Oboler’s piece was turned down by CiF because “I think it’s really going over the same ground as your last piece”. The last piece is here.
Even if it were true, this rejection demonstrates how sloped the Guardian’s playing-field is between articles which are pro-Israel or attack antisemitism and articles which do the opposite. Just go through Antony Lerman’s articles on CIF, for example. Count the number of articles where he (implicitly or explicitly) attacks the EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism for including some aspects of discourse about Israel. Here are just three examples: 24 July and 4 May and 2 April.
It isn’t even true that Oboler’s new piece covers the same ground as his last piece. There is important new material there – such as spelling out why Holocaust Denial is wrong.
What do you think?
This is not the only case in recent months where CiF has rejected a perfectly good article on Israel or antisemitism (maybe you know of the cases we have in mind).
It’s not as if there is a glut of such articles on CiF…