The Guardian grants licence to voice expressing alarm over the injurious effects of organized Jewish community in U.S.

I recently posted on the curious graphic, with a Star-of-David superimposed on an American flag, which accompanied the latest volley of Guardian approved anti-Israel vitriol (Letters: Obama’s empty rhetoric on Israel, May 23), and I was further tempted to focus on the lead letter by the senior editor of the Hamas-friendly, anti-Semitic group, MEMO, Ibrahim Hewitt, but decided instead to highlight the most egregious example of Guardian licensed animosity towards Jews who support Israel.

A Londoner named Graham Simmonds, opining approvingly of James Zogby’s CiF commentary from May 19th on “President Obama’s lack of substance on the Palestine-Israel issue”, further explained that:

“But the reality is that however genuine a US president might be in wanting to act as honest broker, the forces of bigotry and bias lined up behind Israel in the US are overwhelming.” 

In the event this insidious passage needs unpacking, Simmonds is saying that the President of the most powerful nation on earth is no match against the powerful “forces” of a “bigot[ed]”, organized pro-Israel Jewish community.

The EU’s working definition of anti-Semitism includes:

“stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective – such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.”

It also needs to be noted that this isn’t a stray hateful comment beneath the line of a CiF piece, which the Guardian could plausibly argue represented merely a failure of the moderation process, but one of only six ‘letters to the editor’  their editors made the conscious decision to publish.

The Guardian’s decision to grant license to such bigotry continues to make a mockery of their claim to represent an ideology which can be characterized as progressive or liberal in even the broadest definition of these terms. 

3 replies »

  1. This is scarcely surprising is it and is, as you say, one more example of Guardian-approved anti-Israel vitriol and attempts to trivialise Jewish fears in the face of Islamist-inspired paranoia which feeds antisemitism.

    In the UK and elsewhere, however, there are signs that the worm may be beginning to turn at long last:

    1) Although there will be an attempt today by the viciously antisemitic Baroness Tonge (she of the “Israel is stealing organs in Haiti” infamy) and her fellow travellers in the House of Lords to undermine the proposed new law which effectively will remove universal jurisdiction from the statute book, or at least make its application more difficult by haters of Jews and Israel, I am led to believe that enough coalition peers and MPs are against such an amendment. This of course means that once the law is passed it will be more difficult for Islamists in the UK to threaten malicious prosecution of Israelis who intend to visit;

    2) Along the same lines, I got sent an excerpt from an article in The Times in the UK (not the online version) as follows:

    “Posted: 23 May 2011 09:21 AM PDT
    From The Times of London, May 17th (not available online):

    “An Israeli human rights group has warned Lloyd’s of London that it may be liable for massive damages if it insures ships that are used by suspected terrorist organisations to sail to the Gaza Strip.

    “The legal warning, sent to.Lloyd’s and all the other main maritime insurance companies in the world, asserted that under international law Lloyd’s would be open to charges of aiding and abetting terrorism jf it contributed in any way to the passage of ships to Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas, an Islamist movement designated by the United States, Israel and the European Union as a terrorist group.

    “Lloyd’s is the biggest insurance market in the world.

    “The announcement, issued by Shurat Din, a legal centre in Tel Aviv, came on the day that the Israeli navy fired warning shots at a Malaysian chartered ship carrying sewerage pipes to Gaza from the Egyptian port of al Arish, forcing it to turn back.

    “The Malaysian aid group that organised the delivery said that the ship was a few hundred yards off the Gaza coast when the Israeli naval vessel forced it back.

    “Nitsana Darshan Leitner,the founder of the Israeli law centre, said that the point of the legal threat was to prevent a flotilla of aid ships from approaching Gaza this month to mark the first anniversary of a raid by Israeli naval commandos on a Turkish ferry heading for the blockaded enclave.

    “Lloyd’s said that it would refuse to underwrite a vessel backed by terrorist or related organisations on any trip that would be in breach of sanctions.

    “The insurance market said: “Hamas is subject to UK and EU terrorist financing sanctions.As such, any vessel identified as being owned or controlled by that organisation would not be permitted to be insured by Lloyd’s, or any other EU insurer.”

    “It declined to address the veiled legal threat in the letter directly.

    “Any shipowner planning to send vessels into Gaza would have to notify the Lloyd’s of London market in advance, ‘providing details of the cargo, because Israel is designated a war risk for the purposes of providing cover.

    “Lloyd’s indicated that if its members had been deceived about the true purpose of a trip the insurance cover would instantly be invalid.

    “Darshan Leitner, an Israeli lawyer who specialises in cases involving victims of terrorist attacks, said: “Before Israel gets into another mess with the navy and the flotilla, we don’t want bloodshed on the sea again. This is a way that the private sector can help the Government prevent terrorism.”

    “She said that under international law no link had to be established between a specific terrorism attack and a particular ship heading into Gaza: “That’s the beauty of this. It doesn’t have to link directly. The law in the US and Israel and maybe in other countries is that when it comes to terrorism, it is very strict that anyone aiding and abetting a designated terrorist organisation, the liability is on you for any terrorist attack that that organisation carries out,” she told The Times.”

    (More from Shurat HaDin at )

    The sauce for the Islamist goose may at least become sauce for those of us who want to defend Israel against such malice.

  2. From my post elsewhere on this blog:

    “..Am just hearing, (from the BBC no less!), that Netanyahu got lots of standing ovations in his speech before congress, particularly when he said that Israel was prepared to be generous as regards land for a Palestinian state but would not return to 1967 lines.

    “But as always, the usual BBC undermining sting in the tail – when the reporter said that Netanyahu, having been educated in the US knew how to play the American congress “like a violin.” Mean-spirited and ugly comment which is typical of the Guardian’s other arse cheek…”

  3. If “the forces of bigotry and bias lined up behind Israel” are so overwhelming, according to Mr. Graham Simmonds, then how does he explain Obama’s repeated insistence on borders “based on the 67 lines”?

    What a tit.