Friday, February 16, 2007
I can't think of any rationale for this not being a prosecutable action. I know Israelis are prideful of their free speech, as are we all, but direct incitement to violence and insurrection? There must be a limit somewhere: Salah speech provokes clashes in J'lem
Police dispersed the rioters with stun grenades, tear gas and water hoses.
At least one of the rioters was wounded and three were arrested, Israel Radio reported.
The protesters had been listening to a sermon delivered by Islamic Movement head Sheikh Raed Salah at a massive protest rally north of the Old City.
During the sermon, Salah urged supporters to start a third intifada in order to "save al-Aksa Mosque, free Jerusalem and end the occupation."
He went on to say that Israel's history was tainted with blood. "They want to build their temple at a time when our blood is on their clothes, on their doorsteps, in their food and in their drinks. Our blood has passed from one 'General Terrorist' to another 'General Terrorist,'" exclaimed the Islamic Movement chief...
...Following a violent protest 10 days ago, one of the most vocal opponents of the Mughrabi Gate project, Salah was barred by a court from coming within 60 meters of the Old City walls. On Monday, the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court agreed to a police request that he be barred from coming within 150 meters of the walls for 60 days.
Gee, that'll teach 'im.
I do not recall ever having a bunch of fellow Catholics storm out of Sunday services, after hearing the weekly homily, intent on doing harm to anyone. Could the content of the sermon possibly have anything to do with the different responses? Nah, that couldn't be the problem.
Sounds like Britain where Muslims can hold rallies and call for the murder of infidels and the police protect them. Freedom of speech for the destroyers but don't you dare say anything cricital of Islam and you'll get arrested, imprisoned and fined.