence without quotation marks and we thus conclude that you’re talking about a Sheikh named ‘al-Aqsa’ which of doesn’t exist.
In correct English, the idâfa in ‘Sheikh al-Aqsa’ is translated by ‘the sheikh OF al-Aqsa’.
I don’t know how things work in Israel, but in the rest of the world February 2nd comes after February 1st.
I posted an article from February 2nd with a statement by Peres Trabelsi denying the arson of the shrine in El Hamma.
Itai L – I was going to write IlanP, they have exactly the same procedures, and they both mentioned the incident in front of the synagogue in Tunis – now post an article in French – I’ll eat my hat he reads no French – from the day before.
Well, again I’m amazed by the intelligence of the Hasbaradim. And even without knowing French, we can all see that the headline in Itai L’s link ends with a question mark. So on the first of February, it says “Was the synagogue of El Hamma arsoned ?” And the days after, everybody refutes, and if ItaL really had followed this, he would know that Roger Bismuth, the leader of the Tunisian Jewish community, made his statement on Feb 1st based on what he had heard from Paris and the thugs there, spreading false rumours.
But ItaiL or whatever his pen name will be tomorrow doesn’t give a damn about the truth. His job is to ‘hasbarize’.
I don’t know of any Sheikh al-Aqsa, and I doubt anybody bears that name. We were talking about Raed Salah, and whether the Haaretz can always be trusted.
PS. When you google, it’s not enouth to take the first link popping up to be credible.
Just once again, another source:
Everything is there: no synagogue, a shrine, no arson, some chairs stolen, a sentry box and various official offices vandalised, false rumours from Paris. And it’s all said by Roger Bismuth, the leader of the Jewish community.
So I’ll conclude: Haaretz is not always credible neither is Itai L.
Itai L – IlanP – or whatever your pen name is tommorrow.
I don’t know any Sheikh al-Aqsa, and I doubt anyone has this name. We were taliking about Raed Salah, and whether Haaretz can always be trusted.
In your French link, the headline ends with a question mark; and even though you don’t know any French, you should understand what that means.
But then we know, you’re not here to know the truth or question your opinions, but only to ‘hasbarize’.
And how come you post an article from February 1st to refute something in an article from February 2nd ?? You haven’t learnt about chronology yet ? Or you didn’t read my link ?
It took me about 5 seconds to find one of the articles by Haaretz from the time of the supposed arson. There have others since. The latest was least than a month ago, and I tried to contact Haaretz again joining articles denying the incident.
Maybe yoy didn’t find the articles, because Haaretz wrote Gabes in stead of El Hamma (it’s a small town just outside Gabes) which shows that they haven’t verified the sources.
I don’t believe that Haaretz was part of any kind of conspiracy, but Samy Ghozlan and his right-wing “Office for the Surveillance of Anti-semitism” definitely tried to make a storm out of false rumours that he created primarily himself.
Roger Bismuth, the leader of the Tunisian Jewish community in ‘Kapitalis’ (pro-revolutionnary Tunisian media online [translated from French]:
“There is NO synagogue in El Hamma, there is a shrine with the grave of a great Rabbi which is a place for pilgrimage”.
Ah. So there wasn’t an article concerning the possible destruction of a synagogue in Hamma on the Haaretz site like you said. It appears that my original conclusion (regarding the makeshift synagogue being burned), was correct; three different sources (Reuters, JPost, JTA) said the same thing.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say with this comment.
1. That you don’t know how to google ?
2. That as Haaretz you don’t know that Gabes is the name of the Gouvernorat and the main town, whereas El Hamma is the name of the village where the non-existing synagogue wasn’t arsoned.
3. That as Itai L, you don’t know that February 2nd, the date of my article in French, comes after February 1st, and thus have further informations than the day before ?
Like Itai L, you should maybe know that it isn’t enough to take the first link popping up, but also search for the most recent one to have more informations ? You don’t learn that in “Moderate Hasbara”-school ?
“Like Itai L, you should maybe know that it isn’t enough to take the first link popping up, but also search for the most recent one to have more informations ? You don’t learn that in “Moderate Hasbara”-school ?”
I would though you would listen to your own advice, i guess i was wrong:
Published Feb 17th.
“The president of the Jewish community in Tunisia, Roger Bismuth, earlier this month denied any anti-Semitic threat and tried to downplay an arson attack on a Synagogue in El Hamma by claiming it was not technically a synagogue. While still calling upon his congregation “not to panic needlessly”, Mr. Bismuth has now requested and was granted a meeting with Prime Minister Mohamed Ghannouchi, in which he discussed the incident.”
In the Jewish world, the place of burial of importance Rabbi’s is knows as a “Ziun”, it’s a place of worship, very similar to a synagogue. The Ziun of the Chabbad Rabi in Queens has more traffic on a daily basis (people coming to Devon) then a lot of synagogues on high holidays.
And please stop with your Hasbara BS, either you can conduct a civilized debate, or I will just Ignore you.
Same for you. Yr dead horse beating in this thread is officially over. Move on.
I believe I know how to use Google, which is how I found the following articles (all of which were sent in on February 2nd), which seem to corroborate what I said earlier, i.e. ‘a building serving as a synagogue in the southern Tunisia was burned, and was most likely not motivated by anti-Jewish sentiment’:
Of course, like Mr. Silverstein, you are free to decide the veracity of the sources I mentioned above for yourself.
(As a side note, I am aware that the JPost article was sent in on the 1st; however, it corroborates to the JTA article cited later. I would like to admit my error in regards to saying that Reuters published a piece similar to the ones cited above; I was mistaken regarding it).
I would like to ask a question regarding the French article you cited (as I required translation software to read it). The translated article states that no synagogue was burned in -Hamma-, but doesn’t mention the make-shift synagogue in Gabes (Gabes is only mentioned in relation to it being north of Hamma). Is the translation wrong?
I did in fact know that Gabes and Hamma were different locations, and the translated article above seems to confirm it. Which again doesn’t seem to invalidate the scenario I described above (general vandalism with anti-semitism not being a factor).
I did not attend a ‘Moderate Hasbara’ school, or indeed, any Hasbara school; I was unaware that I gave that impression. Assuming I did, however, would that necessarily invalidate the evidence I mentioned above? And was I hostile you in my earlier comments? I believe you insulted me with the statements ‘That you don’t know how to use Google’, and by your tone, you believe me being ‘schooled in Moderate Hasbara’.
If I gave any hint of hostility or insults to you in any of my previous posts, I apologize; to be honest, I believed our dialogue has been civil.
All right, this is nonsense & I’m intervening in this argument in my editorial capacity. No more discussion of this issue. There’s such a thing as beating a dead horse & you will hereby stop doing it. There seems to be an obsessive compulsive gene among hasbarists which is either something personal to them or else a deliberate tactic of hasbara to drown a debate in needless casuistry. Deir Yassin gets the last word if she chooses & you are hereby done on this subject w. the above being yr last comment. Violate this request & you’ll be moderated.
BTW, neither JTA nor JPost are reliable sources on any matter. In fact, I’ve debunked numerous articles in both for their falsehoods & shoddiness.
@ Richard. I’m sorry for having repeated myself. I thought two-tree of my comments went down the drain yesterday. That’s why I reiterated.
I’m sorry if I were rude too. I ONLY mentioned the El-Hamma non-event as an example where Haaretz was not to be relied.
You continue to believe whatever you want, the Hasbara continue to use this lie, and the rest of us know what happened, or rather didn’t happen.
“The translated article state that no synagogue were burnt in El-Hamma but it doesn’t mention the make-shift synagogue in Gabes”
Maybe my English is incomprehensible, but I have tried to explain to you, that the make-shift synagogue in Gabes that was mentioned in the articles on February 1st was in fact the shrine in the nearby smalltown of El Hamma.
Oh how dreary . Up did a search of Haaretz using its useless search featured & conclude Deird Yassin was wrong. Big mistake. I’ve never known her to be wrong about anything she’ so written here. Can’t say then same for up however.
Itai L says: The Speech of Sheikh Al-Aqsa, is available on you tube. In Arabic, no translation from Memri or PalWatch, just look.
@ DY i tried providing a link, the system didn’t publish my comment just look for his name + east Jerusalem + Speech and you will get to it.
Itai L says: i tried providing a link, the system didn’t publish my comment just look for his name + east Jerusalem + Speech and you will get to it.
Yeah, already tried that, and still no joy, such a shame that you can’t post the link. Not that it would be any good for myself as I don’t speak Arabic. Maybe you could try again to point me in the right direction, maybe even translate the section of interest with a time index?
I’ve looked for such a comment in my spam queue & moderation queue & found nothing from you. I would approve it if I did.
Richard Silverstein says: I’ve looked for such a comment in my spam queue & moderation queue & found nothing.
My state of surprise is subdued.
‘Great job taking down the hasbarists Weiss, Richard, both here and against the ones who invaded your blog. However, there’s something you need to beware of; the Henry Jackson Society only sponsored the panel after Dore Gold. It’s an honest mistake, but I don’t want some obsessive hasbarists jumping all over you for just one little thing.
He did catch the error: http://hurryupharry.org/2011/07/01/richard-silverstein-errs-again/ which was based on information that Ben White gave me. But of course in his post, which misstates most of what he writes about his ill fated invitation to me to blog at Jewcy, he neglects to answer any of my pointed questions about banning Israeli Jewish racists or Doron Almog for that matter. That’s of course, because he rejects the notion that Israeli Jews should be banned from England. If he didn’t, he would’ve already said so.
It’s rather humorous that he writes that I was having a long night of the soul or some such drivel concerning whether to blog at Jewcy. At least I have a soul. More than I can say for him. THere seems an emptiness where his would normally be.