Guardian scrubs reference to ‘Jewish political establishment’ with no explanation

This essay was written by Raheem Kassam & Harry Cole for The Commentator

[Note: CiF Watch recently published posts pertaining to Hugh Muir, the Guardian writer who’s the subject of the following Commentator essay, following Muir’s smear of Jewish Chronicle editor Stephen Pollard. (See here and here) – A.L.]

The original text in print. Something that editor’s can’t delete

It seems that ever-wrong British newspaper The Guardian has made yet another blunder in what can only be described as a serious and continued internal confusion over ‘the Jews’. The Guardianself-admittedly has form with ingrained anti-Semitism within the rank and file.

Following the Labour mayoral candidate Ken Livingstone’s loss to Boris Johnson last night, the print edition of The Guardian asserted that it was Ken’s own baggage that brought him down. We couldn’t agree more, but on a scan through the article and as highlighted by various people on Twitter this morning, we found this:

“How much damage did he [Ken] inflict by failing to make peace with the Jewish political establishment…”

This could be interpreted quite innocuously at first, or conversely, be read into as The Guardian tarring the entire British political establishment as Jewish run. But putting the quote in context regarding Ken’s Nazi insult to Jewish reporter Oliver Finegold and the ’embrace of Muslim cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi’ we see further into what The Guardianis getting at.

This appears to be a case of foot-in-mouth disease once again, painting an image of a London Jewry led by a cabal of high-power, high-profile men and women pulling the strings over every Jew in London, and quite possibly non-Jews like us as well. “Vote as we say!” The Guardian might imagine, “Or you’ll lose our your invite to the annual London Jewish gathering where we all talk about Iran and read passages from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion!” The Guardian has adopted a tone in its writing about British Jewry that actually, unintentionally, lampoons their own approach to this small but diverse community.

Perhaps we jest too much though and this was a perfectly okay thing to say. Why then, did The Guardian choose to scrub the text ‘Jewish political establishment’ from the article on its website, without a hint of an admission, and replace it with the term ‘Jewish communal leadership’? Perhaps an editor at The Guardian took one look at the sentence, spat out his bagel and demanded a retraction? But there’s no such retraction on the website itself, and trying to erase from existence what found its way into the print edition is a faux pas more befitting Johann Hari than Alan Rusbridger. Or is it?

Read rest of the essay here.

12 replies »

  1. The Guardian, self-admittedly has form with ingrained anti-Semitism within the rank and file.

    Sigh … it has admitted no such thing. And there is indeed no such “ingrained anti-Semitism within the rank and file”.

    The above comment only serves to discredit CiFWatch.

  2. the print edition of The Guardian asserted that it was Ken’s own baggage that brought him down. We couldn’t agree more

    On what grounds?

    This could be interpreted quite innocuously at first, or conversely, be read into as The Guardian tarring the entire British political establishment as Jewish run.

    But you are clearly assuming the latter – which is complete bollocks.

  3. Also, why in the same article by Muir does he state that Livingston met “secretly” with Jews during a meeting opening reported in the Jewish Chronicle?

    There’s only 2 explanations; that Muir is trying to imply a Jewish conspiracy or that Red Ken tried to hide the meeting from his islamofacist/extreme leftist supporters.

    • You’re reading far too much into a single word.
      Muir makes clear what the “baggage” in the headline refers to: a range of issues – including his dodgy remarks about Israel/”Zionists” AND homosexuals etc.

      This article (and you) is accusing Muir of claiming some Jewish conspiracy when he he is doing no such thing.

      • You’re wrong and the fact the haterag (paper) chose to change the wording means they knew what they were implying. This website and many others have literally dozens of cases of Judeophobia at this paper.

        • Check out the homepage. No mention of Jews.

          Some “haterag”!!!

          I really do pity you.

          • You can’t disprove me so you have to insult. Typical of lesser intellects

            • A poster who makes the bizarre and baseless suggestion that Muir is trying to imply a Jewish conspiracy talks about “lesser intellects”? Hilarious!

              You can’t disprove me

              Eh? It’s up to you to prove that the G. is a haterag. As I mentioned above: a glance at the homepage settles that question right away.

          • Not as much as I pity you, old fellah.

            Do calm down. I know you can argue coherently and cogently, whether I agree with what you say or not, but this is certainly not cogent argument is it?

  4. I was amused that Muir thought the community was offended by the Israeli government “being described as Zionists”.

  5. “Why then, did The Guardian choose to scrub the text ’Jewish political establishment’ from the article on its website, without a hint of an admission,..”

    I amazed that you need to ask (yes, I know it’s a rhetorical question)

    The Groan is an authoritarian establishment in the truest sense (as illustrated by the lamentable standards of CiF) and, being so, it dare not admit to itself, let alone to its readership that it may possibly be wrong about anything. Authoritarian organisations invariably have a great deal invested in appearing to be invincible by always being “right.” They are rigid and circumscribe as much as possible the thinking and behaviour of their members. Any departure from the party line is attacked strongly.

    The belief system of such an organisation being rigid, clearly defined, invested in being right about everything and phobic about being found out to be wrong about anything, cannot brook disagreement with its world view because that forces it outside the thought prison it has created for itself and makes it deeply uncomfortable. It overreacts to such criticism from the outside and punishes critics of it who are inside. Even where that criticism is well-founded, provable and soundly based in reality, the organisation will tell itself another story which chimes with its rigidity and prevents it from being uncomfortable, however ridiculous the results of that.

    The moral development stage of such an organisation is necessarily primitive and immature, which means that it perceives wrong only in terms of the results of wrongdoing for it – “it’s only wrong if they catch you at it” – but it holds that in common with politicians and others of all stripes, shady journalists, etc.

    Another facet of the authoritarian personality/organisation is its aversion to change, but once cracks appear in its facade (and being so rigid it cannot bend rather than break) it can crumble easily because it lacks intellectual and emotional flexibility to take change in its stride.

    That being the case, we have to induce those cracks by flagging up every infringement by the Guardian against honesty and truth and hope that it will crumble as a result.