Guardian headline and report on Lebanese terrorist rocket fire into Israel blurs causation

Given the total lack of any mention of it on the ‘Comment is Free’ Israel page, one can only assume that the CiF editors find nothing newsworthy about the launching from Lebanon of several Katyusha rockets at sleeping Israeli civilians late on Monday night.

Things were not much better in the Guardian World News Middle East section, where the incident received all of 57 words and 49 seconds-worth of attention in a video showing Israeli fire-fighters extinguishing the blaze caused as one of the rockets hit a gas tank and another a chicken farm. (Surely the famous chicken rights defender Harriet Sherwood should have been interested in that?).

As ‘Honest Reporting rightly pointed out, the Guardian even managed to bungle the headline.

The moral equivalence implied in the headline is developed further below:

“The Israeli military say they responded after a volley of rockets were fired across the border from Lebanon, raising fresh tensions in the volatile region”

Hmm; so according to the Guardian, a sovereign state’s targeted response to missile attacks on its civilians by terrorist groups raises ‘fresh tensions’ in precisely the same way as the rocket fire itself?

Of course we are more than used to this type of shoddy reporting every time similar incidents occur in the southern communities near Israel’s border with the Gaza Strip. Consistently keen to muddy the waters of cause and effect, Guardian editors are very fond of suggesting some kind of equivalence between the actions of the IDF and the war crime of deliberately firing rockets and mortars at civilian population centres.

But what is also interesting is that the Guardian has not seen fit to provide its readers with any background whatsoever regarding the perpetrators of Monday night’s rocket fire, the possible reasons for it, or the implications of the fact that it is highly unlikely that such an attack could have taken place without the knowledge of Hizballah.

Similarly, the Guardian chooses to disregard the fact that according to the very patchily implemented UNSC resolution 1701, there should be no militias and no weapons which do not belong to the LAF south of the Litani River.

The 2006 Lebanon war could have been prevented if the international community – as represented by UNIFIL in southern Lebanon – had taken serious steps towards enforcing its own UNSC resolution 1559 which called for “the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias”.

The next war is being made a certainty by the same abject failure to implement UNSC resolution 1701 as demonstrated by the events of Monday night.  But that, of course, will come as a total surprise out of the blue to Guardian readers schooled only in lessons of ‘moral equivalence’.

13 replies »

    • The same group – the Abdallah Azzam Brigade – was responsible for a similar incident in September 2009.

      Think outsourcing, as happens in Gaza, so that the ruling terror party – be it Hamas or Hizballah – can claim to Western ears that it has no involvement.

      As in Gaza, these things don’t happen without a nod and a wink from those who control the area and in southern Lebanon, the worms don’t move without an OK from Hizballah.

    • Apart from anything else, it demonstrates UNIFIL’s impotence and incompetence, if not bias, and why the idea of a UN force on the WB to guarantee any peace agreement is futile.

    • Not sure Irit it seems it was an al qaeda fringe… but it is certain it has hizb’s blessings…

  1. “The next war is being made a certainty by the same abject failure to implement UNSC resolution 1701 as demonstrated by the events of Monday night. But that, of course, will come as a total surprise out of the blue to Guardian readers schooled only in lessons of ‘moral equivalence’.”

    No it won’t. It will be another predictable Israeli aggression.
    Green helmet guy included.

    PS I hope they kill him this time. Seriously he’s got to go…

  2. GIven that you seem unable to understand the difference between ‘comment’ and ‘news’, your qualifications to discuss the media seem to me to be rather lacking.

  3. The Guardian mentions Israel – you don’t like it
    The Guardian doesn’t mention Israel – you don’t like
    Just don’t buy the paper or read it online.

    • You don’t get it, do you (or you wilfully misunderstand)?

      I don’t like the Guardian not mentioning Israel HONESTLY AND TRUTHFULLY and honestly and truthfully addressing the context in which violence against her takes place. If The Independent can get it right, why does the Guardian seem to want deliberately to get it wrong?

      Yesterday I found a short paragraph in The Independent which said that rockets fired from Lebanon hit northern Israel the day before in the first such incident since 2009, prompting the Israeli army to return fire.

      I’d bet that didn’t hurt a bit.

      Why then does the Guardian find telling the truth and putting such incidents in context so difficult? Perhaps one clue lies in the fact that The Independent, except in circumstances when Fisk and Hari are given what passes for their head, doesn’t have its own bent and twisted and divorced from reality world view.

    • What I don’t like the Guardian carrying water for the Jewish State’s Arab imperialist enemies.

      “Just don’t buy the paper or read it online.”

      It’s not about me, smarty, it’s about the lots of people who do buy the paper or read it online and believe its allegations against the Jewish State to be the absolute truth.

  4. Is Guardian run by Muslim money? Or the Guardian is afraid that with so many Muslim terrorists organizations in UK legally allowed to to be in UK by coward government, that they are afraid to print anything good about Israel they will be bombed?? Islamic terror in UK is well organised, feel sorry for the British people.

  5. @mirawayne, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Guardian was being “helped” by zakat to put its feet in its mouth regularly, but if that is the case it’s hiding their tracks very well and we can’t prove it. Having said that it does employ the Al Babler Arabophile, Brian Whitaker to “write” for it, as well as adopting a “come one come all” attitude to whatever disreputable Islamist nutjob may want to froth on its pages.

    More likely is that it’s fallen in love with the idea of the Palestinians terrorists as “noble savages” (and said savages know this and manipulate for all they are worth). One wonders what would happen if the Palestinians collectively fell on their heads one day, saw sense, and wanted peaceful coexistence with their neighbour.

    That’s unlikely, though, since they can’t even coexist peacefully with one another.