Yesterday, CST wrote the definitive summary of the Salah appeal rejection. Of particular interest was this observation:
The tribunal considered five pieces of evidence against Salah: a poem he had authored which we argued could incite hatred of Jews, but which Salah argued was not antisemitic; a speech in which he made a ‘blood libel’ slur against Jews, but which Salah claimed was not about Jews; Salah’s inflammatory claims that Israel intends to destroy the al-Aqsa Mosque; the outstanding charges he currently faces in Israel for incitement to violence and to antisemitism; and Salah’s conviction for funding organisations linked to Hamas.
When these allegations were first aired, Salah denied having written the poem; denied making the blood libel comment; denied facing any charges in Israel; and denied any links to Hamas. Only after CST provided evidence to the contrary, did Salah admit to having written the poem and making the blood libel comment, and argued instead that CST’s interpretation of those texts was wrong. He also admitted his conviction for funding organisations linked to Hamas, but claimed this was for “charitable and humanitarian purposes.”
Salah’s defenders and apologists, including three Labour MPs, have been badly had by their man on at least four occasions. Yet some have decided to stick by him such as Daud Abdullah and Hanan Chehata of Middle East Monitor Online, who happily recycled a Salah press release in June saying:
It has been claimed that he repeated a “blood libel” by saying, “among those whose blood was mixed with the sacred (Jewish) bread”; this is an absolute lie and a malicious fabrication. Sh. Raed was questioned by the Israeli authorities over allegations that he made such a remark, which he refuted categorically challenging them to provide any shred of evidence and they could not.
Another forgive-and-forget sort seems to be the amnesiac Asa Winstanley of Electronic Intifada, who pointed out in July that:
The British press had circulated accusations of an anti-Semitic “poem” they attributed to Salah. But under instruction from Salah, Husain emphasized he absolutely denies writing the poem and “finds it offensive” because of its anti-Semitic content.
Do Abdullah and Chehata feel used and manipulated by the Gandhi of Palestine?
What about Winstanley who has decided that Robert Lambert’s outing as a police spy is duplicitous behaviour enough to keep a safe distance?
Usually when sources turn out to be frauds, journalists get upset. And perhaps it’s no coincidence that Lambert gave testimony on Salah’s behalf, and Salah’s appeal was thrown out. Wheels within wheels.
