The Guardian’s crusade against Israel is simply relentless.  In the last few weeks alone, the newspaper which aspires to be the world’s leading “liberal voice” has published the following:

A piece by Omar Barghouti, a leader in the BDS movement, which characterized Israel as an apartheid state and calls for the “right of return” – euphemism for the desire to eradicate Israel’s Jewish majority, and radically redefine it as the 51st majority Muslim state.

A piece by Khaled Diab advancing the view that Israel should cease to exist as a sovereign Jewish state – and a writer who has also expressed his belief that the use of violence against Israelis is a legitimate “means of resistance”.

A piece by Ben White, a regular CiF contributor who has characterized Zionism as an ideology of extermination, which, again, accused it of practicing colonization and ethnic cleansing.

A video, which appears front and center on CiF’s Israel page, to illustrate Neve Gordon’s recent piece, entitledEthnic cleansing in the Negev.”

A piece by Mya Guarnieri calledChildren are just Israel’s latest victims“.

A piece by Laila El-Haddad entitled Calling Gaza a Prison Camp is an understatement.”

A Guardian editorial defending, no, praising, an Israeli who was convicted of revealing state secrets to the media.

Two consecutive pieces by Rachel Shabi based on a picture of a female IDF soldier posing next to Palestinian prisoners, which she posted on Facebook – coverage which now includes an entire photo gallery of (9) images of Israeli soldiers’ “trophy pictures,” with absolutely no context provided.

Indeed, this photo from the collection contained the caption:

“Bloodied and broken, the body on the floor is all but ignored by the soldiers”

Of course, the only thing being ignored is the fact that you can CLEARLY see an IV – that is, medical aid – being administered by the Israeli soldier.

In addition to the grossly misleading caption, no other relevant information is provided.  We don’t know who the suspect is or the events which ensued leading up to that moment.  We are not told if the Palestinian belonged to terrorist organization, if he was armed, if there was firefight, and, if there indeed was a firefight, how it began.  In short, we don’t even have the most rudimentary information about the event.  We simply have one photo – a snapshot representing one split second frozen in time – and provided only enough text to advance the desired narrative: the cruel and sadistic Israeli hovering above a helpless and innocent Palestinian.  Such articles, essays, photographs, and accompanying captions, characterize both Israelis and Palestinians as mere political abstractions – symbols, not the real, nuanced, flesh and blood, complex human actors that they are.

In addition to all of this, writers at the Guardian, at times, frame pro-Israel groups who wage an aggressive defense against such distortions in dark, conspiratorial tones.  A recent piece by Jonathan Steele characterizes the U.S. president, and media, as bowing to pressure from the lobby inferring that any defense whatsoever by the Jewish community will be framed in such classic conspiratorial tones.  Such a narrative attempts to delegitimze Jews for the mere act of getting involved in the political process in defense of what they see as their interests.

Jews who are schooled in the often dark and tragic history of our people are not surprised that Israel, the modern state of the Jews, is surrounded by enemies who openly seek her destruction. Yet we also simply can’t avoid being continually shocked that, 62 Israel years after her birth, such enemies are given comfort – politicaly aided, and abetted – by those who claim to possess a progressive orientation.

Let there be no doubt that those of us who understand what Israel’s Independence means in the context of Jewish history – those dedicated to the notion that the modern Jewish state (what Theodor Herzl characterized as the ‘Guardian of the Jews’) shall not perish – will not cease to be outraged, won’t stop fighting this onslaught.  We will be, in a word, “relentless” in her defense.  We won’t back down, not now, not ever.

Categories: Uncategorized

19 replies »

  1. The Guardian as an institution is not just anti-Israeli but profoundly anti-Semitic.

    In its journalistic war against the Jewish people, the Guardian provides a predictable grounds for anti-Semitic comments demanding Jews denounce themselves:

    Its commenters get hatred of Jews and the Jewish state into completely unrelated topics, and the Guardian lets such hatred stand:

    The Guardian intervenes in a hostile manner in internal Jewish disputes:

    It perpetuates Protocols-like myths:

    It tries to tell Jews how to practise their religion:

    It tries to tell another country (the US) not to choose a Jew for Vice-President:

    The Guardian publishes apologia for the most vile of anti-Semites:

    It has repeatedly insisted identifiable Jewish communities must assimilate and disappear:

    The Guardian’s CiF blog devotes a quite dis-proportionate amount of its energy and space to hostile hyper-scrutiny of the Jewish community and state. It transparently wishes – and provides a breeding-ground and megaphone to commenters who wish – quite simply to cleanse both Europe and the Mideast of unassimilated, identifiable Jewry.

  2. The Guardian wishes to establish a truth that does not exist – the truth of a miserable, impoverished, lawless Israel that attacks its neighbours and any other opportune target incessantly and with impunity. Conditions that apply much more closely to the actuality of Gaza. To this end it constructs a false universe with a false Israel.

    How surprised its readers must have been to see that Israel is a much happier place than the UK. It is ranked number eight in the world alongside Canada, Australia and Switzerland. http://tinyurl.com/3yb3b9s

  3. A poster above suggests that the Guardian wishes to cleanse both Europe and the Middle East of identifiable Jewry. I would say that it is far, far worse than that. They don’t wish to push world Jewry to places such as Canada or the United States, but rather, they share the genocidal designs of the Arabs and militant Islam (and perhaps mainstream Islam).

    They would deny it if tasked with the truth, but that doesn’t make it less true. They have a problem with Jews qua Jews, and with Judaism. Some of this is the inherited Christian, Moslem, European and elsewhere anti-Semitism, but a lot of it is not. Since world Jewry is the fons et origo of all of the world’s problems, and since we cling to our outmoded religion, the only way to achieve Utopia is to rid the world of all of its Jews.

    They would make an exception for their pet Jews, at least at first. But when the world still had problems after we and our children were dead, they would be next on the chopping block.

    These great humanitarians, who consider themselves absolutely pure, are Hitler’s best students. It is all the Jews’ fault, and it is self-defense to murder them all.

  4. @ Adam

    Yes, there are certainly enough grounds to complain about Guardian bias.

    But why do you resort to distorting what has actually been said?

    Khaled Diab … a writer who has also expressed his belief that the use of violence against Israelis is a legitimate “means of resistance”.

    You know full well that makes it sound as if he condones attacks on civilians – when he has explicitly said that he condemns them outright!

    He specifically said “violent resistance is legitimate if it focuses on military targets and does not target civilians and children – so suicide bombings are out.”


  5. MindTheCrap

    Have you noticed that CiFWatch has adopted CiF-style moderation ? TokoLeMoko can say “he’d have spent his efforts finding arguments for Bormann, Frank, Kaltenbrunner, and Göring” when referring to you but my reply to him (a play on his name in Hebrew) was erased.

    Well. If your above criticism of CW moderation stays up, that in itself would make the moderation different from Cif.

  6. the fact that Omar Barghouti is a doctoral candidate in philosophy at the Tel Aviv university should fully contradict his claim about Israeli apartheid. But fanatics and hatemongers don’t care about facts and reason. Another problem these days is that so many of the academic philosophers have gone over to unreason and anti-factual theories. Post-modernism and so on.

  7. mindthecrap, you know as well as I that this site is no less fringe-like than the Groan itself. And is debate with you impossibles (sic) too? I often disagree with your viewpoint, but, unlike pretzel, I don’t accuse you of talking nonsense.

    Now who on earth would accuse you of being a self-hating Jew? (That’s a rhetorical question incidentally)

    Pretzel, get over yourself. You are not important enough to hound. You sound very paranoid to me. If you dismiss others’ arguments as “nonsense” then you certainly come over as considering yourself to be superior.

    But you definitely are not.

  8. The Guardian – Nazis through and through.

    Here is the American cultural theorist, Barbara Herrnstein Smith, on how to respond to a Nazi:

    “How would you answer the Nazi?

    Part One

    Depends on location, resources, power available.

    – would not say/do anything in particular
    – escape (fastest and surest way)
    – destroy him (with others)

    Part Two

    Marshalling of ethical/epistemological arguments is not required.

    What is required is analysis of conditions and dynamics of the Nazi’s emergence and access to power in order to produce a specification of the political and other actions that might make that emergence less likely.”

  9. Derek:

    “Marshalling of ethical/epistemological arguments is not required.”

    Thank goodness, because I have no idea what “epistemological” means.

    “What is required is analysis of conditions and dynamics of the Nazi’s emergence and access to power in order to produce a specification of the political and other actions that might make that emergence less likely.”

    What ????????????????????

  10. @ MindTheCrap

    Time to move on to another website? I’m finding both rather pointless and increasingly unsavory.

  11. No counter story of Jihad video’s though.

    I’ve had the misfortune to see a few and let me tell you, the image stays for days.

    These grotesque and sadistic videos are the real ‘trophy crimes’, yet completely overlooked by the Guardian and of course it’s compliant Muslim correspondents who sanctimoniously salivate over the often misrepresented IDF pictures.

    They are so poles apart as to occupy a different sphere yet where’s the outcry?

  12. If a group is repeatedly and disproportionately condemned,attacked,singled out and villified,surely it is reasonable to conclude that the site disseminating such messages wishes the said group to either disappear,or to change to such an extent that it is tantamount to disappearing.
    Keep up the excellent work cifwatch,your ability to stomach the hate site that cif has become is truly admirable.

  13. A brilliant analysis, Adam – I dips me lid.
    Also to the first comment in particular, by GHJ.

  14. There is daily, incessant analysis here of how the Guardian whips up anti-semitic sentiment, twisting and distorting facts to suit its agenda – strife in the Middle East it must be assumed.

    But should someone suggest that the Guardian has similar ideals to the German Nationalsozialistisches Partei – then some of the sensitive souls here get a fit of the vapours. Why is this, I wonder?

  15. The Guardian is a toilet,where moronic posters take a dump,it is hate site where they have regular hate fests,they don’t just hate Israel,they hate everyone and everything.Themselves included.

    Just look at their psychotic cartoons,the work of very disturbed minds,and proud of it.

    Then there is their poster boy blue eyed blond smirking Ben White,a toe rag,that makes a living from writing shit about Israel.

    A reincarnation of a Nazi.

  16. Perhaps every time a photograph is published that is intended to deceive and to foment Jew-hatred we should publish the photograph of the bloody hands of Ramallah. That shows the kind of enemy the liars and haters support.

    During the lynch of the two IDF soldiers who had taken a wrong turn into Ramallah in 2000, one of the Arab murderers paused in his savage beating to answer a cell phone belonging to one of the dying soldiers.

    He told the worried voice on the other end of the line, “We are killing your husband.”


    Quoted on http://freeisraelnow.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/10-years-to-ramallah-lynch-october-2000-animalism/

    And I must warn that the site is very forthright on certain types of behaviour.

  17. Interesting to see that Ben White has turned up on Salon – I think for the first time: http://www.salon.com/news/israel/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/19/israel_1948_right_exist

    Salon is going the same way as the Guardian and this has happened very quickly. How long before Glenn Greenwald hits the Guardian?

    One newish trope is pretty prominent, that of a newly discovered class of Palestinian. As Ben writes “In the West, even talking about Palestinian citizens inside Israel risks confusion, since for so long they have been referred to as “Israeli Arabs” or “Arab Israelis.” ” Well, I think he is the one spreading the confusion. The people he refers to are Israeli citizens, they are not Palestinian citizens and, from what I read, a good number of them want to stay that way.

  18. Mr. Levick, a tiny error in your piece – Israel as a majority Muslim country would be NOT the 51st, but the 58th such state. Please chekck some of your facts next time, even the seemingly unimportant ones.