Guardian

Hamas attacks children’s water park in Gaza (Guardian devolves into self-parody)


The idea that the Guardian has, all along, been a parody newspaper gains more credibility everyday.  Perhaps its possible that – as their rhetorical and editorial ticks are so pronounced, so beyond the pale – the editors of this Onioninspired publication go out of their way to out-due themselves everyday with absurd analyses, Orwellian terms, and simply mind-boggling critiques of Israel.

Let’s take this headline, regarding a story about an attack on a water park in Gaza City (an attack likely relating to claims that the park violates modesty laws for allegedly allowing men and women to mix.)

First note, the Guardian headline:

Yes, um, Hamas “hardliners.”

So determined is the Guardian not to demonize the terrorist group, that they insist on viewing the incident as somehow not representative of the will of Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah and his government (who, I’m sure, were shocked, SIMPLY SHOCKED, by the attack!).  Of course, such a false bifurcation of Hamas (into hardliners and moderates) is contradicted by their own report, which notes government acts of late meant to move Gaza more and more towards Islamic fundamentalism.  The article cites:

“[recent] restrictions on internet cafes, the closure of beach-front restaurants over the summer, a ban on women smoking shisha pipes in public and a prohibition on the display of lingerie in shop windows. Head teachers have been told they may impose Islamic dress codes on girls, and men have been banned from teaching in girls’ high schools. Some say that women have been reprimanded for sitting with crossed legs in public.”

Beyond making herculean efforts to absolve PM Haniyah’s government of responsibility for the attack, it simply wouldn’t be the Guardian if the story didn’t somehow find a way to give credibility to voices suggesting Israeli (and Western) culpability for the attack.

The piece ends:

For some, the west, and Israel, must shoulder some of the blame. “The broader picture of isolation in Gaza – international sanctions and closure – is a recipe for extremism to flourish,” said Shaqqura. “We are gradually moving to a monolithic society as interpreted by the ruling party. Their ideology flourishes in poverty and isolation. You can see the impact of this clearly.”

The absolute refusal by many to hold terrorists – and those who elect such folks into office – responsible for their hateful views and violent actions is a signature of the post-colonial ideology which denies moral agency to those viewed as possessing immutable “victimhood”.  Of course, there’s a word generally used when you hold certain groups to lower moral standards than others.  Its called racism.

 

3 replies »

  1. The Guardian passes for a bug-eyed Jessica WRabbit – flashing a liberal leg to anti-essentialist, universalist shibboleths while sucking on the carrot of Islamic fundamentalism.

    The Guardian’s Looney Tunes – somewhere near you, unfortunately.

    Call the cops, call the weasels – this is a paper which needs sectioning urgently!

  2. The idea that the Guardian has, all along, been a parody newspaper gains more credibility everyday.

    That’s just silly talk. The Guardian is so, so much more than the tiny fraction of its coverage that relates to Israel/Palestine.

    Maybe the Guardian’s story above is biased – but is CIfW’s coverage itself to be trusted as fair?

  3. I disagree, pretzelberg. The Guardian’s coverage of the Middle East has turned into a low-class newspaper. I could trust it when I was younger but I cannot now.

    And you have to admit that to call the Hamas thugs who were actively involved in the wrecking “hardliners” is one false distinction too far even for the Groan. All Hamas are hardliners and once again CiF tries to monkey about with our perceptions by trying to imply that some of those thugs are less thuggish than others.

    CifWatch’s coverage is necessarily reactive to that of CiF – it calls CiF to account for its wonky logic and lies of omission and commission. I have never found CiFWatch to be lying, but I have lost count of the lies published on CiF. I would therefore trust CifWatch far more than CiF and the Guardian which, by not pulling the plug on it, provides excuses for the filth it produces.