General Antisemitism

What the Guardian won’t report: 73% of Palestinians agree with quote from Hamas charter about the need to kill Jews


H/T Peter

One of the more infuriating aspects of the Guardian’s continuing efforts to paint Israel as a state moving to the far right – and even legitimizing such unserious characterizations of the Jewish state as “fascist” and “totalitarian” – is the moral inversion of such a narrative.  

Agree or disagree with a particular piece of legislation – and there is much to oppose, for instance, in the recent anti-BDS legislation – but to suggest that Israel represents “reactionary” values ignores that, by any objective standard, Israel remains the only bastion of freedom and tolerance in the Middle East, and stands in stark contrast to the religious intolerance (and antisemitism in particular) which is normative behavior in much of  the Arab, and Palestinian, world. 

Any journalist at the Guardian who honestly seeks to understand the undeniable reality of this dynamic need not take our word for it, nor even study the work of the renowned scholar Professor Robert Wistrich (who has characterized antisemitism in the Islamic world as comparable, in scale and degree, to Nazi antisemitism), but merely needs to occasionally visit the sites of Palestinian Media Watch and MEMRI, which continues to document this phenomenon.

A recent report in the Jerusalem Post, citing polling data on Palestinian opinion (compiled by American pollster Stanley Greenberg), which highlighted the fact that 73% of Palestinians agreed with a quote from the Hamas Charter (and a hadith, or tradition ascribed to the prophet Muhammad) “about the need to kill Jews hiding behind stones and trees” should come as no surprise to CiF Watch readers, but as such chilling reports rarely, if ever, find there way into the Middle East section of the Guardian, it’s urgent that such information be widely disseminated.

The report also notes that “Seventy-two percent backed denying the thousands of years of Jewish history in Jerusalem, 62% supported kidnapping IDF soldiers and holding them hostage, and 53% were in favor or teaching songs about hating Jews in Palestinian schools.”

It’s simply impossible to properly contextualize the Israeli-Palestinian (and Israeli-Islamist) Conflict without understanding the degree of hostility in the Arab world not merely to Israelis, but to Jews as such.

And, while Israel should, of course, continue to be scrutinized as any country should (and policies Israel adopts which may be inconsistent with its overall democratic nature criticized), it is equally vital that those who wish to operate under the presumption of good faith when criticizing the Jewish state not ignore the fact that the animosity towards Zionism in much of the Arab world is inspired not by any particular policy or act but by a broader opposition to the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East, within ANY borders.

The Guardian’s continuing willful blindness to such explicit antisemitism (as with their failure to hold Arab regimes to the same standards they hold Israel) represents – for a paper which aspires to be “liberal” – an appalling moral abdication.   

20 replies »

  1. What CiFWatch won’t report: two thirds of Palestinians disapprove of Hamas and Iran

    Well, that’s how one potential alternative headline could read.
    http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/07/14/ex-clinton-pollster-finds-palestinians-disenchanted-with-hamas-iran-and-the-peace-process/

    The survey as cited by Times makes for very different reading than e.g. the JPost’s version – not to mention the article here.

    From Time:
    It was conducted by a Palestinian firm working for Stan Greenberg, famed as Bill Clinton’s pollster but who did this work for The Israel Project, a well-funded private U.S. group that promotes the positions of Israel’s government.

    • What does their approval/disapproval of Hamas and Iran have to do with the shocking amount of Palestinians which agree with the hadith which calls for the killing of Jews? Or the amount that reject a two-state solution, support the kidnapping of soldiers, support the teaching of hatred to their children and deny basic Jewish history?

      You see, the point that this article is making is that Israel is presented as the “hawkish” and “right wing” side and is to blame for the staleness of the peace process where as this poll shows that their innocent little darlings [the Palestinians] themselves hold views which form a serious barrier to long lasting peace–views which have manifested themselves in violence numerous times and can be seen reflected in the actions of Palestinian leaders.

      • What does their approval/disapproval of Hamas and Iran have to do with the shocking amount of Palestinians which agree with the hadith which calls for the killing of Jews?

        My point is about headlines and the impression they make. Yes, the Guardian is guilty of biased content as well as misleading headlines – but so is this website.

        • My point is about headlines and the impression they make. Yes, the Guardian is guilty of biased content as well as misleading headlines – but so is this website.

          What is misleading in the headline pretzel?

    • “It was conducted by a Palestinian firm working for Stan Greenberg, famed as Bill Clinton’s pollster but who did this work for The Israel Project, a well-funded private U.S. group that promotes the positions of Israel’s government.”

      Richard Ingrams once stated that he never read a letter about Israel signed with an obviously Jewish name for exactly the same reasons. It surely must be tough for you to hang around here given the overwhelming number of Zionists who post at CifWatch. Do you believe a word Adam Levick writes? Given the long history of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in Britain should any Jew believe one word that comes out of the mouth of a British gentile about Israel? Should we believe anything you write? Given Karl Vick’s anti-Zionist positions, why should we believe him?

      You believe that Stanley Greenberg has acted dishonestly. You should write and tell him so. You can find his e-mail address here:

      http://www.greenbergresearch.com/index.php?ID=403

      ————————-

      Articles here about Karl Vick’s anti-Zionism:

      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=800&bih=428&q=karl+vick+%2B+anti-israel&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

      • It surely must be tough for you to hang around here given the overwhelming number of Zionists who post at CifWatch.

        Not at all. It’s the posters like you who smear others with outrageous lies and hateful bile that are the problem with this website.

        You believe that Stanley Greenberg has acted dishonestly.

        Classic example. You are just making things up!

        Oh, and spare us the “gentile” crap, because it really does make you sound like bigot.

        Do you believe a word Adam Levick writes?

        What an absolutely ludicrous question!

        • pretzelberg, perhaps you wrote what you did to generate debate, but once again you failed to take on board that in such exchanges nuance is all-important, and it’s notoriously difficult to convey nuance in print. You cannot assume that people will always take what you write in the spirit in which you may mean it unless you explain meticulously where you are coming from. I agree with the Groan in one respect only, that it’s important to think before you post, and try to envisage how what you say might be received!

          Hoi Polloi’s reply to you was similarly charged, but in the light of your original post it’s difficult to criticise him/her.

          • perhaps you wrote what you did to generate debate

            I was merely – like everyone else here – expressing my opinion.

            but once again you failed to take on board that in such exchanges nuance is all-important

            I see. So I “fail” to consider nuances, while people like you who disagree with my views here do not! A very dispappointing response from you, there.

            Hoi Polloi’s reply to you was similarly charged

            It was not at all “similarly charged”. It was clearly a bigoted personal attack. The fact that you – and most others here – find it “difficult” to criticise the hateful likes of Hoi Polloi speaks volumes.

            • OK, pretzelberg, if you will:

              Often, although you post interesting and sensible posts, you are tactless towards those who disagree with your views to the point of rudeness.

              Now, I know that written communication loses a lot of nuance and it’s often misunderstood because of that, but it seems to me that you sometimes, not invariably, have a certain difficulty with those who disagree with your views.

              • you are tactless towards those who disagree with your views to the point of rudeness.

                If you’re being honest, you’ll admit that I generally only get rude with posters who make personal attacks on me. When it comes to “having a certain difficulty” with people one disagrees with, your comment applies far more to other posters.

    • Pretz: Are you arguing that the fact that the poll was conducted by Bill Clinton’s pollster – who did the assignment for the Israel Project – undermines the credibility of the poll? If you want to attack the methodology he used, fine. But, Greenberg is an experience and respected pollster, and i think the results of this particular survey are consistent with others we’ve posted by other pollsters – such as the one I often cite by Pew Global.

  2. Pretzel

    It’s not CIF’s job to highlight levels of palestinian disapproval with Hamas or Iran. They are evidently not disatisfied enough to do much about it. Do you know, for example, what percent disapprove of Hamas because they think Hamas is too soft on Israel? Or how many disapprove of Hamas and Iran rather less than they “disapprove” of Israelis and Jews in general?

    I read some of your posts on CIF and get the impression that you are not a closed-minded bigot. But your comments are tiresome and your ego is intrusive. Can you really not find a blog that’s less of a mis-match with your ‘PC-nanny’ agenda?

    • Correction…..

      It’s not CIFWatch’s job to highlight levels of palestinian disapproval with Hamas or Iran. They are evidently not disatisfied enough to do much about it. Do you know, for example, what percent disapprove of Hamas because they think Hamas is too soft on Israel? Or how many disapprove of Hamas and Iran rather less than they “disapprove” of Israelis and Jews in general?

      I read some of your posts on CIF and get the impression that you are not a closed-minded bigot. But your ego is intrusive and your knee-jerk comments are shallow and tiresome. Can you really not find a blog that’s less of a mis-match with your ‘PC-nanny’ agenda?

      • But your ego is intrusive and your knee-jerk comments are shallow and tiresome.

        A lot of posts on these threads are “knee-jerk comments”. Why not take issue with other posters? In particular the bigoted likes of Hoi Polloi?

  3. The Guardian,it’s writers,and most of it’s Leftist posters,couldn’t give rat’s ass and couldn’t care less if 100% of palestinians wanted to wipe out and eliminate Israel and it’s citizens,in fact some of them would welcome it.This is the Guardian that we are talking about……