Is Hamas fighting over George Galloway’s $1 million?
Galloway (center) in London. Image by gloucester2gaza via Flickr
An interesting fight over money may be brewing in the Gaza Strip. British politician George Galloway visited the statelet with his Viva Palestina organization in order to donate humanitarian aid to residents suffering under the Israeli blockade. Now, several Palestinian websites are claiming that various Hamas factions are fighting over more than $1 million in cash that Galloway gave to the Islamist party.
According to MEMRI, an Israeli-linked Middle East press monitoring group:
The Fatah website reports today, citing Hamas sources, on conflict between Ahmad Al-Ja’bari, commander in Gaza of Hamas’ military wing, the ‘Izz Al-Din Al-Qassem Brigades, and Hamas prime minister in Gaza Isma’il Haniya, over aid funding transferred to Hamas by British MP George Galloway.
When Al-Ja’bari demanded to know how the money had been distributed, Haniya replied that he had $1 million in his possession and that the rest had been deposited with the movement’s treasurer.
Al-Ja’bari took $600,000 and said that Hamas’ military wing deserved more than its political wing, and that the political wing had enough funds from what it collected from the public.
Apart from MEMRI’s mention, this story does not appear to have hit the Western media yet. Several Arabic-language websites affiliated with Fatah, however, are running similar allegations.
Fatah-linked news site al-Ahd (The Covenant) has more details about the claim that Jabari took $600,000 from Galloway (English translation here) for Hamas’ military wing.
Meanwhile, Fatah’s Voice of Palestine alleges that Galloway gave the money to the Hamas government in Gaza first and al-Jabari then demanded the money from Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh (English translation here).
It’s important to note that Fatah, which controls the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, are Hamas’ hated rivals. They have, of course, biases of their own regarding Hamas — which goes double for MEMRI.
Nonetheless, if the story is true, it means that money donated by a British politician ended up in the hands of Hamas’ al-Qassam Brigades — considered a terrorist organization by both the United States and the United Kingdom.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Wikipedia’s listing for MEMRI (which was founded by two members of the right-wing, anti-peace-process Likud party) includes considerable information about charges of biases and inaccuracies. It think it’s fair to say that few in the Western media take its information without double-checking with other sources. From Wikipedia:
MEMRI’s work has been attacked on three grounds: that their work is biased; that they choose articles to translate selectively so as to give an unrepresentative view of the media they are reporting on; and that their translations are sometimes inaccurate.[11] MEMRI has responded to the attacks of critics, stating that their work is not biased; that they in fact choose representative articles from the Arab media that accurately reflect the opinions expressed, and that their translations are highly accurate.[11]
[edit]Claims of bias
Brian Whitaker, the Middle East editor for the Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom, has been one of the most outspoken critics of MEMRI, writing: “My problem with Memri is that it poses as a research institute when it’s basically a propaganda operation,”[11] to “further the political agenda of Israel.”[1] Whitaker has also complained that “MEMRI’s website does not mention you [Carmon] or your work for Israeli intelligence. Nor does it mention MEMRI’s co-founder, Meyrav Wurmser, and her extreme brand of Zionism…. Given your political background, it’s legitimate to ask whether MEMRI is a trustworthy vehicle.”[11]
In response, MEMRI President Yigal Carmon, states: “You are right: we do have an agenda. As an institute of research, we want MEMRI to present translations to people who wish to be informed on the ideas circulating in the Middle East. We aim to reflect reality. If knowledge of this reality should benefit one side or another, then so be it.”[11]
[edit]Claims of selectivity
Several critics have accused MEMRI of selectivity. They state that MEMRI consistently picks for translation and dissemination the most extreme views, which portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light, while ignoring moderate views that are often found in the same media outlets.[1][2][2][24][25] According to Juan Cole, Professor of Modern Middle East History at the University of Michigan, MEMRI has a tendency to “cleverly cherry-pick the vast Arabic press, which serves 300 million people, for the most extreme and objectionable articles and editorials” [26] Laila Lalami, writing in The Nation, states that MEMRI “consistently picks the most violent, hateful rubbish it can find, translates it and distributes it in e-mail newsletters to media and members of Congress in Washington”.[2] As a result, critics such as Ken Livingstone state, MEMRI’s analyses are “distortion.”[27][28][29]
MEMRI responds to the criticism by saying that the media had a tendency to whitewash statements of Arab leaders,[12] and that its translations are accurate representations: “Memri has never claimed to ‘represent the view of the Arabic media’, but rather to reflect, through our translations, general trends which are widespread and topical.”[11] John Lloyd has defended MEMRI in the New Statesmen, stating that “Memri and Carmon have been accused of selecting the worst of a diverse media: however, the sheer range of what is available weakens that criticism, as does support for the initiative by Arab liberals.”[30] Thomas L. Friedman, a political opinion columnist for the New York Times, credits MEMRI with helping to “shine a spotlight on hate speech wherever it appears.”[31] Jay Nordlinger, the managing editor of National Review, similarly writes: “Wading or clicking through MEMRI’s materials can be a depressing act, but it is also illusion-dispelling, and therefore constructive. This one institute is worth a hundred reality-twisting Middle Eastern Studies departments in the U.S.”[32]
[edit]Claims of translation inaccuracy
See also: Tomorrow’s Pioneers#Translation controversy
The accuracy of MEMRI’s translations is sometimes disputed,[33] as in the case of MEMRI’s translation of a 2004 Osama bin Laden video, which MEMRI defended.[11][28][34][35][36] Norman Finkelstein, in an interview with the Muslim newspaper In Focus said MEMRI “uses the same sort of propaganda techniques as the Nazis… [I]t’s a reliable assumption that anything MEMRI translates from the Middle East is going to be unreliable.”[37]
In 2007, CNN correspondent Atika Shubert and Arabic translators accused MEMRI of mistranslating portions of a Palestinian children’s television programme.
“Media watchdog MEMRI translates one caller as saying – quote – ‘We will annihilate the Jews,”‘ said Shubert. “But, according to several Arabic speakers used by CNN, the caller actually says ‘The Jews are killing us.”‘ [38]
[...] This piece was originally posted on True/Slant blog.* Photo credit: Image by gloucester2gaza via Flickr [...]
Eileen,
Agreed re: MEMRI’s links to Likud and the fact that they selectively translate articles from the Arabic-speaking world in line with their ideological aims. As the original post mentioned, they have biases of their own that effect what they translate, and how they promote it.
With that said, they do uncover interesting stories on occasion – even if their motives in promoting those stories may be suspect. In this case, the Galloway-Hamas allegations originated on Fatah news sites and message boards. The original Arabic-language articles, which MEMRI did not include in their story, are linked to above. They were previously checked with an Arabic speaker before I linked to them (and, for good measure, with Google Translate and my own lamentable Fusha) and the translation jibed with MEMRI’s.
Although I obviously cannot vouch for the veracity of Fatah’s allegations, the translation in this case seemed to be accurate.
Best,
Neal