Guardian

4 Reasons Why The Guardian Was Al Jazeeras’s Best PaliLeaks Pair


This is cross posted by Pesach Benson at Honest Reporting.

Our new Question of the Week asks:

Why might Al Jazeera have chosen The Guardian over larger Western news services to partner in the Palestine Papers leak?

Here are my four reasons why The Guardian made the most sense for Al Jazeera:

  1. The paper demonstrated during Wikileaks that it knows how to distill and present a large volume of documents.
  2. The Guardian can spin anything against Israel.
  3. The nature of the paper’s Comment is Free section (and commenters) guarantees to keep the topic alive longer than any other newspaper.
  4. Perhaps the NY Times will be an exception, but I don’t see leakers with an agenda giving documents to newspapers with paywalls.

Other factors are involved, of course. See what readers are saying and post your thoughts on the weekly question.

2 replies »

  1. According to Haaretz, the P.A. blames Clayton Swisher, former P.A. NSU assistant, and marine body guard at Camp David II, now Al Jazeera’s Palestine Papers analyst/expert.

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/erekat-u-s-british-citizens-are-responsible-for-leaking-palestine-papers-1.339382

    Curiously, as you can see, he wrote an account of Camp David, based on his experience of it, inter alia, that blames Ross for the failure, and claims Arafat accepted the Clinton Parameters (google book below), review here:

    http://www.peacewithrealism.org/pdc/swisher.htm

    CIF, EI etc pieces below.

    What is odd/interesting, is that while he claims Arafat accepted the Clinton Parameters in 2001, and that Israel really rejected them, he is now riding the wave of indignation against Erekat for accepting those parameters in 2008. Also he favourably reviewed the book of EI’s Ali Abunimah, whose interview of Swisher is below, which seeks a one state solution:

    http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/store/548.shtml

    If he is the source of the palileaks, he is playing both ends against the middle. On the one hand claiming Arafat accepted a two state solution, on the other hand playing on the ‘treachery’ cry against Erekat for seeking it.

    Swisher on Comment is Free, 2007

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jul/16/bushslastditcheffort

    http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3308.shtml