General Antisemitism

The Guardian revises story about UK Riots which singled out Hasidic Jews

The Guardian, all but assuredly as the result of the negative publicity generated by our post from yesterday calling them out on Paul Lewis’s curious reference to “Hasidic Jews” in his story about the UK Riots, just changed the text in the offending report.

Here’s a screen capture of the original text from Lewis’s orignal Aug. 7th report:

Now, here’s the current version of the post:

So, while we’ll likely not see an official apology from the Guardian for singling out Jews in a series of reports which clearly took pains to not mention the race, religion, ethnicity, or national background of those participating in the riots, their revision still represents an acknowledgement that our initial complaint was meritorious. 

In addition to calling out those, at the Guardian and their blog, Comment is Free, who engage in anti-Semitism and assault the legitimacy of Israel, this blog also takes quite seriously what seems to be their institutional obsession with Jews and Israel.

As such, we may have won this particular battle but the cognitive war still rages.

36 replies »

  1. Good job on calling these racist phonies @ Guardian out for the antiSemites they really are.

    My only quibble is with your characterization of the conflict with them and their bigotry against Israel and Jews as a “cognitive war”. Their criticisms of Israel are so 1-sided, unbalanced, and often so dishonest and devoid of truth that I don’t really think that this “war” is a cognitive 1 at all, since the facts about the Middle East are at such variance with The Guardian’s lying reports about the region and easily demonstrated to be so.

    No these Guardian people are simply and sadly purveyors and promulgators of the world’s oldest prejudice.antiSemitism and need to be called out for their bigotry. If it really were a “cognitive” war, it would be much easier to point out how factually fallacious their attempts @ smearing Israel are.

  2. What have you really achieved.? Nothing. So now the guardian spells out what was implied previously namely that members of the general community i.e black White and Asian were jeering the police and including rather incongruously hassidic community members. no doubt the guardian wished to show the widespread discontent with the police illustrated by the highly unusual inclusion of the Hassids in the events. You cannot simply extrapolate mention of Hassids out of context and equate that with anti-semitism I believe your article betrays your obsession with the guardian rather than that newspaper’s obsession with Jews .

    • Stephen,
      I have to respectfully disagree with your post, on both a micro and marco level. For the former point, of course it matters that the author originally wanted to make sure that anyone reading his article would come away with the message “no one was insulting the police during the worst riots London has seen in decades except for Jews”; there’s no other rationale for lying his ass off (and yes, that’s what he did, because he had to tell the truth in order to erase that 1st implication). And on the latter point, the Guardian’s ratio of treating Jews fairly to demonizing/one-sided portraying/outright lying where they believe they can get away with it crushingly falls on the d/osp/ol side of the scale. The volume record of how CIF in particular discusses any story that involves Jews is enormous, and what you call an “obsession” seems much more like a record and analysis of longstanding and (usually) unapologetically biased behavior. I’d love to believe that the writer here specifically mentioned Hasidim to illustrate police discontent. But from this paper? I don’t believe that at all.

      • the author originally wanted to make sure that anyone reading his article would come away with the message “no one was insulting the police during the worst riots London has seen in decades except for Jews”;

        That’s just crazy. You honestly believe that?

        The volume record of how CIF in particular discusses any story that involves Jews is enormous

        Another day, another Guardian homepage with no mention of Jews. Some conspiracy. Yes, CiF has an excessive amount of I/P articles – but “any story that involves Jews”? Nonsense.

    • Even if we entertain the amusing thought that the Guardian was sincerely trying to highlight the extent of the community’s reaction, that doesn’t change the fact that the pre-revised version singled out Jews and given the Guardian’s track record and the fact that they have now revised the story, it’s evident that they were in the wrong.

      Plus, if this is what the Guardian was trying to spell out anyway, why didn’t they just type something similar to the revised version in the first place? Why, out of almost two thousand words, did they not mention any other ethnicity other than Jews, until pressured by many people? Go figure.

      • Yes. From my point of view, if I had seen the reference to Hasidim Jews in another rational UK publication, I would not have been offended by it.

        However, with the Guardian’s track record of disparaging Jews and Israel, it stood out like a sore thumb.

    • “I believe your article betrays your obsession with the guardian”

      Yup, the Jews have had such odd obsessions with all kinds of people: Crusaders, inquisitors, pogromists, Nazis. And now we’ve started in on the poor old Guardian. The question is how can good people like yourself set about helping these innocent victims of the Jews. Give it some thought. I’m sure you’ll come up with something.

    • “August 9, 2011 at 5:29 pm


      The Guardian was caught in flagrante delicto singling out Jews for no reason whatsoever other than to shift blame away from the real culprits.

      Back in the 19th century this tactic was called scapegoating, methinks.

      Jews…scapegoating… anyone can put two and two together.

      After this fiasco, no one in his right frame of mind may deny with a straight face that the Guardian’s antisemitism is not real. Mens rea has been dully substantiated, too.

      As for your inopportune words, you shouldn’t be defending the indefensible.

  3. This is remarkable. It is the only case I can recall in which the Guardian has essentially apologized or retracted one of its anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli positions.

  4. Maybe it would have been better to have allowed the comment to stand , only slip in that they were Neturei karta – ok they were not but to the guardian it’s all just Jews anyway – That way something good would have come out of it !

  5. Actually reading the article again , I would be very surprised if the Hassids were actually jeering at the police . What evidence does the Guardian have for this . Is there a link ? If not , then this is an equally serious complaint .

    • “What evidence”

      Evidence?!?!? For god’s sake, do blood libels require evidence? Do charges against the Jewish state or Israelis require evidence? No, well, you should think before writing such garbage.

  6. Well done CIfWatch.

    But here’s what the Jew-obsessed Guardian should have written:

    The make-up of rioters was racially mixed, but did not include any members of Tottenham’s Hasidic Jewish community.

  7. Interesting. How I read it The Hassidic Jews are separated from the whites, asians and blacks and that they came from any of the racial types. Me thinks, very little changed. If the Guardian is raising religious divides by singling out (Hassidic) Jews, what about Christian, Muslim, Sikhs, Hindus etc? Or better still, to say “some local residents” and leave it at that. Mmm?

  8. “some apparently as young as 10”
    I wonder how many minors were arrested during these riots.
    The Guardian always show great concern when Palestinian minors are being arrested for throwing rocks.

  9. I saw the film. The Ultra-orthodox Jews were handing out food. Why did the Guardian say they were jeering? Sounds like an anti-Semitic beat up to me!!!!

  10. Actually, I don’t think that the revision goes far enough; in fact it makes it worse. No religious affiliations of blacks, Asians or white local residents doing the jeering are declared but that of the Hasidic Jews! Surely, if the blacks, Asians or white folk are not identified as Christians, muslims or Sikhs (or whatever), the correct revision should not mention the words “Hasidic Jews” at all – unless the intention of the author was to single out Jews, that is – which I think it was.

    • @ Rural

      Very close to my point. I agree. Once you bring religion into it by mentioning Jews, one needs to mention other religions. Why single out Jews? And as others have pointed out, were these Jews jeering or were they there as bystanders to events . This is not really a “victory” at all.

  11. All that mayhem in London and elsewhere show once again that multiculturalism and social engineering don’t really work out in the long run. And that makes the Guardian, England’s premier conduit of various third world agendas, the biggest loser overall.

    Folks across the pond will pick up the Guardian on newsstands even less from now on, opting for more pro-British publications like the Daily Telegraph for example.

    Less money for Rusbridger and his staff to spew antisemitic agitprop is always a good thing.

  12. Hoi polloi
    You misunderstood my comment
    I took issue with the guardian assertion that the hassids were jeering . I was merely stating the obvious that a link needed to be supplied to support this obviously fallacious assertion . I have seen or heard no such link and can only assume that it is the Guardian once again getting ahead of itself in its sordid mission to demonise israel and Jews in general

  13. Why haven’t the worldwide press commented on the very civilised manner in which Israel has gone about its economic/social protests, compared to the protests in other countries, such as Iran, Syria, Greece, and the UK?