Guardian

Guardian’s Simon Tisdall, genocidal Arab dictator whisperer, takes aim at Israel’s Prime Minister


Simon Tisdall

The Guardian is well-known for providing space for proponents of radical Islam who advance politics which are decidedly racist and politically reactionary.

However, Simon Tisdall’s defense last year of Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir – charged with genocide for launching attacks on the black non-Arab population of Darfur which resulted in up to 400,000 dead (much like Noam Chomsky’s defense Mao and Pol Pot) – is an exquisite example of where the extreme left becomes indistinguishable from the extreme right.

The money quote from Tisdall (in his Dec. 27, 2010 essay) pertained to his complaint that al-Bashar has been “ostracised by western governments, [and] makes an easy target. America always needs bogeymen and Bashir fits the bill: big, bothersome, bad-tempered, black, Arab and Muslim.”

That final sentence should be placed in a museum of intellectual thought as a representation of the far left’s capacity to synthesize anti-Americanism, post-colonialism and a perverse understanding of anti-racism in order to defend the morally indefensible. 

Tisdall’s appalling defense of al-Bashar provides the moral context by which to judge his recent “analysis” of Israeli politics, in “Gilad Shalit swap has split opinion on Benjamin Netanyahu“, Oct. 18.

Of course, bashing the Israeli right is something of a sport at the Guardian, and Tisdall’s piece certainly doesn’t break any new ground.

Tisdall criticizes Bibi’s lack of strategic vision which, he observes, manifests itself in the Israeli Prime Minister’s failure to “use resulting momentum [of the Shalit deal] to bridge the impasse over the blockade of Gaza or kickstart stalled peace negotiations.”

I read over that passage a few times and still don’t quite understand what it means, or, specifically, how precisely Israel’s decision to set free 1027 terrorists in exchange for Gilad Shalit relates to a blockade of Gaza necessitated by Hamas’s little habit of importing deadly weapons from Iran to use against Israeli civilians.

Even more unclear is how Tisdall’s squares his complaint that Bibi has failed to use the Shalit swap to “kickstart stalled peace negotiations” with his subsequent complaint, in the following passage, that “the deal has further weakened the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas in relation to his more militant rivals.”

So, which one is it?

Is Bibi’s sin his failure to use the momentum of the Shalit deal to “kickstart the stalled peace negotiations” or, rather, his decision to sign off on the Shalit deal in the first place, which, Tisdall simultaneously argues, “further weakened the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas in relation to his more militant rivals.”

Either Bibi’s decision on the Shalit deal weakened Abbas and the peace process or his decision created new opportunities to “kickstart stalled peace negotiations” which he failed to capitalize on.  Logically, the two suppositions are inherently contradictory.  

As further proof of Bibi’s villainy, he quotes a former U.S. Defense Secretary complaining that  “Netanyahu is not only [an] ungrateful [ally], but [is] also endangering his country by refusing to grapple with Israel’s growing isolation and with the demographic challenges it faces if it keeps control of the West Bank.”

Tisdall, like so many other experts in the West obsessively critical of Israel, frames his hyper-criticism as a form of paternalistic tough love – saving Israelis from their own worse destructive impulses.  Jews, crippled as they are by irrational fears and a lack of strategic thinking, are unable to see clearly what is painfully obvious in the salons of New York and London.  

The failure of Israel to overcome the animosity of Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran is merely owed to an appalling lack of Jewish sechel.

If only Israeli Jews will relent in their stubborn refusal to accept the collective wisdom of the intellectuals, poets, artists and journalist sages of our day, peace would be just around the corner.

Tisdall opened his surreal defense of Sudan’s genocidal madman, in 2010, by complaining:

“Bashing Omar al-Bashir is a popular pastime in progressive circles” 

And, bashing and demonizing Israeli leaders has become something approaching a secular religion among Guardian left circles. 

9 replies »

  1. An idiotic and incomprehensible article,it’s main motive was to smear Bibi,if this Simon Tissdall is the best that the Guardian has to offer,then no wonder they are in big trouble……..

  2. He mentions Bibi’s lack of strategic vision,what the Eff is strategic vision…..
    Then he claims that Bibi’s favorite pastime is playing it both ways,as compared to British politicians who play it every each way……..

    If the Arabs are two faced,the Brits have ten faces…….

  3. Tisdall turns Israel into a puppet master, responsible not only for the actions, and the possible failure in the UN of Abbas, but also for Turkey sending the Mavi Marmara stocked with mercenary jihadis instead of humanitarian aid. It will of course be Netanyahu’s fault if the Iran threat starts to become actual. Bibi’s existence is what enrages them.

    No sin is too small to be laid at the feet of an Israeli PM and nobody I feel is angelic enough to be an Israeli PM and spared the wrath of the crusading journalists who don’t report news any more but preach their vision of the future instead.

  4. This guy Tisdall takes what has become a very tattered reputation for truth and fairness at the Guardian and manages to move it to an even lower level of distortion, dishonesty, and the then inevitable horribly wrong facts in his report , widely ridiculed when it came out for its 1-sided mendacity.

    For Tisdale to obsessively continue bashing democratic little Israel and blame them for the the current impasse in the Mideast is about as honest as saying the U.S. started WWII by attacking Japan after Pearl Harbor.

    Tisdale is apparently so thoroughly indoctrinated in the politically correct lying that is de rigeur @ The Guardian these days that that his “coverage” winds up sounding just incredibly stupid. How is it possible to discuss obstacles to peace in the Mideast without once describing what every honest and knowledgeable reporter acknowledges is the main security threat there and indeed worldwide–lslamofascist terrorism and aggression, usually directed at courageous little Israel, the region’s only respecter of human rights, but sometimes seeking other targets e.g. London, Spain, the U.S., etc.) upon whom to visit their venomous murderous terrorism.

    How this jerk Tisdall (and his fellow Guardian bigots) could totally ignore this obvious “elephant in the room” regarding Mideast conflict can only mean he is 1. Impossibly ill-informed about all the Islamofascist violence continually planned and sometimes carried out against Israel, implying ridiculous detachment from the “facts on the ground”
    2. A hateful racist full of anti-Israel and antiSemitic animus, explaining the total lack of truth and candor in his reports or
    3. A poster child for how morally bankrupt and divorced from reality the narrative from the far Left, always given voice by the failed rag Guardian, has become and why the readership of this once-respected publication has dropped below sea (?toilet) level.

  5. Another gem from Tisdall’s article:
    “The gloomy expectation of most Israelis and Palestinians that today’s prisoner exchange will not enhance the prospects for an Israeli-Palestinian peace illustrate this conceptual disconnect. On the face of it, such pessimism seems strange”.

    Er…could someone please explain what kind of expectations should one have when releasing one thousand criminals out on the streets? “Gloomy” seems overly optimistic to me in this particular case. I’m conceptually disconnected because I don’t think that so many criminals whose raison d’etre is to kill israelis will ever enhance the prospects for peace. I’d like to know how Tisdall defines “peace”.

    Here we have again the moral equivalence between criminals and an innocent young man promoted by so many journalists and human rights organizations.

  6. On that Tisdall thread the pro-Israeli posters stood their ground and gave as good as they got and more.

    The other side had posts that were below dumb,the white head postie was as his usual floundering self.

  7. Note also the space given at comment is free to the traitor and extremist Daud Abdullah where he smears Bob Lambert by association.

    The Guardian is a cesspit of Jew haters.