Guardian

The Guardian smells blood: Harriet Sherwood sees a possible Third Intifada “as frustration mounts”.


Harriet Sherwood’s latest article (Palestinians plan fresh protests to mark war anniversary, May 22) needs to be contextualized by noting that a Guardian editorial two days ago characterized the deadly Palestinian intifada from 2000 – 2004 (which killed over a thousand innocent Israeli civilians, and maimed thousands more) as a gift to the Arab world – a lesson on how to properly “mount insurrections”.  

It also needs repeating that the same paper, during the Palestine Papers series, referred to the mere suggestion of Palestinian compromise as “craven”, published an essay by a Hamas member containing thinly veiled threats of a return the death and carnage of the 2nd Intifada, and published a letter by a professor morally justifying such attacks on Jewish men, women, and children.

There is clearly a pattern here.  And, even the most cursory review of the Guardian’s obsessive coverage of Israel points to a proclivity to glorify Palestinian violence to achieve political ends. 

So when reading Harriet Sherwood’s latest report, where she speaks of the possibility, on June 5, of more organized attempts, similar to the events of May 15th, to breach Israel’s borders its hard not to detect in her prose a note of approval.  

How else to interpret her characterization of the provocations – orchestrated by Iran and Syria – as “grassroots” protests inspired by disillusion over “Israel’s rejection on Friday of Barack Obama’s explicit backing for a Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders”?  As if Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians who stormed the borders, and Palestinians who violently rioted in E. Jerusalem and Qalandiya, on May 15 were passionate believers in the “peace process” who were merely frustrated by the lack of progress.  

Sherwood characterizes the thousands who stormed Israel’s border on May 15th in an attempt to violate the Jewish state’s sovereignty as “peaceful protests”, before noting:

“As the prospects for peace talks recede further, some observers predict support for protests will swell as Palestinians take inspiration from the uprisings that have swept the region since the start of the year….Some forecast a “third intifada” as frustration mounts.”  [emphasis mine]

By conflating the Arab protests against tyrannical regimes in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and Syria with democratic Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians, and by framing the rioting on Israel’s borders, and in Jerusalem, as a righteous insurrection inspired by proponents of peace frustrated by Israeli intransigence, she’s doing more than advancing a facile and entirely misleading journalistic narrative.

Sherwood is tipping her hand on how she would likely cover the outbreak of another violent terrorist onslaught against Israeli civilians.

Her editors are on record as viewing such violent insurrections as something noble, to be admired and emulated, and she’s merely lending her moral support in advance to “the cause.”

Categories: Guardian

Tagged as: , , ,

35 replies »

  1. Maybe some hostile and massive flash mob should take over Sherwood’s garden?

    Then once nicely ensconced, the whole house?

    They’d have a descendent of the previous owners with them of course just to make their ‘right of return’ nice and legal.

  2. Harriet, Harriet, with your assumption of high moral standards as expressed to Stephen Pollard how can you display such deplorable lapses from the truth?

    You say
    “The largely peaceful protests last weekend were met with live and rubber-coated bullets, teargas and stun grenades fired by Israeli troops. Israel said it was a legitimate response to a threat to its sovereignty.”

    While Ynet reports from the scene
    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4069226,00.html
    “Troops ordered to hold fire at all costs’
    Meanwhile many residents of the Druze village said they were pleasantly surprised by the IDF’s ability to maintain restraint in the face of violence directed against soldiers Sunday.

    “Though the soldiers were pelted by stones from both sides at once, and despite there being a number of injuries among them, I heard a commander ordering them to refrain from firing at protesters at all costs,” Ali, a Majdal Shams resident, told Ynet after witnessing the events.

    He added that the soldiers fired into the air at first and then, only when the rioters began closing in on all sides, did they begin to fire at their feet. “The restraint shown by the IDF today brought peace this evening. It could have ended very differently,” he said. ”

    Your intention to smear Israel on all occasions is glaringly obvious and less than admirable. Your disdain for the truth makes you a mere lackey of professional liars. You have no right to preach morality to others.

  3. There is nothing new under the sun. During the Brits Mandate of Palestine they have incited the Arabs against the Jews.

    Just read: ME Diary by Col. Richard Meinertzhagen

      • If I had to wait for a”relevant article” here every time I wanted to post something that is truly relevant, I would usually have to wait a long time 🙂

        • Then read this. The stupidity and disconnection from the reality of the wannabe opinionmakers of the Ha’aretz at its peak. (a stuff exactly for your kind of selfdeluded)

          • At least Haaretz is consistent. Obama gave two identical speeches; now compare the headlines in Thursday’s and today’s newspapers – day and night ! And you talk about “the stupidity and disconnection from the reality of the wannabe opinion makers” !!

          • Thank you for posting the link the Meirav Michaeli article. Her comments about the Arab peace initiative are very timely. The people who are not “self-deluded” continuously tells that the REAL problem in the Middle East is that the Arabs refuse to recognize Israel (mantra #1). But when the 22 Arab countries proposed a peace plan that implied full recognition by all of them, Israel simply refused to discuss it (and I am aware of the shortcomings of the plan): no meetings, no discussions, no counter-proposals (mantra #2: Arafat made no counter-proposals at Camp David ….).

            Abbas/Erakat said today that if Bibi accepts the Obama ‘formula’ then negotiations can start tomorrow. It is easy for them to be so generous because they know that Bibi will not pick up the gauntlet. Why ? because he has no plan, no goals, i.e. nothing to negotiate. That’s the non-deluded truth. And it is the truth that even the fiends of Israel – e.g. Obama – are all too painfully aware of.

            If Bibi were to simply state the truth that he has no intention of negotiating and compromising I would have respect for him. But his self-deluded approach is a transparent embarrassment for all Israelis and supporters of Israel.

            • MTC ):
              —————————
              Israel simply refused to discuss it…. no meetings, no discussions, no counter-proposals
              ——————
              Actually Moshe Katsav told reporters, “I very much hope that if a Saudi ruler will not come to Jerusalem, he will invite the rulers of Israel to Saudi Arabia. We would be happy to go to him. If we were invited to Riyadh, I would be glad to go there.”
              http://articles.cnn.com/2002-02-25/world/mideast_1_saudi-peace-proposal-west-bank-and-gaza-arafat-s-palestinian-authority?_s=PM:WORLD

              There was no response from the Arab world.

              The subject was taken up again by Olmert & Livni. http://www.jcpa.org/text/Arab-Peace-Initiative.pdf

              There are certain myths about Israel that the MSM including some dozy Israeli media, promote until the public is brain-washed.

              It never pays to rely on the received wisdom.

              • Margie –
                That’s right, everyone is stupid, naive, deluded and brainwashed. EVERYONE – except you, of course, and thank God we have you here to save us.

                • “That’s right, everyone is stupid, naive, deluded and brainwashed. EVERYONE – except you,…”

                  You gotta give MTC credit, he just summarized the thread that runs through each and every one of his posts.

                  Isn’t it obvious? Millions of Israeli Jews turning right-wing in the course of the 2000s, due to the October 2000 Intifada, the firing of Kassam rockets from Gaza after its de-Judeization in August 2005, the Second Lebanon War in July-August 2006, as well as external events like 9/11, the Danish Cartoons Affair and the reaction to Pope Benedict’s remarks about Islam, just have to be plain wrong!

              • Exactly right, Margie.

                The question now begs to be asked what Haaretz’s motive is in participating in ignoring something so vital to Israel’s reputation and in confusing its captive and credulous readership.

            • MTC

              Didn’t she forget an insignificant point, that the API consisted the requirement to give to all Palestinian refugees the right of return?
              She certainly did. Did she lied about the lack of any Israeli answer?
              Yes she did.

              Abbas/Erakat said today that if Bibi accepts the Obama ‘formula’ then negotiations can start tomorrow.
              Sababa! And added that there is no way to revoke the Fatah-Hamas agreement – knowing that this is a non-starter.

              It is easy for them to be so generous because they know that Bibi will not pick up the gauntlet. Why ? because he has no plan, no goals, i.e. nothing to negotiate.

              Not exactly. They are soooo generous because they know that Israel won’t negotiate with Hamas.

              BTW I would use the word “mantra with a bit more caution, all of your points are the “mantras” of the left from ten years ago…your problem is that the reality during the last ten years somehow changed, your mantras remained the same old…

              Would you elaborate the counterproposals of Arafat in Camp David?

  4. Her editors are on record as viewing such violent insurrections as something noble, to be admired and emulated

    Eh? Where and when? Surely you don’t mean the recent “taught the Arab world how to mount insurrections”?
    (stupid as that comment was)

  5. Should we infer that CifWatch is against the insurrections in the despotic Arab dictatorships ? That CifWatch prefers the continued reign of Assad et al ?

    As to the 3rd Intifada, that is something that many in Israel and elsewhere have been predicting for some time, i.e. nothing original here from Sherwood. But as part of the head-in-the-sand crowd, CifWatch probably believes that there no consequences to the current political stagnation. And as usual, they attack the person who points out the obvious to them instead of addressing the issue.

    • Should we infer that CifWatch is against the insurrections in the despotic Arab dictatorships ?

      Cifwatch has an editorial board or what?

      But seriously, in Israel only the totally deluded ignorants who know nothing about th ME can be an uncritical and not very cautious supporter of the “Arab spring”.
      From an European or American perspective the open anti-Israeli emotions,
      the affinity to Islamic religious rule and the prospect of some new Iran maybe an indifferent result of democracy in Egypt, Tunisia and Syria, but
      from an Israeli standpoint this kind of demoracy could be very dangerous.
      MTC I hope that you wouldn’t be happy if the new democratic Egypt would revoke the CD treaty and say during the consequent war and slaughter that OK but they are now free from the dictature…

    • Had Mubarak not been ousted, he’d have died sooner or later of old age, and due to the unpopularity of his sons, what has now transpired would have come to pass without a revolution.

      That said, Israel should not rejoice at either scenario (the real or the counterfactual one I just outlined) any more than at the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which turned a friendly state into Israel’s bitterest enemy. Inevitable it may all have been, but you, MTC, want us to rejoice at the worsening of our situation (which, no doubt, judging from your other posts, you’ll explain away as being because of Israel’s intransigence on the “settlements”–it’s all about the “settlements” with you). The demands you place on Israeli Jews, MTC, are not just unwise, being contrary to common sense, but also unnatural, being contrary to human nature.

  6. Harrriet Sherwood is the iceberg-seized turd in the Guardian’s tsunami of sewage.

  7. As I stated above the problems with the API are well-known, but that is the nature of negotiations : two divergent starting positions followed by negotiation and compromise. There was no Israeli counter-proposal. My point was that if Arafat is criticized (justifiably) for failing to present a counter-proposal at Camp David, then Israel must be subject to the same criticism regarding the API.

    As to negotiating with Hamas, Bibi did not have to deal with them when negotiating between 96-99 (remember the “pe’imot”?), which only confirms the impression that any excuse will do – to do nothing.

    • My point was that if Arafat is criticized (justifiably) for failing to present a counter-proposal at Camp David, then Israel must be subject to the same criticism regarding the API.

      As we all know the API required the Israeli acceptance of the ROR, a totally (and justifiably) nonnegotiable requirement, and as others said it was a take it or leave it proposition.

      As to negotiating with Hamas, Bibi did not have to deal with them when negotiating between 96-99 (remember the “pe’imot”?), which only confirms the impression that any excuse will do – to do nothing.

      He doesn’t need to negotiate with them only with their partners. And then what? Let’s say Bibi and Abbas could make and sign and agreement and after the ceremony Hamas will be the governing party in Gaza and the West Bank and they revoke their part of any such treaty. Obviously until Hamas is a legitimate party for Fatah there is no need to negotiate.

      BTW What was Abbas’ counterproposal in Annapolis in 2008?

  8. MTC There was no provision for negotiation in the original 2002 Arab Peace offer. It was take it or leave it.

  9. If nothing else shows the extent of the Guardian’s and Hissy Fit Hattie’s delusional thinking and warped morality, it is the lack of thought inherent in the statement that the Second Intifada was a lesson to the Arab world in how to “properly” mount insurrections. Sherwood must speak on behalf of the Guardian editors because they printed her article (it would appear so after the way she carried on at Stephen Pollard), and even if she didn’t the sheer volume of lies and distortions printed there about Israel damns the Guardian beyond redemption.

    MindtheCrap, Who died and appointed you God? (Why DO you post here? Are you secretly hoping to lecture us into agreeing with you? Don’t you have repetitive strain injury in your index finger?) Would you do us all a favour and stop looking at the ME situation in black and white terms? The preachiness is a distinctly unattractive trait. It turns off the reader from examining what you actually say.

    Do you think that Bibi loses sleep at night because you have no respect for him? Do you think that people here actually care whether you do or not?

    pretzelberg, (talking of lecturing and wagging the finger) “that remark” was more than stupid although it is a gift to those of us who have said from the get-go that the Guardian supports Islamist terror and that Sherwood has the intellect and analytic skill of a marshmallow. Even you ought to be able to accept that given the Guardian’s obsession with Israel, and taken in that context (contextualisation is alien to the Guardian but you shouldn’t be tempted to emulate it) it is a reflection of its distorted attitude toward the Middle East conflict.

    • Sherwood must speak on behalf of the Guardian editors because they printed her article

      so ….. Alderman must speak on behalf of the JC editors because they printed her article ???

  10. Except it’s 100% the truth. Arab culture has no notion of self-scrutiny whatsoever. Politically incorrect, Reality-wise correct.

  11. The fad nowadays is to automatically call any sort of Palestinian protest as non-violent, even if rocks are being thrown, vehicles upturned, borders invaded, or property demolished.

    • FoolMeOnce

      Maybe in the fantasia nothing short of a homicide belt is violent.

      And if The Guardian fails to report terrorist murders – voilâ! Nothing happened!

  12. Ariadne, that may be truer than we think.

    Devout Muslims believe that Islam should be spread by the sword after a “heads we win, tails you lose” invitation to kufar to accept their Allah. Central to their perception is to view this world as temporary (which it is) and not to get too attached to it, and actually to look forward to death. Violent death by killing infidels is accepted to be the way their Allah intends things, and of course the Guardian, which never perceives that there is even a surface to dig beneath, takes their tantrums at their face value and excuses them accordingly as being the result of their frustration.