How the Guardian downplays terrorist attack on innocent Israelis

The Guardian’s first story about the multiple Palestinian terrorist attacks near Eilat contained a headline and subheading which clearly tried to downplay the attack – suggesting that the attack was on Israeli soldiers and not civilians.

In fact, the vehicle attacked was a regular Egged 392 bus line between Beersheva and Eilat, and was likely carrying off-duty soldiers as well as civilians on their way to spend some time in the resort town.

While the main story did contain a photo of the bus targeted in the attack, the Guardian’s Israel page used this photo to illustrate the same story.

Now compare this selection with a typical Guardian report on Israeli retaliatory strikes on Palestinian terrorists in Gaza. Here’s one from March, reporting on such an IDF strike following a month which saw a large increase of rocket attacks from Gaza.

So, Guardian editors decided to illustrate a terrorist attack by Palestinian terrorists against Israeli civilians with a seemingly random photo of an IDF soldier on patrol, while Israel’s retaliatory strike against Hamas terrorists is illustrated by a photo of unidentified grieving Palestinian victims.

Also, one of the deadly attacks today involved a rocket fired directly at a civilian vehicle, so any implication that the terrorists behind today’s coordinated assault on Israel were merely targeting combatants is patently false.

Categories: Guardian

Tagged as: , , ,

22 replies »

  1. Not just the Guardian, alas. The BBC website’s News home page lists this story just above Manchester United’s planned share issue as a one line item

    • Once again the photo added for a story about Israelis killed is that of an IDF soldier doing “evil” IDF work.
      Google the guardian for Israeli killed and you will only find these type of photos.
      Never a photo of a crying mother or a child holding a photo of her son like you would see when a Palestinian dies even if he is a terrorist like.

  2. Arab gunmen try to kill Israeli civilians so the G chooses a pricture of an Israeli soldier holding a gun.

    A perfect “Illustration” of the constant G’s not-so-subtle anti-Israeli Jew obession.

  3. Breaking News – Ynet

    Southern Command chief: 6 civilians, 1 soldier killed in attacks

    Published: 08.18.11, 19:01 / Israel News

    “Southern Command chief Major-General Tal Russo told reporters that seven Israelis were killed in the terror attacks near Eilat. One of the victims was a soldier.

    Russo added that the deadly incidents took place near an Egyptian army post, and evidently the Egyptian forces killed two terrorists on their side of the border. (Roi Mandel).”,7340,L-4110845,00.html

    • “Grubby” implies the Guardian just has bad taste. But bad taste is the least of the Graun’s problems.

      No, the problem with the Graun is, at least as far as the Jewish–Arab conflict is concerned, it primes the reader to view all actions against Israeli Jews on part of the Arabs as deserved, and all retaliation on part of the Israeli Jews as injustice. Couple this with its recent spate of articles advocating the end of Jewish political self-determination (all those One-State [Final] Solution pieces as of late), it is not a stretch to say the Graun is an accessory to Arab imperialist hostilities against the Jewish State.

      And the Jewish State, therefore, has the legal authority to compel the Graun staff to cease and desist with their anti-Zionist propaganda.

  4. And so does the BBC.

    It told us in full about the IDF strike on Gaza during which 5 Palestinians died, and added, very much as an afterthought, that it was in retaliation for attacks by “militants” (note, not terrorists – Islamist are terrorists only when they attack Brits as they did on 7/7) near the Egyptian border.

    Why bother to point this up any more? It’s no longer unusual. The Groan and the Beeb share the same brain cell

  5. Just listening to PM, the important BBC Radio 4 news programme. As usual, in between the news segments a bulletin was broadcast. We were told that according to Palestinian sources 5 Palestinians had been killed by Israeli forces in Gaza. This followed attacks, the announcer told us, in Israel. No mention was made either of dead or wounded Israelis.

    During the Holocaust, the BBC, as a matter of deliberate policy, said viirtually nothing. And nothing appears to have changed in the interim. As far as the BBC goes, once an anti-Semitic organisation always an anti-Semitic organisation.


    The Holocaust: why Auntie stayed mum

    The BBC knew about the Nazi death camps two years before the first reports from Belsen, says Marion Milne


    1) ‘The Holocaust was the best-kept secret of the war. Then its horrors were revealed – apparently for the first time – by BBC war reporter Richard Dimbleby’s now famous broadcast of 19 April 1945. So shocked was the BBC newsroom that it refused to transmit the recording until, on threat of resignation, Dimbleby persuaded them it was one of the most important news stories of the century.

    What was not admitted at the time was that the Dimbleby dispatch from Belsen was by no means the earliest news the BBC had received of the destruction of the European Jews.

    New material, from a five-page directive in the Public Record Office, reveals that by 1943 the BBC had evidence which conclusively proved Hitler’s plan for the “total extermination of European Jewry”. Entitled “Special annexe on Extermination of the Jews: Evidence of Nazi policy and practice”, it was compiled by the Political Warfare Executive (PWE), the government body that guided the BBC’s overseas broadcasting.

    Surprisingly, the document says nothing about making public its harrowing contents. Indeed, government policy was the reverse. “Jewish sources are always doubtful,” says one handwritten note in the margin of a Foreign Office memorandum on conditions in Poland. Another Foreign Office circular suggests: “The Jews tend to exaggerate German atrocities.”

    Other confidential internal memorandums show an unwillingness by the BBC to broadcast on behalf of the Jews. “Any direct action to counter anti-Semitism would do more harm than good,” wrote Sir Richard Maconachie, controller of the home service, on 15 April 1943. May E Jenkin, Children’s Hour assistant director, stated: “If you give Jewish broadcasters an inch, they come clamouring for a mile.” Despite the evidence from the PWE, the BBC foreign and home news boards concluded: “It seems desirable to soft- pedal the whole thing”.’

    2) ‘Conclusive proof that the BBC avoided publicising the Holocaust until the war was virtually over comes from Paul Winterton, a wartime News Chronicle Moscow correspondent and BBC contributor. Eight months before Dimbleby walked into Belsen, he accompanied the Red Army into Majdanek, the first Nazi death camp to be liberated. His account survives in the BBC sound archive. Winterton speaks of “the most horrible story I will ever have to tell you” and describes in brutal detail this appalling extermination camp.

    Winterton, now in his eighties, recalls the BBC’s reaction to his broadcast. “I was given a kind of reprimand. They told me they didn’t want this atrocity stuff. They seemed to think it was Russian propaganda.”

    Eventually, Winterton’s dispatch went out in August 1944, but it was heavily edited and broadcast only on the overseas service.’

    See also this from 2003:

    Why the BBC ignored the Holocaust: Anti-Semitism in the top ranks of broadcasting and Foreign Office staff led to the news being suppressed, says Stephen Ward


    “ANTI-SEMITISM in the higher ranks of the Foreign Office and the BBC during the Second World War led to a policy which suppressed news about Germany’s attempt to exterminate European Jews, new research will show this week.

    The attitude was reinforced by a belief that the British population was anti-Semitic and that anti-German propaganda about atrocities in the First World War, which was often fiction, had made the public sceptical of such stories. Early in the war the Government and the BBC agreed that this time, British propaganda would contrast Nazi ‘lies’ with British truthfulness and a ‘good clean fight’.

    The evidence is contained in documents from the BBC archives and Government papers at the Public Record Office, which have been uncovered during research for a new Radio 4 series, Document. The first programme will tell of the relationship between the Foreign Office and the BBC between 1939 and 1945.

    The papers, together with interviews with some of the surviving figures, show that both Foreign Office and BBC officials held a low opinion of Jews, and believed this was shared by the public.

    They deduced that saving millions of Jews would not be seen as a desirable war aim by the British. At other times they justified suppression of details of the atrocities by arguing that they would not be believed.”

  6. The Guardian’s reporting of this atrocity seems to be following the same editorial guidelines as its reporting of Itamar.

    Downplay the deaths of Israeli civilians, and bury as far as possible the killing of Israeli children.

    The Guardian is truly a cancerous newspaper, and Rusbridger is a purveyor of the new anti-semitism. Jews who work for the Guardian Media Group should publicly denounce him and resign.

  7. I was infuriated when I read the BBC account of the attacks. The ONLY picture was of a bus seat with some broken glass – no blood, no bodies and no crying mothers. However, there was a great deal of mention of dead Arabs including a child.

    It was not until I read a Jewish source that I discovered that four of the murdered Israelis were from one family and included two slaughtered little ones.

    Apparently dead Jewish children don’t count.

  8. Let’s begin at the beginning. Israelis invaded Palestine, most of them were from Eastern Europe with no rights nor familial connection to the land. These people and their spawn continue encroaching into what little is left of Palestine, and those who resist are attacked, murdered and imprisoned. This illegal and ongoing thef of land and imprisonment of innocent people generates a bit of animosity. So those who live on these stolen lands are bound to be attacked.
    As for casualties, check this out:

    You’ll find a lot more you likely didn’t know if you spend some time on this site, and when you get tired of wandering there, go here:

  9. Lets talk about Israel’s atrocities. Why is it that if a resident defender of Gaza, an Israeli-guarded, walled concentration camp of 1.5 million deprived people, fires a homemade rocket (Many of these weapons are without warheads, and all of them are unguided and terribly inaccurate – only about 30 Israelis have been killed by rockets since Sep 2000) into Israel, he is regarded as a cowardly terrorist? This is the only weapon he has. Israeli pilots regularly fire rockets and drop huge bombs on Gaza’s neighborhoods, Israeli tank and artillery crews regularly fire cannon barrages into Palestinian houses, and Israeli warships often fore machine gun bursts into Gaza fishing boats, but these Israelis are always seen as heroes? Are they not terrorists also? They kill 100 times more civilians than do the Palestinian defenders whose lands are being illegally occupied and stolen.

  10. David Evans,

    1941 The Grand Mufti meets Hitler

    Google Images “arab nazi salute”

    More Germans than Brits died in WW2. Does that make the Brits the aggressors in WW2?

    Here is your furher, the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran calling for genocide for Israel.

    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “Death to Israel”

    Now is a link to the IDF – Israel Defense Forces.

    Sadly for you, the Israelis are NOT the unarmed Jews of WW2 national Socialist filth infested Europe.

    Happy Nakba Dave!

  11. Dave Evans, THIS is for you.

    WW2 Victory in Europe Day: Beaten Nazis Sign Historic Surrender (1945)