How the Guardian Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Iranian Bomb

This is a guest post by AKUS

Mark Gardner’s excellent article, Does Ahmadinejad read the Guardian?, revealed once again the Guardian’s deliberate blindness to anti-Semitism, this time exhibited in its response to Ahmadinejad’s UN speech.

It takes a definite agenda for the Guardian to be possibly the only Western newspaper not to “get” what Ahmadinejad was hinting at with his talk of a conspiracy and a small group controlling the world.

The following comment, the worst perhaps of numerous similar ones by various commentators on threads dealing with the Iranian threat, was deleted, but the person writing it, notorious on CiF for her anti-Semitic comments, has never been banned, possibly never even been “pre-moderated” – the fates reserved for those Israel supporters who can be accused of even slightly infringing CiF’s so-called “community standards”:


26 Sep 09, 12:20pm

Matthew Levitt and Michael Jacobson.
Are you guys Jewish by any chance? Pro-Israeli or even Israeli perhaps?
Your article is really funny.
I hope Iran builds the bomb and points it at Israel.
Israel should always have the threat of massive and disproportionate retaliation for any aggressive action it takes. This means the carpets bombing of Israeli cities and the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Israelis. Maybe Iran can even take pre-emptive strike to forestall Israeli terrorism.
Then your article will be really, really funny.
Israel is a terrorist state and needs to be treated in this way. No more moddlycoddling by westerners with a guilty conscience. If the West is unprepared to tackle to error it made in 1948 then I’ll gladly support the efforts of Iran, Hamas, Hizbollah, AlQaeda or whoever, to rectify this error.
And if you don’t like it then I’m sure the Americans and the Germans will welcome Israelis with open arms. Maybe even set aside a portion of their country for the chosen people to settle in. I’m sure ordinary Americans and Germans will love that prospect, don’t you? You know how wonderful the Germans were towards your own people compared to the likes of Iran and Palestinians, don’t you?
If you go to someone’s back yard and shit in it, prepared to have your backsides kicked and your nose rubbed in your own shit.

Those who have followed the increasing frenzy of Israel bashing on CiF will well recall the constant refrain by Guardian contributors and those commenting on the various threads that it has never been proven that Iran is planning to build nuclear weapons, despite all the obvious evidence to the contrary. Comparisons between Ahmadinejad and Hitler were called “unfair”, or worse. Claims pointing out that Ahmadinejad called for the destruction of Israel were dismissed as mistranslation for propaganda purposes, and still are dismissed in that way:

dissidentstockbroker 25 Sep 09, 8:01pm

…. Now find us the bit that says that Iran threatens to wipe Israel off the map.

The veil has fallen from some, but not all eyes. The traditional Israel bashers, who will support anyone attacking Israel, such as orwellwasright and berchmans, are still playing the same game.

Berchmans 25 Sep 09, 7:41pm

##Iran continues to pose a real security challenge##

Only in Bizzarro world. Could someone please explain how this country surrounded by enemies who are armed to the feckin teeth with thousands of nuclear arms should not defend herself ?


It seems necessary to remind Berchmans that Iran has actually, through its proxies Hamas and Hizbollah, attacked Israel for a period now spanning over a decade.

So now, in the face of evidence that shows their denials of Iran’s nuclear ambitions are useless, the Guardian and its readers are moving the goal posts yet again. Since absolute denial of Iran’s nuclear ambitions fail, they fall back to two other positions.

Why shouldn’t Iran have nuclear weapons?

When that fails to impress, they are being reduced to “what aboutery” – “what about Israel?” “What about the UK?” “What about the US?”

Suddenly Guardian regular Simon Tisdall, roped in, no doubt, to support the Guardian’s position finds he is unable to do so and instead writes “Iran has been caught red-handed“. Someone called Heather Hurlburt writes about “Iran’s Nuclear Blunder“. But nothing stops the Guardian – they rope in Scott Ritter to explain why things are not what they seem, in an article incongruously titled “Keeping Iran Honest” – a case where the title is worth more than all the rest of his article.

The thrust of Ritter’s article is that an “additional protocol” has not been ratified by the Iranian parliament, and as such is not legally binding. Therefore, it cannot be accused of “breaking the rules”. Like a criminal who never signed an agreement not to commit crime, and therefore cannot be accused of criminal activity.

No matter how the Guardianistas twist and turn, the latest revelations, and the treatment of the Iranians protesting the last election have finally made it clear who the world has to deal with. Sarkozy said it best this week at the UN: “Talks with the Iranians gave us three things – More centrifuges, more enriched uranium, and a threat to wipe a UN member nation off the map.”

There is something nauseatingly familiar about the Guardian’s initial willingness to allow articles critical of Ahmadinejad to appear followed by bringing in “objective contributors” to show that he’s not such a bad chap after all. It reminds me of the loony left’s historical propensity to trim its sails to whatever line seems most propitious at any time, as it did at first when the USSR signed the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement to dismember Poland. Then they discovered that Hitler was “objectively” a friend of the proletariat. It is probably only a matter of time until the deliberate obtuse, irrational and fundamentally anti-Semitic hatred of Israel puts the Guardian’s editors and some CiF commentators back in bed with Ahmadinejad.

Categories: Guardian

Tagged as: ,

15 replies »

  1. It reminds me of the loony left’s historical propensity to trim its sails to whatever line seems most propitious at any time, as it did at first when the USSR signed the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement to dismember Poland. Then they discovered that Hitler was “objectively” a friend of the proletariat. It is probably only a matter of time until the deliberate obtuse, irrational and fundamentally anti-Semitic hatred of Israel puts the Guardian’s editors and some CiF commentators back in bed with Ahmadinejad.

    Quite accurate, AKUS. A complete study of the thoroughly evil tendencies of the left (as typified by the Guardian) to support tyranny and terror is Jamie Glazov’s book, “The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror”.

  2. Guardian Hates Jews – what saddens me (well, a little!) is that many of the pro-Israelis banned by the Guardian are, in fact, the type of person who I regard as “left”, or in the US parlance, “liberal” – people, among whom I count myself, who care for a sane, healthy society, who are not willing on the other hand to rollover at the behest of every terrorist or tinpot dictator who meets some loony definition of “resistance”, “activists”, or “anti-colonialist”. People who once read the Guardian.

    The Guardian has become a repository of Trotskyite throwbacks, Islamic extremists, useful idiots and anti-Semites joined together in one bizarre and horrible melange, writing and posting under the Guardian’s banner of representing “the Left”. Much as Stalin’s regime did, I’m afraid. They are united, apparently, by nothing more than a shared hatred for the success of Western countries and Israel.

    Thus, the endless twisting and turning in efforts to deny the undeniable about Ahminajad and the regime to which he belongs. So depressingly and Orwellianly reminiscent of the old Communist regimes in the USSR and China. The truth gets distorted and manipulated in pursuit of an agenda that even as it is obviously failing, nevertheless is horrifying for the support it gives and gets from people like that “shamelesshussy”, Berchmans, and various other regular posters on the CIF threads.

    Orwell would see today’s Guardian as the embodiment of everything he predicted in “1984”.

  3. Thanks AKUS. There were some more vomit-inducing posts on the Levitt/Jacobson thread. Here are two of the worst:

    26 Sep 09, 2:14pm
    No doubt that these two authors of the STEIN INSTITUTE and self proclaimed so called counter insurgency and terrorist expert have nothing better then start another war. Of course they have Jewish names too. Why should anybody be surprised!
    Hey fellow how about all the secret Israeli Nuclear projects and who knows how many nuclear bombs Israel is hiding and for what purpose.

    26 Sep 09, 5:28pm
    Why is the Guardian allowing two hard-line Zionist authors who work for a Zionist quasi-governmental research organisation attached to the US government to write op-ed pieces on Cif?
    Surely Cif is a forum for independent journalists offfering opinions, not Zionist quangos disseminating propaganda.


    Look at what these two antisemites do. They assume Levitt and Jacobson’s religions and views simply from their names. Worse still, they dismiss as worthless the views of all Jews about the Middle East. How racist is that, to stereotype in this way?

    Then they suggest that an independent think-tank, the ‘Washington Institute for Near Middle East Studies’, is:

    “Zionist quasi-governmental attached to the US government”.

    Such is the lowlife that flocks to CIF ………

    [I have not yet checked if they have been deleted]

  4. ‘Questionnaire’s’ comment has been there for 15 hours, it has 30 ‘recommends’.

    ‘Goldengate’s’ has been deleted.

  5. A new Ben White thread has gone up and the Livingstone Formulation is already in action:


    27 Sep 09, 9:23am

    Let me just check the advice in my GIYUS handbook on this one … ah yes, here we go:

    – Hamas are terrorists
    – Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map
    – We are the victims here
    – The author is an anti-semite


    27 Sep 09, 10:02am

    Is it me or should anyone who stands up for the rights of Palestinians, see that the term ‘anti-semite’ has no value, and and never has. Its now a loaded term of abuse for anyone that doesn’t conform to the Zionist way of thinking. What the Zionists never answer, is that of Israel is ‘a land for the Jews’, why were no non-Western Jews or poorer Jews allowed to settle there? No can’t answer that. Don’t worry, we can figure it out for ourselves why you didn’t.

    Cue a Cif Watch troll to report ‘abuse’ to the mods.

  6. More from the White thread:


    27 Sep 09, 9:28am

    Recent events have once again exposed the fallacy of the “Two-State Solution.” The Israelis and Palestinians must share all of historic Palestine in a democratic state that grants equal citizenship to all regardless of race or religion.


    27 Sep 09, 9:30am

    This is rather sickening.
    For years Israel has (rightly) demanded that all property seized and looted during WWII is returned to its rightful owners – yet here they are actively denying the same right to the Palestinians.

    The racism and hypocrisy of this action is incredible and will sow the seeds of future conflict for generations to come.

  7. Good points all round by CW.

    I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’ve completely lost my interest in reading the Guardian’s CiF. It’s enough to read the snippets posted here on CW to make one’s stomach churn.

    Merely skimming a recent article, the Levitt/Jacobson one, I was sickened by the amount of pure malice, antisemitism and ignorance from the usual commentators. I don’t know which are worse : the out-and-out racists you all know and love, or the hypocrites, aka. useful idiots like ‘Berchmans’ and ‘usini’ ( to name but two ).

    There was only one post from our side that made sense ( sorry I can’t be bothered to go find it ) which declared that Sept 11, 2001 was a declaration of war against the West, that we’ve been in the middle of World War III since then, and for the sake of our grandchildren we have to bite the bullet and stop the mad Iranian regime before it’s too late…

  8. CiF has always been worrying to me, in its approach to Israel. There have of course always been the odd poster like La Ritournelle who have been so clearly and outrageously racist, that they’ve been removed and or flamed by other posters and their credibility has been poor.

    Lately, it seems that the emphasis is changing from attacking Israel, to conflating Israel and all Jews and feeling free to attack both or either and this appearing acceptable to the Guardian editors and moderators.

    The problem with this as I see it is that as awful as we believe it is, the Guardian is an opinion former and its pages hold adverts for jobs in the civil service, the BBC and education. So aspiring civil servants, broadcasters and teachers will be reading the Guardian simply to watch out for jobs and will inevitably on the way, be introduced to the Guardian World View, and if young an credulous, or even not so young but naive, may start to pick up on and absorb the racism and hatred contained in its pages or on its website.

    CiFWatch is a good start, but to save the perniciousness of the GWV gaining further ground in UK public life, what else can we realistically do to make the general UK public aware of what we believe the Guardian is?

    Fairplay – that was me re 3rd world war – thank you.

  9. Bill Maher had a great bit about Iran, the Jews, and physics on Friday night:

    “Ahminajad made a big speech at the UN, and of course this infuriated the Israelis. …

    We’ve had the bomb since 1945. [The Iranians] are still working on it.

    See, here’s the thing about physics—and Hitler learned this also—it goes a lot faster with Jews. [pause]

    You kinda need the Jews … trying to do physics without the Jews, it’s like a pizza parlor without a guy named Tony….”

  10. AKUS

    Very funny or it would have been but for the fact that what Maher doesn’t realize is that Iran has a plentiful supply of Jews (or were you inviting us to chuckle at Maher’s crass ignorance?). Incidentally, please try to remember these Iranian Jews will also be incinerated by any response that is too “unequivocal”.

  11. AKUS

    With direct ref. to Nejad – he seems to be playing a very tricky game which could bring disaster down upon many Iranians with dire consequences to many others in the region – radioactive fall out being no respecter of national borders. Diplomacy and common sense would be my chosen response.

    As for CiF being AS – well it does give a platform to those who wish to attack Israel – but also affords right of reply to everybody – well hmm ! – until they’re banned that is. Posters from both sides of the debate have been banned.

    To say that recognising the fear and pain of others is necessary can sound like an empty cliche. In fact it is an essential component of any peace agreement anywhere. The polarisation of debate – on CiF and elsewhere – allows posters to place the blame firmly and squarely on one side only. This is obviously a short sighted and twisted perception. Both blame and pain have to be shared, aknowledged and ,as a barrier to peace. overcome. The world is not divided into angels and demons – we are all somewhere in between, this applies to nations as well as individuals.

    I am tired of an endless stream of comments which seek to deny one group or another of their humanity. Someone posting here suggested that readers of the Guardian will have their view of I/P distorted – just to remind the, some of us can observe, ponder and think for ourselves.

    L x

  12. Did anyone report abuse on that Shamelesshussy filth?

    I already did, and I encourage you to do the same, based on the above post.

    I have been banned so many times from CiF for literally NOTHING, and this guy freely posts after writing a comment inciting to violence and supporting terrorism.

    It blows my mind.