Has the Guardian reached the tipping point in its crusade against Israel?

A guest post by AKUS

There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.

Julius Caesar Act 4, scene 3, 218–224

But tides go out, as well as come in. Is it possible that the Guardian leadership, desperately trying to save its livelihood at a once proud paper, is hoping that the tide of rising anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli activity in Europe will be the incoming tide that it can surf to the safe shore of large salaries, pensions, and early retirement?

Until recently, until, in fact, June 8th, 2012, it might have seemed that their ploy was working. Article after article has appeared obsessively attacking Israel over matters that are at worst no different than can be found in all Western countries – the struggle to deal with the refugee influx, the rise of the right wing in response to terrorism, the clash between ultra-religious and secular, just to name three recent examples whose analogues can be found in the USA or Europe. Even as the Middle East goes up in the flames of the “Arab Spring”, with deaths now clearly closing in on 100,000, thanks in large part to NATO’s intervention in Libya and the mass-murder continuing in Syria, the Guardian focuses on Gaza and blames Israel for what Hamas is doing there.

With the publication of a column which has rapidly become notorious, in which the head of Hamas, Ismail Haniyah, laid out his thoughts on how the Palestinians are reclaiming their destiny, the Guardian planted its masthead firmly in the camp of terrorism, misogyny, religious intolerance, jihad, Jew-slaughter, and all the other elements of the Hamas creed with which every person in the West has become familiar.

There is much to criticize and even mock in Haniyah’s puff piece, obviously ghost-written since his English is known to be deplorable, but without a doubt the portion that will be remembered, to the everlasting shame of the Guardian, is the paragraph so especially full of lies and evasions that reads:

“We as a people want to live in our homeland, the land of our ancestors, in freedom, dignity and democracy, and with a just peace that restores our rights. We do not want to attack anyone and do not accept anyone attacking us. As we have said on more than one occasion, the key to security is the end of occupation. As a people we have been historically wronged and subjected to dozens of massacres; tens of thousands of us have lost our children for no other reason than that we demand our rights as clearly stipulated under international laws.”

“Our homeland” and “our destiny” clearly mean the whole of Mandatory Palestine, except for Trans-Jordan, which the British gave up in 1923 to the Hashemites from Saudi Arabia. 

In other words, Israel must cease to exist. As rockets continue to be fired into Israel by Hamas’ proxies, if not its own identifiable members, the claim that “We do not want to attack anyone” cannot be read with a straight face. The desire to see “the end of occupation” when, in Gaza, there is no occupation is so transparent that it is incredible that someone can even write rubbish like this – unless one accepts Haniyah’s thesis, as the Guardian obviously does, that the very existence of Israel is “occupation” and saying it makes it so.

Finally, the exaggerated claim that tens of thousands have lost their children is not only verifiably absurd, flying in the face of recorded facts, but rings particularly cynical and hollow as we read about the current massacres in Syria where, indeed, tens of thousands have been killed by the two Assads making war on their own citizens, actually killing tens of thousands of citizens and children.

The article and the Gaza-live blog that accompanied it (“A day in the life of Gaza”) replete with ‘touching human interest’ stories, brought to the web by two of the Guardian’s weakest straws, Harriet Sherwood and Phoebe Greenwood, ignored the evil that is Hamas and provided a bizarre example of cognitive dissonance that must have jarred any reader capable of rational and critical thinking.

Clearly, this piece by Haniyah, so replete with falsehoods, misrepresentations and exaggerations, can only be considered an example of  a “Big Lie” so beloved by the Nazis – tell a lie big enough, and often enough, and eventually people will believe it.  But it is not enough to point out the resemblance to something Goebbels could have written – one must also consider where it is published, and who published it, and why they did so.

The response on the Web has been immediate and harsh. The finger is pointed directly at the Guardian, for no-one expects more of Haniyah or Hamas. The Times of Israel published a direct attack comparing the Guardian to “Der Sturmer” – Der Sturmer in the UK?  Pulling no punches, Simon Plosker wrote:

“What would Israel do if a journalist from Der Sturmer was filing reports from inside the country? Despite the fact that there is remarkable press freedom in Israel, extending to and including Arab media such as Al-Jazeera, it’s a safe bet that Israel would find it extremely hard to swallow.

Yet there is such a foreign media outlet represented in Israel, publishing propaganda and openly supporting Israel’s worst enemies. It’s called The Guardian. .. When it comes to The Guardian, however, the paper deserves to be treated as a modern-day Der Sturmer.”

Over on Harry’s Place, Joseph W.  came out with Hamas leader writes for the Guardian leaving no doubt about how he sees  Hamas –  “Hamas is an organisation dedicated to killing Jews” – and the Guardian’s role in publishing Haniyah’s article as part of the same anti-Semitic ethos.

Robin Shepherd’s blog, “The Commentator”, published Is the Guardian the most bigoted newspaper in Britain? and opened with:

“Which of these propositions do you think is correct; and can you identify a moral distinction between them?

The Guardian newspaper has just run an article by someone advocating that black people be returned to the status of slaves.

The Guardian newspaper has just run an article suggesting that landlords be allowed to put up notices saying that Irish people and dogs need not apply for housing.

The Guardian newspaper has just run an article by a political leader whose foundational charter advocates the murder of Jews and promotes conspiracy theories that would not have looked out-of-place in Nazi Germany.

No prizes for guessing that the third of those propositions is correct on a factual basis. The morality? It’s a race to the bottom.”

Here on CiFWatch we reposted Charlotte’s  Giving up the Guardian  from her blog “Digital Politco”. Her reason for giving up the Guardian?

“I might even have been able to stomach a proper interview with Haniyah published in the Guardian. He has been elected Prime Minister, despite his organisations vile beliefs.

Essentially though this is the equivalent of the paper giving a column to the leader of the KKK, and giving someone like Ismail Haniyah an unanswered column should be as totally unthinkable to the Guardian.

As it wasn’t, I cannot support or read this product.”

Clearly aware that they were publishing something that was so false, so rotten, so biased, and so supportive of a terrorist and anti-Semitic organization in their Live Blog, the Guardian took unusual action by prefacing the blog with an editor’s note – Gaza Live: editor’s note. The need for a note of explanation is an uneasy admission that something smells fishy about the live blog, and it is not only the odor of rotting fish in the Gaza fish market. The note itself contains a series of whoppers stating the Guardian’s position:

“The Guardian’s leader line is that the Gaza blockade is illegal in international law, that it constitutes collective punishment, and that it has not had its intended political outcome, which was to kill support for Hamas, drive a permanent wedge between it and Fatah and divide the Palestinians.”

How can any informed person read this farrago of lies and misrepresentations without concluding that the Guardian serves as apologists for Islamists like Hamas?

The Palmer Report to the UN made it clear that the Gaza blockade is NOT illegal (it has never, ever, been challenged in an international court of law because no lawyer believes he or she can make the case). 

Considering the luxurious lifestyle of so many in Gaza it is not surprising that visitors from Egypt have been amazed by the prosperity there, against which Egypt compares unfavorably.

The dearth of support for Hamas is due to Hamas’ actions, not Israel’s, as can be read in one of the blogs the Guardian provides in direct contradiction to its own line,

Iyad al-Tom says he blames the Gaza government for the continuing blockade, and the militants who fire rockets from nearby fields into Gaza for the Israeli military incursions. “Of course I’m angry. We never see the militants, but if we did we would throw stones at them.”

Finally, Israel had nothing to do with driving a wedge between Hamas and Fatah – they have managed to do that themselves.

All this aside, the readers of the Live Blog also had their say, and were overwhelmingly critical of the Guardian. Scan the comments below the line on Haniyah’s article and the Live Blog to read comments like the following from among just the first comments to appear:

Click image to read full comment at CiF

Click image to go to read complete comment at CiF

Click image to go to read complete comment at CiF

Click image to read complete comment at CiF

Comment is free; facts are sacred. Not in this paper they’re not.

Reading the ferocious responses in the blogosphere and the angry and pointed comments below the line on the Guardian website accusing it of anti-Semitism and Israel-hatred, it is clear that for many people the Guardian crossed a line with its support for Hamas and its one-sided Gaza blog.

The Guardian’s  actions even raise a question for those of us who strongly support freedom of expression – when does freedom of expression, as demonstrated by  an article published by the leader of a proscribed terrorist organization who calls for the death of Jews wherever they can be found, go beyond what is acceptable and become treason and a call to genocide? If the Guardian is recognized as the 21st century’s “Der Sturmer”, as Simon Plosker avers, at what point does the British government need to intervene?

Finally, one has to wonder why this incessant, obsessive, anti-Semitic and anti-Israel attack goes on and on.  It  is hard to believe that it is truly out of concern for the UNRWA supported, EU supported, Palestinians when far worse situations are notably under-reported by the Guardian.  Ever since Deep Throat said it to Woodward and Bernstein, either in life or in the movie about Watergate, I have been a believer in “Follow the Money”.

What is in it for the Guardian? Is someone funding this unending effort so reminiscent of Nixon’s paranoid attacks against those he believed to be his opponents? Is there a belief at the leadership level that the only way to retain their dwindling paying readership is to use the oldest distraction in the book – attacking the Jews?  Is the Guardian simply following the line of the assassin Brutus:

And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.

There is a tipping point in the affairs of men, when that tide does go out, dragging the would-be “venturers” so far out to sea that they disappear never to be seen again, like Nixon after Watergate. With its support for Hamas, the article by Haniyah, and the Gaza Live blog, the Guardian may finally be facing the tipping point that takes down the abominable attack dogs it has been cursed with as leaders for a decade or two.

96 replies »

  1. Is it possible that the Guardian leadership, desperately trying to save its livelihood at a once proud paper, is hoping that the tide of rising anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli activity in Europe will be the incoming tide that it can surf to the safe shore of large salaries, pensions, and early retirement?

    What a preposterous question/suggestion.

    Look at the Guardian homepage right now. No mention of Israel or Jews.

    What “salaries”??

    • It’s carefully tucked in their “Comment is free” sections.
      Besides, can you please elaborate to me, why was it necessary, in light of all the events currently afflicting our blighted globe, to set up a “Gaza Live Blog”? (As opposed to a Myanmar live-blog(where democracy/human-rights are still, horridly wanting), China, South American pivotal elections(Mexico, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc), even the Democratic flop in the US state of Wisconsin, for God’s sake, and YES, Syria too, for that matter).
      I am waiting for you spin this as completely journalistically justified.

      • The point is the accusation that the G. thrives on anti-Semitism.

        You’re making a laughing stock of yourself if you support that allegation.

        • No. The Guardian does thrive on anti Semitism Pretz.

          And it has done for a long time now. It has taken to hiding the obsessives about Israel in various parts under different headings but whereas it hardly misses an opportunity to condemn Israel for ‘this or that’, it seems to miss an awful lot of what is happening in territories under Palestinian/Arab/Muslim control. Honor killings, local newspaper people harassed and it tries to ignore the constant teaching efforts that the highest attainable death for a Palestinian Muslim is to be a suicide bomber and to kill as many Jews as possible.

          • The Guardian thrives on anti-Semitism? If that were so, there would be articles e.g. attacking British Jews on the homepage every day.
            But that’s simply not the case, is it?

            And it wouldn’t have a Jewish podcast either.

            • Not necessarily pretzelberg. This evidences your black and white, dichotomous thinking rather than a real grasp of what is going on at the Guardian, or of its agenda.

              And the fact that it has a Jewish podcast means not a thing. After all look at all the Theobald Jews it asks to line up and bash Israel.

        • If you can get down off your high horse long enough to re-read and understand the article, I have provided numerous examples of commentary by media people like Shepherd and Plosker and Guardian readers below the line who consider that the Guardian has clearly become not “merely” anti-Israeli, but anti-Semitic.

          You have apparently completely missed the point of this column.

          • What relevance do individuals have who make the ridiculous claim that the Guardian is anti-Setmitic?

            • OK sweet cheeks, what relevance do YOU have to claim that it is not, apart from the risible and ineffectual one above, that it has a Jewish podcast? As AKUS says, you have obviously missed the whole message of his very erudite article and it looks as though you are chasing smoke just to start an argument.

        • Pretzelberk

          I understand your name.

          You are twisting yourself in knots as you continue to deny the reality which is painfully obvious to everyone else.

          Rushbridger is either an Anti-semite himself or has some in his employ that he is powerless to control or dismiss.

          Having met him and spoken to him, I have a hunch which it is.

          • What “reality which is painfully obvious to everyone else”? That the Guardian is anti-Semitic? What a laughable statement.

            • Oh for goodness’ sake pretzelberg!

              It is painfully obvious to almost everyone here, and just because it isn’t to you doesn’t excuse the Guardian from promoting antisemitism!

              You are a literal thinker who doesn’t “get” nuance. Do what you do best and comb the Guardian and CiF for articles there which praise the Jewish contribution to life in the UK and elsewhere and Israel’s contribution to the world. Send the links here.

              And then send the links to and dates of every article which lies about Israel, singles her out for opprobrium when other states/countries behave worse than she does and don’t even get a mention, and by implication insults British Jews and Jews elsewhere.

              That should keep you out of trouble.


      • “Besides, can you please elaborate to me, why was it necessary, in light of all the events currently afflicting our blighted globe, to set up a “Gaza Live Blog”?”

        1,6 million people have been living under Israeli blockade for the past five years, severed from the rest of their territory (the West Bank, including east Jerusalem) and from the rest of the world. This is a one of a kind situation, which is logically making headlines all over the world, incluyding in… Israel.

        • It’s a bad and and possibly intractable situation.

          The idea that it is very special in the annals of bad and possibly intractable situations currently going on is hard to support with evidence.

          And yet, there do seem to be an alarming number of people who consider Gaza to be some sort of unique situation, worse than anything else war has inflicted on the world in our day.

          I kind of envy these folks. They clearly live in a world with fewer horrors than the one I’m stuck in.

          • Can you please give us an example of another situation in which an entire civilian population of 1.6 million people has been submitted to a blockade?

            • ‘Blockades’ involve the complete cut-off of a city/region/country from external trade and aid. That’s not happening in Gaza by any stretch of the imagination.

              • I repeat my question: Can you please give us an example of another situation in which an entire civilian population of 1.6 million people has been submitted to a blockade?

                • Nat are you being serious?
                  Have you not heard of the ‘Berlin Blockade’?

                  If not look it up.

                • You know as well as I, Nat, that Hamas and its delightful chums are not civilians. True, they embed themselves among civilians to launch rockets at Israel, but civilians help them to do so and they are busily training little civilians to kill Jews.

                  Why should any country be expected not only to countenance that, but make it easier for them to do so? That’d be frankly crazy. Why should Israel be crazy just to please misguided souls like you?

                  • I repeat my question a fourth time: can you please give us an example of another situation in which an entire civilian population of 1.6 million people has been submitted to a blockade for five years in a row?

                    No, you can’t?

                    That must be why the fifth anniversary of the beginning of the Gaza’s bliockade is making headlines all around the world.

                    • There is an open border between Gaza and Egypt so there is no blockade at all. I’m interested to know your ideas how Israel should prevent the productions and launching of Quassams, the infiltration of the suicide bombers and other terrorists? Distributing candies in Gaza or closing the Israeli border and blocking the free stream of weapons into the hands of Hamas?

                    • Just an other question for you Nat. Can you give us an example of another situation in which a country has been bombarded with rockets by its neighbors, the country has the option militarily eradicate the source but doesn’t do it due to humanitarian considerations?

                    • Nat no your statement above is wrong!
                      “I repeat my question a fourth time:”

                      Clearly you have a problem with numeracy as well as logic, intellectual rigour and honesty.
                      I have no problem debating or reading the posts of those I disagree with, but a severe problem with anyone who is dishonest and therefore a waste of time and space.

                    • “That must be why the fifth anniversary of the beginning of the Gaza’s bliockade is making headlines all around the world.”
                      You mean the legal blockade of arms shipments to Hamas?
                      How many times did you mention that it is a legal blockade of weapons?
                      I’ll repeat the question.
                      How many times did you mention that it is a legal blockade of weapons?
                      I’ll repeat the question.
                      How many times did you mention that it is a legal blockade of weapons?
                      I’ll repeat the question.
                      How many times did you mention that it is a legal blockade of weapons?
                      I’ll repeat the question…

                    • Jeff, the land blockade on Gaza is illegal. Only the naval blockade (by sea) is legal. This was made very clear in the Palmer report. Preventing Palestinians in Gaza from reaching the rest of the Palestinian territory (West Bank, east Jerusalem) by land is a violation if international law.

                      Today 50 of the world’s most prestigious humanitarian organizations stressed it again:

                    • Nat the opinion of the these distinguished organisations are as relevant as a fart of a papillon in a hurricane. I’m not a lawyer familiar with the last details of the international law, but if it doesn’t allow me to protect myself and my beloved ones then sadly I don’t give a whatever about it. The law is an abstraction (especially international law created by unelected politicians without the slightest connection to moral values) – human lives are very real.
                      What is more important for you?

        • Did the Live Blog include coverage of the incessant targeting of missiles at Israel?
          The recent altercation and infiltration attempt, that left a soldier dead?
          The reasons for why the so-called “blockade”, that is now virtually non-existant, was put in place in the first place?(the Hamas takeover of the Gaza strip?)
          Egypt’s closure of their part of the border?
          NO? Really? You don’t say, GASP! THAT seems to be in violation of the “Israeli spirit” you eulogized, isn’t it? :O

          • “The reasons for why the so-called “blockade”, that is now virtually non-existant…”

            Israel’s blockade on Gaza is still fully enforced. Nothing much has changed over the past five years. Palestinians in Gaza still cannot acces the sea, they cannot access one third of arable land, they cannot move to the rest of the Palestinian territory (West Bank, east Jerusalem), they have no control over their airspace, they cannot export their products outside Gaza apart from a handful of “humanitarian” cases, they cannot go and study in the rest of the Palestinain territory…

            • See my reply above. What would need to happen before your dream world, which would probably end as a Judenreihn world, would come to pass?

              OK, I’ll humour you – Israel should open her border with Gaza, thereby ensuring that suicide and other Islamist murderers could enter freely, creating mayhem.

              Now humour me – why on earth should any state/country on earth agree to committing suicide like that? Why should Israel trust these people NOT to kill its people?

              Wouldn’t it be better for the PA and Hamas to come to at least a non-aggression agreement first in anticipation of the open borders they want?

              What’s that you say, “they’d never do that”? Well for once I agree with
              you. Hamas wouldn’t because Jew-hatred is its life blood and it would lose too much face if it did so. The PA could not for similar reasons – like Hamas it has far too much invested in teaching its future generations to hate Jews.

              • As somebody else already posted, discussing with Nat is more like a argumentum ad asinum

                • None of you guys is able to asnwer her question because you know that nowhere in the world today is there a situation like the one in gaza, where an entire civilian population is held hostage by a foreign government in violation of international law. Nowhere in the world is there a place like Gaza, where 80% of the inhabitants are refugees who were chased from their homes in 1948 and never allowed to return after the fighting receded.

                  • Your associations free of any facts are not helping your case.
                    80% of the inhabitants did not live in 1948, they were born later.
                    Do some serious research and don`t waste our time.

                  • I hesitate to rise to the bait, Benyamin, but how about Tibet – occupied by a foreign government since 1951. Estimates of the numbers of Tibetans massacred by the Chinese run between 400,000 and 1.2 million. UN resolutions criticizing China? Guardian articles? “Tibet diary” days? Don’t make me laugh.

                    • I must apologise – there have been TWO articles on Tibet in the Guardian this month (but no CIF threads on the topic). I mustn’t be inaccurate or make generalisations. Please feel free to learn from my example.

                      Care to guess how many articles/CIF threads/blogs there have been relating to I/P in the same period?

    • Has CIF Watch reached the tipping point in its crusade against the Guardian and other newspapers?

    • What’s chilling is to see how some people on CIF Watch criticize freedom of the press, in violation of the Israeli spirit.

      • What’s chilling is watching Syrian soldiers burying someone alive. Doesn’t compute in the bleeding-heart liberal head of Nat.

        • I’m not sure I get it… how can atrocities committed in Syria justify fighting freedom of the press in Israel?

          • The real question, Nat (if that’s your real name, you’re so dishonest to begin with), is where is the press freedom in Hamas and PA controlled territories, and why are you O.K. with it, which you so obviously are?
            Israel has one of the most vibrant free presses in the world.
            Arab countries and the Palestinian controlled territories have some of the least free presses in the world.

          • Nat, you’re not here to fight for Israel’s soul, so don’t pretend you have its best interests at heart. I didn’t think you would get it, you are incapable of putting Israel’s position in any kind of meaningful context – like how a country less than 10 miles wide at its narrowest point can defend itself against the kind of genocidal barbarity that we see in Syria, is advocated by Hamas and is whitewashed in the Guardian. I don’t remember you, for example, being particularly ‘chilled’ by the Fougal family massacre. What you find chilling is no more than a vacuous fashion statement. That’s what I’m getting at.

  2. If the Guardian is recognized as the 21st century’s “Der Sturmer”, as Simon Plosker avers

    Whoever this Plosker bloke is, he’s off his head. Either he is so deluded as to actually believe the above, or he’s posting dishonest propaganda.

    • You’re wrong, pretzelberg. I know that you are spoiling for an argument but I am not going to say anything more than that.

      • I am not “spoiling for an argument”. Calling the Guardian the “21st century’s Der Sturmer” is just stupid – and you know it.

        Check out the G. homepage – no mention of Jews at all, never mind some horrible Stürmer-esque cartoons.

        Why do you defend Plosker when you know he’s talking nonsense?

        • Check out the G. homepage – no mention of Jews at all, never mind some horrible Stürmer-esque cartoons.

          There are some days when Jews/Israel are not bashed in the Guardian – and this fact proves that it is not antisemitic!
          An excellent argument!
          A pity that Streicher didn’t think about it at Nuremberg.

        • Pretz, I think you are wrong. The Guardian is really a Der Sturmer for our times.

          The difference between the 1930s and now is that there are laws against hate speech which we never used to have, and Israel exists as a nation state.

          Imagine what Der Sturmer would be saying right now in 2012 if a) it had to abide by current hate-speech laws and b) it had a Jewish state to attack. I think it would be saying pretty much what the Guardian is saying.

        • Today Der Stürmer would talk of Zionists, not of Jews and sometimes would refer to the East coast as master mind of all evil.

  3. Well written, AKUS. An honest appraisal, which is appropriately outspoken and names the Guardian’s slimy agenda for what it is.

    “The Guardian’s leader line is that the Gaza blockade is illegal in international law, that it constitutes collective punishment, and that it has not had its intended political outcome, which was to kill support for Hamas, drive a permanent wedge between it and Fatah and divide the Palestinians.”

    That’s only slightly less risible than Georgina Henry’s evocation of the Guardian style guide in response to the furore about the infamous “choir of ethical cretins” nonsense she allowed to be printed by Michael Lerner. CiF hasn’t learned much, has it?

    And as for your “follow the money” hypothesis, it’s one I hold to myself. It is certainly the case in many UK universities where Islamism is being cultured by organisations like Hizb-ut-Tahrir. The Guardian is bleeding cash and yet it still manages to stay afloat. How? One answer might be (although Rusbridger is hardly likely to advertise the fact) that it is having regular cash injections from Islamist countries or organisations in exchange for spewing the Israel/Jew-hatred it does and giving column inches to Islamist supporters of terror. And, as we well know, so far as Islamists are concerned there are no such things as handouts which are free of strings. If all that is true, then the Guardian is whoring itself by getting money from Islamists to stay afloat.

    It’s one believable parsimonious explanation.

    • Mitnaged- that’s a very plausible scenario. What’s really insane about the discussion of Jewish control of the media and how the Zionists won’t allow opposing viewpoints is the obvious funding of academia, both in the UK and the U.S., by Arab petrodollars. Where are the courageous exposes about oil money corrupting Mideast studies in many of the most prestigious universities? And if academia is being bought off media can’t be far behind.

      • What’s really insane about the discussion of Jewish control of the media and how the Zionists won’t allow opposing viewpoints is the obvious funding of academia, both in the UK and the U.S., by Arab petrodollars.

        Indeed. But that would fall under the heading of ‘difficult facts’.

        • Ah, yes, NobblyStick, and we all know that Chris Elliot believes that facts are “tricky things” don’t we???

    • AKUS correctly points out that the editorial note Mitnaged quotes above is a farrago of lies and deceptions, but misses one of the biggest.

      How do the Guardian editors know that the “intended political outcome” of the blockade was “to drive a permanent wedge between Hamas and Fatah and divide the Palestinians”?

      Silly me, I thought the aim was to prevent weapons reaching the “activists” in Gaza who would then use them against Israeli soldiers and (primarily civilians). Clearly I have been blinded by Israeli propaganda about the tens of thousands of missiles launched indiscriminately in the last decade or so, and the horrendous internal violence between Palestinian and Palestinian that surrounded Hamas’s “democratic” election in Gaza.

      Thank goodness the Guardian is there to tell me the truth, just as it tells me the truth that Tel Aviv is Israel’s capital, despite all evidence to the contrary.

  4. You nailed it,the Guardian IS a nasty Racist Toxic web Site,where anti-Semitic anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli bottom feeders come to spill their guts.The Guardian encourages and promotes these demented haters,Ben White tops this list,with the Extreme Radical Muslim writers in between and the pathetic and insane Berchmans of the Guardian at the bottom.

    Perhaps not fast enough but we are getting to them.

    • The Guardian is a radical left propaganda organ facading as a ‘news’ paper.

      If they told me the sun was shining, I wouldn’t believe them unless I actually saw that the sun was shining. And even then, I would retain some scepticism just because they had told me it was shining.

  5. An excellent article clearly demonstrating the West-European left’s moral and political deterioration. After losing the financial support of the Sovietunion and realising that they need a new ally in their fight against the Great Satan – they found Islamism. Exploiting the hundreds of years old European jelaousy, fear and hate of the Jews always was a successful and effective tactic so why not use it again?

    The same subject has been explored here:

    Also, anti-Semitism has been traditionally associated with conservative politics. It still is so allied in some places, but it is now more commonly to be found on the left. This is also the case in Europe, though there, unlike in America, anti-Semitism has been increasing rather than decreasing. This was reported on, country by country, in a March 2012 report by the Anti-Defamation League. The United Kingdom, Spain and Hungary topped the list. In Hungary the old correlation of anti-Semitism with right-wing politics still holds. I don’t know about Spain, but in Britain it is on the left that one finds the most blatant manifestations

    and here

    Confident, forward-looking and dynamic societies are neither threatened by Jewish success nor offended by the cultural diversity that results from the free participation of Jews in civic and cultural life. They can come to grips with the vicissitudes of capitalist economics without being sidetracked by conspiracy theories and fantasies.

    Failing societies and weak minds, on the other hand, are easily seduced by attractive but empty generalizations. The comment attributed to August Bebel that anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools can be extended to many other kinds of cheap and superficial errors that people make. The baffled, frustrated and the bewildered seek a grand, simplifying hypothesis that can bring some kind of ordered explanation to a confusing world; anti-Semitism is one of the glittering frauds that attract the overwhelmed and the uncomprehending.
    Anti-Semitism is not just a moral obscenity; it is the road to intellectual and political ruin.

    • Anti-Semitism is somewhat of a weather vane relating to the social success or failure of societies that exhibit anti Semitism.

      Countries that have been good to ‘their Jews’ have always profited.

  6. Great and prescient post AKUS. Duvidl loves the bit from the Bard. Here is his own take on “Julius Caesar” from his new sequel, entitled “Brutus Rustbucket”:

    There is a tide in the affairs of man,
    Which, taken at its ebb, leads to the Guardian.
    When spewing Jew-hate, Guardianistas holler,
    But shut gobs tight ’bout trousering petrodollar.

    (Exit Rustbucket pursued by a Russian Bear)

  7. An excellent article, as everybody has already said.
    Just to add that the title: the Guardian’s “Crusade against Israel”, is very apt.

    The lefties and fanatics of all persuasions who flock to the Guardian’s CiF are, I suppose, lapsed Christians who despise religion ( but feign respect for Islam ) so it’s very ironic that they should engage in a ‘moral’ quasi-religious crusade against Jews living in the Holy Land. A flashback to the Middle Ages which they have in common with the their Islamist allies.

    • ‘lefties’ are reasonable people fairplay.

      You are referring to ‘hard left’ or radical left’. These are persons who have lost all sense of proportion and, if they are ‘white’ are disgusted with themselves.

    • This is just nonsense. Most of the lefties BTL at CiF most certainly do not “engage in a ‘moral’ quasi-religious crusade against Jews living in the Holy Land” – especially not the many pro-Israel Jewish lefties!

  8. A bunch of fruit loop far right Jewish bloggers are critical and this is a tipping point for the Guardian ? What planet are you on ?

    • The same planet where a former paragon of human rights, aka the “Guardian”, publishes the ravings of a radical fundamentalist(Haniya).
      The better question, what planet are YOU on, RealBaathist?

    • Do you know that “consensus” is realzionist?

      Look it up.

      The consensus is that the Guardian/CiF has lost its moral compass completely (having been close to that for years) by publishing this latest article by an Islamist terrorist leader. The article itself is nonsensical and, as has been argued elsewhere on this blog, probably been written by someone like Seth Freedman, but its message is poisonous nevertheless and the. the Guardian/CiF choosing to align with such a one is disastrous for it.

      The opprobrium is cumulative and this has led to the tipping point towards perdition from which, unless it makes an unequivocal and grovelling apology to everyone it has offended by giving the equivalent of house room to these barbarians, the Guardian may well not recover.

      For myself, I hope it does not. It long ago ceased to be the intelligent left’s critical voice which I remember from when I was a young student. It has whored what passes for its soul to Islamism, probably, as AKUS and Mitnaged argue, in return for funds to bail it out.

      Like them, I agree that this is the only parsimonious explanation for it risking its reputation and taking leave of its collective senses.

  9. This list is not necessarily exhaustive …

    February 2009 – The Guardian praises ‘Seven Jewish Children’, and gives Caryl Churchill the space to promote her ‘play’.
    November 2009 – Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Graun’s Steve Bell produces a cartoon on the separation wall that bears a striking resemblance to a Stormfront post.
    January 2011 – The Graun publishes a series of papers on Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. A quote from Tzipi Livni is doctored to make it appear that the Israelis are cynically using peace negotiations for further land grabs.
    July 2011-April 2012 – The Graun provides a series of apologias for the anti-Semitic preacher Raed Salah.
    October 2011 – Shortly after Gilad Shalit’s release, Deborah Orr writes her ‘chosen people’ piece.
    January 2012 – The Graun celebrates Holocaust Memorial Day with a piece smearing Michael Gove and the CST.
    June 2012 – The Graun (in accordance with its pro-Hamas stance) gives Ismail Haniyeh a free platform.

    ‘In my paper there is problem …’

    • For those who feel that comparing the Guardian to Der Sturmer is a stretch, you have reminded them to look at Steve Bell’s anti-Semitic cartoons.

    • a definitive, penetrating, and trenchant analysis as always rz. I don’t know how Akus, or any of us, could ever reply to such rhetorical wizardry

    • Including you. I sense stress in you. This means that you have dug yourself a hole. Thank your lucky stars that it is a metaphorical one, in a free Western country, and that no-one will bury you in it or stone you to death.

  10. Ever since Deep Throat said it to Woodward and Bernstein, either in life or in the movie about Watergate, I have been a believer in “Follow the Money”.

    What is in it for the Guardian?

    The thesis is correct — it is about the money. And in fact, The Guardian is doing all it can to maximize all the profit possible. Were they to take a more mainstream line, they would be drowned out by the other (presumably better) newspapers. They wouldn’t be able to compete. By taking an extreme, leftist, anti-Israeli stance, they stake out a claim amongst a readership who don’t seek balance. That is their target market segment. Adding balance to the content would alienate these readers, leading to reduced income. Simple Behavioral Economics. What then follows is Cognitive Dissonance, where they tell themselves “we’re writing this crap, so we must truly believe it.”

    The implications are interesting. No matter how good CifWatch is, the Guardian won’t change. The economic benefits are too great.

    • It is worth making a point here about money and circulation. The Guardian Media Group is losing the former hand over fist, and the latter is in freefall. The Graun is 9th (out of 10th) as far as circulation figures for national daily newspapers in the UK is concerned:

      So its anti-Semitic turn has not necessarily helped its sales. What it does probably mean is that its readership is now confined to Berchmans and his kind.

    • Agreed, and as Mitnaged has intimated, there is no such thing as a free lunch where the promotion of Islam/denigration of Israel and Jews is concerned. I also believe that the Guardian has literally sold out and a condition of the bail outs is that it continues to publish dreck from Islamists and their fellow travellers and antisemites below the line and to promote Islamism and denigrate Israel.

  11. Berchmans is the Guardian and the Guardian is Berchmans.They sort of deserve and compliment each other

  12. Well written AKUS.

    There is no doubt in my mind that the narrative in the UK and beyond, about I/P, has been fashioned by the commentaries emanating from the Guardian and the BBC, it’s ‘broadcasting arm’. The insidious drip, drip of anti-Israel/anti-Zionist/anti-Semitic rhetoric that we encounter almost daily, has a corrosive effect around the world, on the perception of what is actually happening between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs.

    As the global economy deteriorates and the Guardian’s income from sales and advertising diminishes, it has to try to rescue that income. Whether that is by a direct injection of cash from organisations or states who are hostile to Israel, or simply by playing to the lowest common denominator among its racist readers, is up for debate. What is clear is that the type of commentators given freedom to write for CiF, are increasingly drawn from sources that are undeniably racist.

    Hamas is not just a political party in Gaza – it is an internationally acknowledged terrorist organisation, whose charter continues to make anti Semitic, genocidal statements. It’s very existence is predicated on ridding the world, not simply of the Israeli state, but of all Jews. And yet the Guardian allows Hamas to publish an article in which its stated aims are hidden and a pr statement is issued as if to suggest Hamas has been somehow misunderstood.

    On this basis, how long before the neo Nazi parties emerging throughout Europe are given the same platform by CiF?

    Finally, pretz, very disappointed. I expected more from you. I think you’ve called this 100% wrong. FWIW, Simon Plosker is very careful with his comments and I suspect that he gave a great deal of thought to what he was about to say before he said it.

  13. If, as has been suggested here, one of the reasons for the Guardian’s Israel/Jew-hatred is that it becomes notorious and makes a name for itself as being mad, bad and dangerous to the truth, thereby attracting every sort of hate-filled lunatic below the line (excluding Berchmans, he’s an outlier (or should I say an out and out liar?) even by the Guardian’s standards), that is very savvy in a sick sort of way. If that is the case then it has the pulse of the knuckledraggers who think they have brains and analytical skills, which inflates the numbers of visitors to the site impress its advertisers and others.

    Not sure I can go with that, though. Given the lack of sophistication of thought and lack of intellectual rigour of the Guardian editors – eg Henry’s reaction to the “choir of ethical cretins” blooper, and Elliott’s burbling that facts are tricky – it’s far more likely that it has simply and very literally sold out to the highest Islamist-supporting bidder, which doles out the cash it so desperately needs in return for it printing the egregious, hate-filled rubbish it does about Israel and imaginary Jewish influence around the world.

    The vital points of similarity between the Guardian as it is and said Islamist-supporters are there for anyone to see – the pernicious envy of Israel’s success, the lies and the obsessive focus on anything Israel might have got wrong, and the barely concealed hatred of the Jews in Israel and alleged Jewish influence around the world.

    I agree that this final descent to the depths of the sewer, by publishing an ghost-written article under Haniyeh’s name, will damage it very badly.

    I certainly hope so. It deserves to sink without trace and to have another more ethical and reputable paper, one which is less obsessed, to represent the left in the UK

  14. Well done, Akus. 56 Facebook ‘Likes”, 15 page Tweets, 90 comments, and a heck of a lot of page views.