Sue us too, you anti-semitic scum!
‘Shiraz Socialist’ agrees with what ‘Harry’s Place’ and David T have to say about the British Muslim Initiative…and if Anas Altikriti and/or Mohammed Sawalha want to sue ’Harry’s Place’ they should also sue us.
Legal Threats from Hamas/British Muslim Initiative
The British Muslim Initiative is the sister organisation of the terrorist group, Hamas. Its President is Mohammad Sawalha: a man who the BBC identified as the mastermind of “much of Hamas’ political and military strategy”, and as responsible for directing “funds, both for Hamas’ armed wing, and for spreading its missionary dawah”. Its senior members include Azzam Tamimi, the Hamas Special Envoy who once expressed a desire to commit a suicide bombing.
Yesterday evening, we received a letter from Anas Altikriti of the British Muslim Initiative, threatening legal action against us.
It is a great relief to be the subject of mere legal threats. In Gaza, where Hamas is in power, they prefer to settle disputes with political opponents by murdering them.
The reason that the British Muslim Initiate is upset with us is this. This weekend, Mr Sawalha attended a demonstration against a festival celebrating the re-founding of the State of Israel. He gave a speech, in Arabic, to Al Jazeera. In that speech, he stated that the purpose of his demonstration was to:
“express our resentment at the celebrations by the Jewish community”
He also made another statement, which has been the subject of some dispute. Al Jazeera initially reported the phrase in question as containing the word “الوبيل”. That word translates as “evil” or “baneful”, or some variant thereon. The next word was “يهودي “, which means “Jew” or “Jewish”. We translated the phrase, as it appeared, as “evil Jew” or “Jewish evil”.
Some time later, the word “الوبيل ” was removed from the Al Jazeera report. It was replaced with the word “اللوبي ”, “lobby”.
The British Muslim Initiative then issued a bombastic “press release”, which it pasted in our comments section, claiming that we had:
“deliberately skewed the word ‘Lobby’ to turn it into some other word and make it seem as though it means ‘evil/noxious’”
It went on to describe Mr Sawalha as a promoter of “community relations and cultural dialogue”, and object to him being ”demonised” as a “‘Jew-hater’ and ‘anti-Semitic’.”
I do not know Mr Sawalha. However, if he is a senior Hamas activist, and a supporter of that organisation, I cannot imagine he has anything positive to contribute to “community relations”. Moreover, it is very unlikely that any British court would regard it as defamatory to describe a Hamas activist as a racist. Hamas is a proudly racist, and genocidal terrorist organisation.
A little later, an Al Jazeera reporter called Medyan Dairieh appeared in the thread, insisting that Mr Sawalha had spoken of the “Jewish Lobby”. He explained that the original report contained a spelling mistake. However, instead of apologising to Harry’s Place and to the British Muslim Initiative for his hopelessness as a journalist, he accused us of having “no common sense” for thinking that a Hamas activist would use the phrase “Evil Jew”.
I can form no conclusion on what precisely Mr Sawalha said at Sunday’s demonstration. The meaning of the words “وبيل” and “يهودي ” have been extensively discussed in the comments of the thread below. Initially, defenders of Mr Sawalha claimed that in Arabic, “Jew” meant “Zionist”. When that argument fell apart, there was some debate as to whether the word “يهودي ” means “Jew” or “Jewish”. The defenders of Mr Sawalha insisted that the word could not be used to mean “Jew”. However, the leading dictionaries suggest that it can be used in this manner. There was also some disagreement as to how likely it was that a careless journalist would have mistyped the word “evil, “الوبيل” when intending to type the word “اللوبي ”, “lobby”.
It is possible that Mr Sawalha railled against the “evil Jewish Lobby”, rather than the “evil Jew”. What I find astonishing, is that the British Muslim Initiative thinks that it is somehow better to be caught out inveighing against – not the policies of the Israeli Government, not the “Israel Lobby”, not even against the “Zionists” – but against the “Jewish community” and the “Jewish Lobby”. It is clear from their letter that they see no problem with saying any of that. How bold of them.
Here is Mr Altikriti’s letter to us:
Sirs,
Your piece on comments made by Mohammed Sawalha, President of BMI, and published on Al-Jazeera contained a fundamental factual error.
You quoted a piece (translated from Arabic) stating that Mr. Sawalha had described the Jews in Britain as evil/noxious. We have checked the piece that you referred to very closely and contacted the Al-Jazeera office in Doha. It has been confirmed that Mr. Sawalha made no such comment at any time during the interview. This fact can, if you wish, be corroborated by checking for yourself the recording of the interview, which is available in case any further enquiry is made into this matter.
It appears that you have inexplicably grossly mistranslated his reference to the Jewish ‘Lobby’. Whether this mistake was accidental or not, the mistake is extremely serious and the consequences far-reaching.
Therefore, we trust that you will withdraw the said piece with immediate effect and post an explanation of what had taken place, particularly now that some commentators, including Melanie Phillips, seem to have copied your quote, including the error aforementioned and used it for their own purposes. If this is not done immediately, we will have to pursue legal measures.
Regards,
Anas Altikriti
British Muslim Initiative
Mohammed Sawalha will not sue me. He has no case.
It is as likely that a man identified by the BBC as a senior Hamas activists would witter on about the “evil Jew” as it is that he would be cursing the “Jewish lobby”, evil or not. Both versions show him to be a deeply malevolent man.
As David Irving discovered, when he sued Penguin and Deborah Lipstadt, extremists tend to do rather badly when they look to British courts to exonerate them.
The British Muslim Initiative should stop issuing ridiculous press releases, and issuing legal threats. Given that the success of the British Muslim Initiative rests on creating the wholly false impression that it is the moderate and progressive face of British Islamism, it ought not to be drawing attention to the fact that it has close links with the terrorist group Hamas. A public legal dispute over why Al Jazeera used the word “evil” in a report of its President’s frothing at the mouth speech on the “Jewish Lobby” will not help its case. It will merely result in its true nature, and the links of its senior activists with Hamas, being appreciated more widely. As the British Muslim Initiative’s strategy is to partner with mainstream political organisations and parties, in the hope of skimming off large grants from local authorities, that sort of publicity is likely to harm it fatally.
The bottom line is this. We were entitled to publish our translation of the Al Jazeera text as it originally appeared. Mr Sawalha should direct his complaint to Al Jazeera, not to Harry’s Place.
modernityblog said,
July 10, 2008 at 10:49 pm
well done!
charliethechulo said,
July 10, 2008 at 11:45 pm
I am Spartacus, eh?
Boogski said,
July 11, 2008 at 7:06 am
Hi Volty.
Now this is some solidarity I can get behind! See? You thought people were bullshitting when describing what these maggots were up to. Sure Volt. Let’s eliminate borders, eh? Fat fucking chance.
Voltaire's Priest said,
July 11, 2008 at 8:34 am
Just to make clear, I totally agree with Jim about this. Trying to bully blog writers into silence via the courts is about as low a method of online debate as there is. I don’t always agree with what HP’s posters write, and I think some their commenters are right-wing idiots. But on this issue they would seem to me to have a point. Even if they didn’t, for the Muslim Brotherhood’s UK front man to be threatening to sue them is bad comedy.
KB Player said,
July 11, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Hey, I’m not Spartacus. Spartacus is that bloke over there who looks like Kirk Douglas.
“I don’t always agree with what HP’s posters write, and I think some their commenters are right-wing idiots.”
David T’s posts on Islamist front organisations and their honchos are useful, sterling stuff. As for some of the others, my theory is that when a poster produces something like “Muslim hates puppy dogs” and the threads fill with rants about dhimmitude and the noise of the clash of civilisations, it’s because the poster cohabits with one of the commenters.
Scenario:-
Commenter (looking up from Daily Mail):- See what these f******** M****** are asking for now!
Poster: Terrible dear.
Commenter: (for ten minutes) ******* M******* dhimmitude ********* Qu’ran *********** Mohammad **********.
Poster: (surreptitiously tapping on the laptop). Harry’s Place has a post on exactly that topic.
Commenter: (runs to computer and starts furiously tapping, froth dripping from lips)
Poster: (saunters out whistling to watch football or weed the garden)
modernityblog said,
July 11, 2008 at 1:45 pm
KB player.
I’d agree HP does have its LGF moments, but then again it does have a very, very open commenting policy which encourages a range of cranks from Satanists to Uber Catholics, and a few persuasions in between.
Fortunately, they are rarely taken seriously, but you bring up an interesting point, suppose as an alternative someone had posted a new story of “Israeli bites puppy”?
then you can imagine the predictable avalanche of “murdering Zionist”, “neo-con Zionists hate animals”, “Israel to be reported to the ICC for animal cruelty”, “Zionists plan to kill all puppies in the world, secret plan revealed” from various “anti-imperialist” sites, such as Lenin’s Tomb, SU or JSF, etc/
However, the downside is whilst there would be as many marginal comments aimed against ‘Zionists’, as the cranks aim at Muslims, you wouldn’t see any desire to curb the worst excesses, and bearing in mind on these “anti-imperialist” sites that a lot of commenters are political activists with a high degree of education then I think that is slightly more scary.
KB Player said,
July 11, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Modernity – I don’t read the kinds of anti-imperialist sites you’re talking about, but I hear about them and I gather that one reason that the frothy-lipped commenters aren’t taken to task by saner commenters is that the saner commenters are deleted. Which, if so, is scary as well.
modernityblog said,
July 11, 2008 at 6:01 pm
KB Player,
agreed it is scary, but more to the point, the reason that these views are often not challenged is that some types of racism are seemingly seen as more acceptable than others, to some “anti-imperialists”, check out SU blog next time John Wight is ranting on and you’ll see what I mean.
KB Player said,
July 11, 2008 at 6:22 pm
No thanks Modernity – life is too short even to read and join in with blogs that I like and agree with, so far too short to read blogs that would turn me into a frothy lips in my own right. Though I admire you folks that go about taking issue with such blogs.
lpcn said,
July 12, 2008 at 11:18 am
Have none of you people heard of email?
Voltaire's Priest said,
July 13, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Yes.
What’s your point, fuckwit?
Uma Torres said,
January 24, 2009 at 12:25 am
You Zionists have been committing crimes against the Palestinians for far too long, no wonder you are so hated in this world, but the decent humans in this planet is waking up to your imperialist desires and you shall never ever have peace or security. So do yourselves a favour, do not do unto others what you do not want done unto yourselves! Oh! dear, that was Christ’s words, and guess what: YOU HAVE KILLED HIM! Remember!!! You people never learn! What have the Palestinians ever done to you! You robbed them of their land, displaced them, killed many of them, and you are the THE VICTIMS, oH! tell me another joke! This is wearing thin!!! You do not deserve your country, you are worse than animals, killing children, you cowards! LONG LIVE HAMAS!!!
Alan Laurence said,
January 24, 2009 at 6:45 am
Uma
Is this is a parody or are you serious?
I’m sorry to ask but I really can’t tell.
Allen W. said,
January 24, 2009 at 9:03 am
Uma? From what date do you issue claim to the land of Palestine or Israel? You claim is at the most a few hundred years old. The Jewish claim, never surrendered, is 3000 plus some years. While your great Hamas likes to target anyone living in Israel (mostly civilians – women, children, and non Jews) the Israeli military tried more often to target the the killers and their organizations. A basic question is if anyone in Israel is a target for Hamas and its ilk then why can’t the same be true for Israel to do to Gaza?
And if you want to talk about “Remember!!! You people never learn! What have the Palestinians ever done to you! You robbed them of their land, displaced them, killed many of them, and you are the THE VICTIMS” lets remember the way Islam was spread was by conquest for hundreds of years. I tend to think that if a group conquers another then the the conquered are the victims. Which brings us to the first paragraph.
Now the original modern anti Jewish violence was in 1909 before for the Ottomans lost Palestine. It was against a small number of Jews. As my reading of history goes back then, the Jews had a different view of government than the Arab rulers. The Arabs tended to believe in rule from the top for the benefit of the few while the Jews tended to see government from the people, for the benefit of the people. Some one(s) on the Arab side afraid to lose power?
voltairespriest said,
January 24, 2009 at 10:15 am
Uma and Allen – I take it I don’t hear the sound of wedding bells then.
Alan Laurence – I wouldn’t bother if I were you. This is the same old tango that’s been danced for 60 years between extremists on both sides.
Alan Laurence said,
January 24, 2009 at 10:43 am
I take your point but Im not sure U and A are all that extreme. Thats the problem.
Jim said,
January 25, 2009 at 12:33 am
… and whats wrong with ‘evil jew’.
I’m pretty sure if your children had their limbs blown off by the Israeli military, you’d too be using that phrase.