Guardian

Enforcing the GWV: the Guardian J Street Poll


The Guardian, which is opposed to just about anything that Israel says or does, is trying to support J Street since it sees it as another way to create a wedge between US Jews and Israel.

Its running a poll under a picture of a torn and tattered Israeli flag* (hat tip AKUS)

israel460x276

The poll poses the following question: Is J Street helping or hurting the peace process?

Ask yourself what subliminal message the Guardian is trying to convey with the use of this image and what this has to with the question being polled.

In any case, if you have an opinion about the poll, and would like to vote, please do so soon by clicking here – the poll closes in 2 days time.

At present the poll results weigh unsurprisingly in favor of J Street.

63.4% Roadmap. J Street’s voice is valuable

36.6% Roadblock. J Street muddies the debate

* Reproduction of this image is being made to illustrate the Guardian’s perception of Israel.  See our Fair Use Notice.

Update

Good news. For most of the day the poll has been running 14% in favor of J-Street and 86% against. The way it should be.

By far the highlight of the day however was the comments in the CiF thread that accompanied the poll.

First we had this from Santa Moniker:

SantaMoniker

27 Oct 09, 1:07pm

Well, well … its not over till its over, but this poll seems to be going the “wrong way” 🙂

I was initially disgusted by that attempt to deride Israel with that picture of the tattered Israeli flag – then I remembered something:

O! say can you see by the dawn’s early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust.’
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

——-

Just like that star spangled banner, the tattered single blue star of Israel still proudly flies!!!

Am Israel Chai!!!

Then we have this from MindTheCrap:

MindTheCrap

27 Oct 09, 3:02pm

No doubt Georgina Henry will soon issue a statement similar to this:

Thanks to those of you who have raised the issue of the use of the tattered Israeli flag. The intention was clearly not to offend in that we were using the tattered flag in its colloquial sense, and in a general way. But I have asked the Guardian’s style and fashion editor (who shudders whenever the word “tatter” is mentioned) whether guidance should be included on its use. Since we’ve taken the point on board, perhaps the thread could now concentrate on debating the merits of this argument.

And it gets even better. It turns out MindTheCrap was almost right. However rather than Georgina jumping in, we got Brian Whitaker with this utterly moronic comment:

BrianWhit

27 Oct 09, 4:29pm

Staff Staff

A torn flag of Israel? Revealing. Very revealing. I like to see where else we have seen the Guardian disrespect a nation’s flag.

georgeindia: Here’s a British flag getting burnt at a demo.

The link that Whitaker was pointing to was of a news article entitled “Yard wants ban on flag-burning in crackdown on demos by extremists” that reported Scotland Yard wants to get tough with rowdy flag-burning protesters. A picture of demonstrators burning the British flag accompanied the news report. How this is even the slightest bit responsive to georgeindia’s comment is totally beyond me.

And it didn’t take long for georgeindia to respond with this:

georgeindia

27 Oct 09, 4:47pm

Brian,

Nice try. Other than reports from incidents such as demonstrations, do you have nice little picture where the only object presented is a burnt/torn British flag (or a flag of any other country for that matter) to represent a country?

You see, this picture of the Israeli flag is not in the context of a demonstration, or flag burning, or anything that fits with the context of the report. Heck, this wasn’t even a report or even an op-ed!

This picture is that of the Israeli flag – that’s it. And the only Israeli flag the Guardian could find was one torn to shreds. The photo is not even related to the poll or another article for that matter. I don’t understand, Or maybe I do. What clever explanation can we expect? With your level of access, I’m sure it’ll be easy to know.

And then we had Santa Moniker weighing in with this:

SantaMoniker

27 Oct 09, 5:04pm

BrianWhitaker

“Here’s a British flag getting burnt at a demo “

Um … the caption says:

Yard wants ban on flag-burning in crackdown on demos by extremists

· Calls for firm action after Muslims’ cathedral protest
· Opinion divided over ‘get tough’ measures

Could you explain the relevance?? Did Muslims tear or burn that Israeli flag?

So come on Brian please enlighten us all. We’re all sitting on the edge of our seats in anticipation of your response…

Perhaps though the best of the bunch was this from AKUS:

Three Misguided Idiots: Third Act

Whitaker:
I’ve got a great idea – let’s have a poll to show support for JStreet – that’ll stick it to that CiFWatch (a feig – you should pardon the expression) crowd.

Seaton:
Brian – you’ve been spending too much time with your house Jews – that kind of ethnic language is inappropriate here.

I saw this great picture of a tattered Israeli flag we could use – that’ll get the troops worked up!

Henry:
Great idea – I bet we run 90% pro-JStreet!!! Do it – NOW!!!

—-

Rusbridger:
Let’s see how our poll is doing – OMIGOD! NOOO!!!

16.3% Roadmap. J Street’s voice is valuable
83.7% Roadblock. J Street muddies the debate

What did you idiots do to us????

Call the accountants – how much could we save by replacing these ethical cretins with Jonathan Hoffman???

Categories: Guardian

Tagged as: , ,

64 replies »

  1. I was pissed off when I first saw that torn and tatty flag up there,but now I realize that they have shot themselves in the head,by putting that torn and tatty flag up there.

    They proved to be petty small minded midgets.

  2. The Guardian clearly spent alot of time arranging and drawing the torn flag of Israel for its “poll”. Newsweek Magazine, even more antiIsrael than the Guardian, did a similar thing when Begin was Prime Minister. It had a grotesque antiSemtic cartoon of Israel with a frayed flag of Israel behind him and a Jewish star crushing the “peace process”. Time Magazine also did its own version of the torn Israeli flag with a Star of David crushing the dove of peace. So the Guardian learned from the masters. In the case of Time Magazine, its former editor, the late Henry Anatole Grunwald was a Jew who considered himself a cosmopolitan man of Europe, not an Eastern European Jew. Under his leadership, Time Magazine went over the deep end, finally overdoing it with its infamous fake story about a secret Israeli report called “Appendix B”, that had explicit evidence of Ariel Sharon’s complicity in murder. When “Appendix B” finally was released, it said nothing remotely similar to what Time said it would and Time lost a libel suit to Sharon. The Guardian has some good bedfellows, Henry Grunwald, who presided over the smearing of Ariel Sharon and Arthur Hayes Sulzberger, whose New York Times spiked news of the Holocaust so that the NY Times would not appear to be a “Jewish newspaper”.

  3. Brian Whitaker should be ashamed for the racism that CiF whips up and tolerates against Jews on a daily basis. As for his attempt at an excuse for that hideous flag image: limp, sir.

  4. Guardian hates Jews:

    I have no idea what influence, if any, JStreet will have on political thinking in the US but if this organization lives up to its aim to be a Zionist supporter, it has as much right to do so as AIPAC which is at the other end of the political spectrum. I would think that trying to discredit it does the US Jewish community no good, especially at a time when Israel is facing international pressure from even its self- declared friends.

  5. Chas N-B I honestly believe that all the CiF’s editorial team have taken leave of their senses. It’s some sort of collective lunacy not only to refuse to take on board that one is being highly offensive – witness Henry’s pathetic excuse for the use of “ethical cretins” to describe those who spoke out against Goldstone’s report (I’ll bet that she actually believed what she wrote, too!) – but it seems that Brian Whitaker is afflicted of the same blindness to the offence he causes others.

    I wonder if that sort of boneheadedness is a vital prerequisite to work there?

  6. The tantrums that CiF lot throw whenever they are challenged on the racist cesspit they have created shows that they do know deep down how shameful they are.

  7. Chas, I am not so sure. I think it’s more of an attempt to cling on to their pathetic power.

    They seem also to be possessed of a particular cognitive kink – no doubt born of deep insecurity – which sends them off the deep end if anyone should dare to challenge their distorted view of the world. From what I remember of my undergrad studies this is indicative of the authoritarian personality which has been evidenced by both the extreme right and the extreme left.

    And someone else on another thread here (I thnk it was MITNAGED) mentioned the effects of cognitive dissonance which entrenches them still further in their crackpot philosophy.

    Some therapist somewhere could make a shed load of money if he/she had the patience and the staying power to take them all on.

    Imagine it – group therapy for CiF Editors!

  8. Why is everyone here so pleased with the poll results?

    Look at the question again-

    Yes: Roadmap. J Street’s voice is valuable

    No: Roadblock. J Street muddies the debate

    Oviously J-street “muddies” the debate by promulgating the fiction of a progressive form of Zionism. Does anyone seriously think a vote on Cif against J-street is a vote for Aipac?

  9. Does anyone seriously think a vote on Cif against J-street is a vote for Aipac?

    Well. It could be.

    Who’s to say.

    Whatever it is, it is certainly a vote against the GWV.

  10. Does anyone seriously think a vote on Cif against J Street is a vote for AIPAC.

    The Vote against J Street was a vote against J Street,and it had nothing to do with AIPAC.That unexpected result sure rubbed the Guardian’s nose in it.

  11. DYfan

    The J-street organization believes itself to be pro-Israel as indicated by it’s patrons. Why should it be viewed favourably on CiF (which is supposedly notoriously anti-Israel)?

  12. Abtalyon, I have no idea where you live or the source of your information, but it is common knowledge in the US Jewish community that J-Street has declared an objective of using the government to force unilateral concessions from the Israeli government.

    J-Street is thus at once raping Israeli democracy, and negotiating with a foreign government (the US government) a criminal act for those Israelis participating, and one for which they should be prosecuted.

    As for the American Jews participating in J-Street, they are trying to force Israel to do their bidding without necessarily possessing citizenship, doing army service, having direct knowledge of the facts on the ground, or in any other way accruing the right to tell Israel what to do. Israel should simply tell J-Street to f-ck off.