Guardian

The Guardian’s perverse empathy for Palestinian terrorists


As Israelinurse noted, in her CW piece on Dec. 22, “The Guardian continues to ignore the escalation in southern Israel”, the Guardian has all but ignored the deteriorating situation along Israel‘s border with Gaza.

The situation includes:

  • Islamic Jihad, previously non-operational, has linked up with Hamas.
  • There have been more attacks upon IDF patrols along the international border.
  • An increased number of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) are being laid along the fence which marks the border.
  • A rising number of mortar attacks have been carried out both on the IDF and civilians living in the communities surrounding the border.

While largely failing to report on these significant developments, the Guardian did see fit to publish an AP story, on Dec. 26, about Israeli FM Avigdor Lieberman stating that violence in Gaza is a serious impediment to a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians. (As if such political observation is in any way controversial.).

The story did note, that:

The latest diplomatic spat [between Israel and the Palestinians] came as violence along the Israel-Gaza border simmered. After days of accelerated Palestinian rocket attacks on southern Israel and Israeli airstrikes in response, Israeli soldiers killed two Palestinians early today.

All in all, this is not a horrible passage by Guardian or AP standards.

But, the photo they chose to accompany the story speaks volumes about Guardian’s coverage of the Middle East.

True to form, the Guardian simply couldn’t resist using an AP photo of wailing, inconsolable friends and relatives of the dead terrorist. As the article itself mentions the increase in rocket fire emanating from Gaza as a cause of the tensions, one would think that a photo illustrating that dynamic (or photos of damage done by previous barrages of missiles onto Israel’s southern communities) would be considered.

The narrative by which the jihadists and Islamists (sorry, “militants”) are perpetual victims is simply irresistible to the photo editors who, clearly, know their customers quite well.

17 replies »

  1. That look of perpetual grief seems to be hard-wired in many of the Palestinians (and Muslims elsewhere). That’s why I sometimes have trouble deciding if it’s authentic or feigned.

  2. Terry – the other question I always have is why they get so upset. Even though the Guardian refers to these two terrorists who fired or attempted to fire rockets at random into civilian towns and settlements as “militants”, without a shadow of a doubt they were the type we see over and over again proclaiming how delighted they would be to give their lives for the chance to a kil a Jew or two. Very often, that same grieving mother will be caught on tape proclaiming how proud she is that her son or daughter is willing to do so.

    So when they get what they want – why the grief stricken pose?

    On the other hand, I though that the recent article by Anna Carbajosa, very unusual for the Guardian, revealing a group of young Gazans who are sick and tired of the whole thing – Hamas, Fatah, Israel, the theocratic repression in Gaza, the lunatics firing rockets into Israel and drawing down destructive reprisals etc. and just want to grow up living a peaceful ife – waas a glimmer of hope:

    Gazan youth issue manifesto to vent their anger with all sides in the conflict

  3. It may be authentic, terry malloy, but has probably been piggy backed from other causes, such as the sort of depression born of learned helplessness and imbibed with mothers’ milk that nothing will change unless allah wills it.

    These souls lack the smarts to discern cause and effect – they place the cause outside themselves. Someone or something always makes them behave in the way that they do, (whether it’s stoning the IDF or giving up their young to be killed by Hamas) but they fail to make the connection between those actions and the results of them, and, when they come off worst, cannot locate the responsibility for their decisions where it should lie, ie with themselves.

    Thus, a woman wailing for her son who has been killed as a result of a doomed to fail terrorist attack, blames Israel for killing him, never herself or Hamas for “encouraging” him to go on the doomed mission.

    AKUS, I am amazed that the Groan would actually publish this. Let’s hope that the “insh’allah” attitude doesn’t override the awareness that they themselves will have to act for their own welfare. Time will tell.

  4. But I don’t think it’s a pro-Palestinian fetish at all.

    The G couldn’t give a winker’s toss about the Pals of Lebanon, Syria, the Gulf (those that weren’t killed or kicked out by their fellow Aarbs).

    It’s an anti-Israel fetish, part of its anti-American and anti-west world view.

  5. AKUS

    The Gazan Youth Document left one thing out:

    Fuck the international left solidarity movement which constantly offers the futile message that “one day, together, we will rid you of Israel. And to do so we are wiling to fight to the last drop of Gazan blood”!

  6. That youth manifesto is quite interesting in that, at the very least, it represents what seems to be the expression of an independent political thought – free of both Hamas indoctrination and Western media filters.

  7. The black shroud wearing woman in the above picture must be shreiking when she saw the size of the hands of the man looming over her.

  8. The situation includes:

    * Islamic Jihad, previously non-operational, has linked up with Hamas.

    WHy, becasue a few Hamas members attended an Islamic Jihad rally?

    * There have been more attacks upon IDF patrols along the international border.

    That wouldn’t have anything to do with the 88 people the IDF have shot on the Gazan side of the border?

    * An increased number of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) are being laid along the fence which marks the border.

    On which side of the border? Why is that a problem for Israel? I thought Israel withdrew from Gaza?

    * A rising number of mortar attacks have been carried out both on the IDF and civilians living in the communities surrounding the border.

    What a pitty Israel didn’t stick to the ceasefire in 2008, when this number was at it’s lowest ever? Perhaps Israel should take up Hamas’ repeated calls to return to a ceasefire and try not breaking it this time?

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BN2O820101224

  9. Fuck the international left solidarity movement which constantly offers the futile message that “one day, together, we will rid you of Israel. And to do so we are wiling to fight to the last drop of Gazan blood”!

    Shouldn’t you also say fuck to the Christian Evanlegical movement:

    – who pretend to care about Israel, when in fact they harbor a sadistic desire to use Israel for what they believe will usher the return of Christ?
    – who are led by such people a John Hagee who believes that Hitler was an agent of God and that the anti Christ will be a Jew?

  10. No one does grief and misery better than the Palestinians in particular,and the Muslims in general.They are masters at turning on the waterworks.

    The facial expressions and hand gestures,the shrieking and undulating (it’s a wonder that they don’t get seasick).The whole scene is worthy of an Oscar.

  11. The ISM are Masters of misery,who thrive on blood and guts.The ISM don’t like the Palestinians anymore than they like us.They just like to see blood flowing,the blood of someone else of course.

  12. The obvious problem with the Guardian article is that it ignores the real significance of Lieberman’s comments, i.e. that his statements are contradictory to government policy as stated by Netanyahu and other ministers. This must have caused a real dilemma for the Guardian – which of two good Israel-bashing stories to choose: 1. Israeli gov’t weak and divided; Netanyahu can’t control ministers, or 2. Lieberman’s anti-peace ranting. They chose the latter.

  13. The obvious problem with the Guardian article is that it ignores the real significance of Lieberman’s comments, i.e. that his statements are contradictory to government policy as stated by Netanyahu and other ministers.

    For the time being yes, but what we have seen on numerous occasions is Netenyahu backing down when he’s had to confront Lieberman.

    For example:

    1. Lieberman gave a speech saying that it is impossible to attain an over-all peace between Israel and the Palestine Authority at present and therefore progress should be made on more limited issues. After criticizing Lieberman, Netanyahu then turned around and said that an interim agreement of a more limited nature was possible.

    2. Netanyahu gave into Lieberman on the issue of allowing parliament to vote on whether the head rabbi for the Israeli army can accept conversions to Judaism of troops (mainly ex-Soviets) without these being reviewed by the Chief Rabbi in Jerusalem. (Lieberman wants the military conversions to stand, since the official rabbinate has been reluctant to accept large-scale conversions by the hundreds of thousands of non-Jewish Russians who immigrated in the 1990s. The ultra-Orthodox Shas Party is upset by this step and is threatening to leave the government over it).

    3. When Lieberman said that Israel would not apologize to Turkey over the flotilla attack, Netanyahu initially tried to put Lieberman in his place, saying there could only be one prime minister. But then he caved, and said that, indeed, Israel would not apologize to the Turks for the attack on the Mavi Marmara (at least he didn’t say ‘to those people’).

    It’s possible that Lieberman will be the next Israeli PM.

  14. “It’s possible that Lieberman will be the next Israeli PM.”

    I hope so.

    islamofascists only respect strength.

  15. It’s also possible that your next comment will be intelligent …..

    and maybe just maybe intelligible also?

  16. “3. When Lieberman said that Israel would not apologize to Turkey over the flotilla attack”

    When will Erdogan apologize to the Armenians?