Main menu:

Recent posts

RSS in Arts

By Topic

Archives

British Hamasniks and Ghulam Rasool

On October 18 the Stoke Hospital Mosque will hold a fundraising event for Gaza at King’s Hall, Stoke-on-Trent.

It is not clear who the beneficiary will be. One can guess from the speaker list that it may be Viva Palestina, George Galloway’s Hamas support operation, or Interpal, a charity that is closely linked to Hamas. The scheduled speakers include George Galloway, Ibrahim Hewitt, the chairman of Interpal, and Mohamed Ali Harrath, the CEO of Islam Channel.

Here is Galloway handing cash to Hamas earlier this year in the first Gaza convoy escapade. He had Interpal employees for company on the convoy, including one who was a member of Hamas when he lived in Gaza.

Here is Ibrahim Hewitt on terrorism, as presented in his “What Does Islam Say?” pamphlet, which you can read (pdf) here on HP. He believes the word can be applied widely, including to the UK’s operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Tagging Palestinians as terrorists is, of course, a very different matter:

International law accepts that people living under illegal military occupation are entitled to fight against the occupiers with whatever means they have at their disposal. If the world does not like, for example, “terrorist suicide bombing” in Palestine (a weapon neither unique to the Palestinians nor invented by them), then, as one Palestinian exile said at a conference in December 2003, “Give us F-16s, Apache helicopters, missiles tanks and heavy weapons, and we’ll have a fair fight”.

hewitt
Ibrahim Hewitt with Stephen Sizer and Ahron Cohen of Neturei Karta, British Islamists’ favourite Jewish fig leaf

Turning to Mohamed Ali Harrath, he has been convicted in absentia in his native Tunisia of several terrorism offences and sentenced to 56 years in prison. Before fleeing the country, he was a leader of the Tunisian Islamic Front, a radical Islamist group.

Events like this one in Stoke-on-Trent should not be happening. The Charity Commission’s counterterrorism policy is quite clear:

Our key principles when looking at charities with potential links to terrorism are as follows:

- Any links between charities and terrorist activity are totally unacceptable. ‘Links’ in this case might include fundraising or provision of facilities, but also include formal or informal links to organisations ‘proscribed’ under the Terrorism Act 2000, and any subsequent secondary legislation.

- The Charity Commission will deal with any allegation of links between a charity and terrorist activity as an immediate priority.

- Where a charity’s activities may give, or appear to give, support or succour to any terrorist activity, the Commission expects the charity’s trustees to take immediate steps to disassociate the charity from the activity.

- We expect trustees to be vigilant to ensure that a charity’s premises, assets, volunteers or other goods cannot be used for activities that may, or appear to, support or condone terrorist activities. Examples include the use of a charity’s premises for fundraising or meetings.

- Charities should take all necessary steps to ensure their activities could not be misinterpreted. The Commission expects trustees or charities to ensure their activities are open and transparent, for example when transferring assets abroad. We hold trustees accountable for ensuring that procedures are put in place to ensure that terrorist organisations cannot take advantage of a charity’s status, reputation, facilities or assets.

- We expect any person connected with a charity, whether a trustee, employee, volunteer, advisor or beneficiary, to bring evidence of a charity’s possible links with terrorism to our attention immediately.

In practice, as readers of this blog know, the Commission’s record in counterterrorism is atrocious.

In fact, Ghulam Rasool, the head of the Faith and Social Cohesion unit, formed in 2007, is determined not to help, even though one of the unit’s core missions is the improvement of governance in religious charities.

He is also adamant that the faith unit will not be linked to the terrorism unit. “Our policy is that both worlds are kept separate because, once they become linked, they pollute our vision and corrupt our independence.”

You can see this “active complacency” at work in a report (pdf) from the Faith and Social Cohesion Unit that was published in May this year. In a table listing “risks” facing the unit, arrests of terrorist suspects are presented as a problem, and distancing the Commission from them is the solution:

Risk
High profile media coverage of police raids and arrests in the Muslim Community re-heightens suspicion about government based activity.

Likelihood
High

Impact
High

Mitigation
To temporarily postpone outreach and workshops until climate and mood of the community is receptive again. Safeguarding outreach officers and minimising the damage to reputation.

Well, this is what one might expect from a man who I understand was the secretary of Islamic Help, a Birmingham-based charity, before joining the Commission. In Iraq, Islamic Help has teamed up with a Baghdad mosque that was at the heart of the Baathist and al Qaeda insurgency. The man the charity hired to manage its Iraqi affairs thinks hostage takers in Iraq “may have a point”, even if their victims did nothing more than provide water to security forces. In Gaza, Islamic Help is aiding Hamas, with cheerleading in the UK provided by George Galloway, Yvonne Ridley and Azzam Tamimi.

In theory, funding Hamas from the UK is a criminal offence.

In reality, yeah, right.

Comments

Mr Eugenides    
  16 September 2009, 5:08 pm

When Galloway went on Celebrity Big Brother, a portion of the proceeds for phone voting went to his nominated charity – Interpal.

A lot of people voted.

Fitz    
  16 September 2009, 5:09 pm

What can you expect from the British Charity Commission which doubts whether science, as opposed to religion, is a public good?

Seen in this morning’s London Metro newspaper in a review of Dawkins’s latest book on evolution.

Barad    
  16 September 2009, 5:15 pm

Wot no Ridley? Not even a bit of Tonge action? Galloway, even showing a faux-camel’s foot through his cat suit, just does not cut it, so I for one will not be attending…

The Charities Commission is far too terrified of being labelled Islamophobic and racist to conduct a proper investigation into Muslim charities.

B.

Lynne T    
  16 September 2009, 5:16 pm

Not that Hewitt and Co would recognize this, but Israel’s continued occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Shabaa farms, the Golan Heights, etc., is LEGAL, not ILLEGAL and the acts of terror are being deployed because Hamas fervently believes that terrorist violence drove the Israelis out of Gaza and will ultimately serve their ultimate goal of eliminating Israel entirely.

Barad    
  16 September 2009, 5:22 pm

Off to see Dawkins speaking at the Institute of Education this evening-should be excellent!

B

davem    
  16 September 2009, 6:03 pm

“Our policy is that both worlds are kept separate because, once they become linked, they pollute our vision and corrupt our independence.”

“Pollute our vision?”
“Corrupt our independence?”

What does that even mean? It doesn’t make any sense.

Oh. Silly me.

tevya    
  16 September 2009, 6:15 pm

“In reality, yeah, right.”

In reality, yeah, right, it’s tax deductible and the UK government, paid for by the UK population, will increase your donation by up to two thirds.

And if you’re on PAYE, don’t worry, UK gov will pay the money directly.

tevya    
  16 September 2009, 6:22 pm

““Give us F-16s, Apache helicopters, missiles tanks and heavy weapons, and we’ll have a fair fight”

… using them to target your civilian population while you only target our fighters. And then we’ll use our stooges at the UN to say black is white and accuse you of crimes against humanity.

tevya    
  16 September 2009, 6:25 pm

HP Admin: Any chance that Frank’s racist post above could be, err, pruned?

sackcloth and ashes    
  16 September 2009, 8:43 pm

“Give us F-16s, Apache helicopters, missiles tanks and heavy weapons, and we’ll have a fair fight”.

At the risk of being rude, the Egyptians and Syrians (the glorious liberators of Palestine) had the best kit the Russians could offer them in 1967 and 1973, and they got their arses kicked.

The PLO (ensconsed within ‘Fatahland’) also had sophisticated kit to arm their guerrillas in Lebanon in 1982 – including artillery and tanks. Admittedly the latter were WWII-vintage T34s, but they didn’t lack for kit. Didn’t do them much good though (read Yezid Sayigh’s
‘Armed Struggle and the Search for State’ if you think my summary sounds Orientalist).

CookieCutter    
  16 September 2009, 10:07 pm

Give us F-16s, Apache helicopters, missiles tanks and heavy weapons, and we’ll have a fair fight”.

Would you trust your kid with a Ferrari?

Its not the weapons but the quality of the people using them and the tactics behind them.

Israelinurse    
  16 September 2009, 11:11 pm

‘Give us F-16s, Apache helicopters, missiles tanks and heavy weapons, and we’ll have a fair fight”.’

Bit of a cheek coming from people who get missiles given to them by a soon-to-be nuclear foreign power. The Karin A wasn’t transporting lollipops.

I know very little about the British system of ombudsmen (probably called ombudsperson now), but doesn’t it seem to be high time for a review of the functioning of the Charity Commission? ‘Fit for purpose’ is not the description which springs to mind.

zkharya    
  16 September 2009, 11:46 pm

‘Give us F-16s, Apache helicopters, missiles tanks and heavy weapons, and we’ll have a fair fight”.’

A fight for what, exactly? The same fight the Palestinian Muslim and Christian national movement has been fighting since its inception, sometimes with the aid of the latest British, French and Russian weapons i.e. no Jewish national presence in Palestine?

Surely in that instance it would be “fair” for Israeli Jews to fight with the same goal in mind for Palestinian Christians and Muslims i.e. total exclusion, dispossession or elimination?

zkharya    
  16 September 2009, 11:48 pm

i.e. no Jewish national presence in Palestine?

or no more than a tiny number of Jews in Palestine.

B.J.T.    
  17 September 2009, 10:26 am

Yyvonne Ridley is just totally cringeworthy; I wonder if in 5 or 10 years she will ever give up Islam and look back at this in utter despair and embarassment. Her fiery speeches are just beyond parody now.

P.S. Has she ever read Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion” and Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution (now backed by a wealth of scientific/genetic evidence)? We now know how ancient and infinitely vast the universe is (literally billions of billions of planets) which shows how important our world is in the grand scheme of things. I’d hate to waste my life on medieval superstition when we can be 99.9% sure the “god”, described in any of the organised religions, does not exist. Most muslims were born and raised in that culture so I can completely understand their allegiance to Islam – but Ridley was an educated (secular?) person with no connection to it but actually chose to become involved.

sackcloth and ashes    
  17 September 2009, 2:06 pm

‘Yyvonne Ridley is just totally cringeworthy; I wonder if in 5 or 10 years she will ever give up Islam and look back at this in utter despair and embarassment. Her fiery speeches are just beyond parody now.’

Why should she ‘give up Islam’? It’s her attitude and character – not the faith she has chosen – which makes her such a creep.