Reporting Raed Salah

By Marcus Dysch
June 30, 2011

I had intended to blog about some of the bizarre coverage yesterday of the Raed Salah case.

Guardian reports of his detention and the events surrounding the Home Secretary’s decision to deny him entry to Britain (Border Agency officials shamefully, and perhaps terrifyingly, failed to act on Theresa May’s orders) were quite shocking.

For Conal Urquhart to cover Salah’s situation without even briefly mentioning the allegations of antisemitism the leader of the Islamic Movement in Israel faces – the accusation of “virulent antisemitism” (made in Parliament by MP Mike Freer) apparently being a key reason for the Home Secretary’s banning order decision – almost beggars belief. But then it is the Guardian…

Presumably in choosing to quote Ben White, Urquhart was attempting to win an office game of anti-Israel bingo?

As it is, Harry’s Place has rather helpfully already published an excellent piece reviewing the coverage, here.

Salah denies making the remarks he is accused of. If the allegations against him are ever proven, it can only be hoped that serious questions are asked by serious people in this country of the likes of MPs Richard Burden and Jeremy Corbyn, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Mr White.

Criticising Israel is one thing; lauding someone alleged of “virulent antisemitism” is quite another.


Joe Millis

Fri, 07/01/2011 - 11:32

Rate this:

0 points

Much as Salah is a very nasty piece of work, we must reflect on the fact that the even Jerusalem magistrates' or district court (can't remember which) cleared him of making the anti-Semitic statements he was alleged to have made. Innocent until proved otherwise...

Fri, 07/01/2011 - 11:46

Rate this:

0 points


for Sheikh Raed's refutation of the allegations against him, and his threat to sue the Daily Telegraph for libel.

Harry's blog, which Dysch links to, suggests that Raed is not exactly a "paragon of virtue. That may be true - but the same can be said of so many other people; you don't have to be a paragon of virtue in order to enter Britain.

Harry and the JP also ignore the main political factor underlying this, which is Israel's illegal actions re Palestine, and our support for these illegal actions and war gains. The UK should be urging a swift return to pre-1967 borders.


Fri, 07/01/2011 - 12:03

Rate this:

-2 points there is nothing "illetgal" about the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria, deemed Jewish land by the Jews by the League of Nations in 1922.

It is a lie.


Fri, 07/01/2011 - 12:05

Rate this:

-2 points

also, the 1948 ceasefire lines are not "borders." They have never been recognized as such by any legal body. When will people like you try to stick to facts?


You must be logged in to post a comment.