Guardian

The Guardian retracts lie that Tel Aviv is Israel’s capital!


The following is a press release from HonestReporting:

The Guardian has retracted its claim that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel, writing unequivocally on Wednesday, “we accept that it is wrong to state that Tel Aviv – the country’s financial and diplomatic centre – is the capital.”

The Guardian’s concession follows a threat of judicial review against the UK’s Press Complaints Commission by HonestReporting (advised by UK solicitors Asserson Law Offices).

The PCC, a regulatory body that ensures accuracy in the UK media initially ruled that The Guardian’s claim was correct. HonestReporting, along with noted UK lawyer Trevor Asserson, then took initial steps to file for a judicial review of the decision, forcing the PCC to withdraw its ruling and demand that The Guardian defend its position.

In response to HonestReporting’s pressure on the PCC, The Guardian backed down from its claim, issuing a correction. It also changed its style guide, which had stated that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel, to reflect the correction.

Although The Guardian has been forced to withdraw its absurd suggestion regarding the status of Tel Aviv, the wording of The Guardian’s correction has not been agreed after the newspaper unilaterally terminated its negotiations with HonestReporting and the PCC.

HonestReporting still awaits a new ruling from the PCC to replace the faulty decision it issued in May and agreed to reconsider in July.

Here’s the Guardian’s correction:

Here’s a more detailed account by HonestReporting.

CiF Watch will provide more commentary on the Guardian’s stunning mea culpa later in the day.

113 replies »

  1. The most mealy-mouthed correction I’ve ever read.

    Still, it’s only Israel that’s being slagged.

  2. A good result. Sour grapes from the Guardian. Was the Guardian required to pay the complainant’s legal costs as well?

  3. Truth…1 Guardian…0 I will now drop my campaign to insist that Scunthorpe is the capital of the United Kingdom because I said it was. No further proof being required.

  4. Countries have their embassies in many cities of other countries e.g. there is an Indian embassy in Birmingham, that does not make it the capital city of UK.

    • That’s not accurate. The Indian embassy is in London. In Birmingham it’s a consulate, not an embassy.

        • Consulate, shmosulate, OK, so it makes Birmingham a half capital of UK.

          Are you trying to be funny?

          Massive fail.

            • I would – but the likes of you and Terry clearly have a very low threshold on the humour front.

            • What makes you think you’re “welcome” here?
              Who are you to say I am not welcome here?
              What have you ever done for this website? Fuck all.

              I was here making positive contributions long before you were here. All you have to offer is bigotry and insults.

              Shame on you. Why don’t you just leave?

                • Yes – in a bad mood because clearly a lot of posters here are prejudiced against goys.

                  Shame on you all.

            • Humour is even more sophisticated than that.

              Most laughable comment of the day. Thanks for that!

            • Terry was making a pathetic attempt at a retraction.

              Pathetic that you would seek to defend it – and instead resort to a personal dig.

        • Good grief, do you understand what a consulate is?

          Incidentally, UK does have an embassy in Jerusalem.It’s an embassy to the Palestinian Authority!

          • No, the UK has a consulate in Jerusalem, “incidentally”.
            Back to lying, eh, “Professor”?

            • My mistake.

              I believe the intention is that is be upgraded to an Embassy once a Paletinian state is established.

              • “I believe the intention is that is be upgraded to an Embassy once a Paletinian state is established.”

                Oh, I see, a prejudging of an outcome to a dispute that is supposed to be negotiated. No bias here!

                • The UK supports a two state solution along the 1967 borders, with mutually agreed swaps. What’s the problem? This is entirely mainstream.

                  • “What’s the problem? This is entirely mainstream.”

                    Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

            • It is basically the UK’s representation to the Palestinian Authority. But it’s a Consulate General.

              • “It is basically the UK’s representation to the Palestinian Authority. But it’s a Consulate General.”

                Really? What’s it doing there?

        • Headdesk.

          No, having a consulate in your city does not make you a part-capital of your nation. Israel, for example, has consulates in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Los Angles, Miami, New York City, Philadelphia, and my own beloved San Francisco.

          The only capital of the United States is Washington D.C. In recognition of this, Israel has placed their embassy there.

          • “my own beloved San Francisco.”

            I once visited the S.F. Bay Area for 24 years, 11 months and 16 days.

  5. Terry, the Indian HIGH COMMISSION (the equivalent of an EMBASSY for Commonwealth countries) is in London – on Aldwych, you couldn’t get more central in fact. There is only a CONSULATE in Brum. AN entirely different matter.

    As far as I know there are now NO embassies to Israel in its self-designated but not internationally recognized capital.

    The only instances I am aware of elsewhere where countries have embassies/high commissions based outside the capital city is where a capital has moved to a new city in the relatively recent past – in places like Kazakhstan or perhaps Nigeria or Ivory Coast.

    Noone would dream of putting an embassy/high comm in Birmingham though!

    • Noone would dream of putting an embassy/high comm in Birmingham though!

      Hailing from the jewel of the Midlands myself, I’ll take that as an outrageous slur!
      😉

      • I’d have thought that these days West Bromwich, with its gleaming pink and black and mad glass art gallery/entertainment centre was pretty close to edging Brum out from even that title 😉

        • Wolvo or Walsall would be bad enough – even Oldbury! But please anything but the Baggies.

  6. ”we accept that it is wrong to state that Tel Aviv – the country’s financial and diplomatic centre – is the capital.”

    I hope they’re not expecting a medal for admitting the bleeding obvious.

    And even then the “correction” makes a pathetic effort in its own defence by stressing Tel Aviv as “- the country’s financial and diplomatic centre – “.
    Who cares?
    Has the G. ever e.g insisted that Sydney, Zurich, or NYC are the respective capitals of Australia, Switzerland or the US?
    (not diplomatic but certainly financial centres)

  7. Another one of those belated Guardian retractions that is trying very very hard not to sound like a retraction.

    Real bunch of wankers.

  8. It would seem as the man above pointed out,Israel doesn’t have a capital. While a country can designate any city within it;s territory as it’s capital it cannot meaningfully designate a city outside it;s territory. Israel designating Jerusalem as it’s capital is about as meaningful as the UK designating Montpellier as it’s capital.

    • Israel designating Jerusalem as it’s capital is about as meaningful as the UK designating Montpellier as it’s capital.

      That’s just daft.

        • No it wouldn’t.

          What you describe would be akin to Israel claiming some far-flung colony as its capital.
          The UK doesn’t.
          And nor does Israel (not least because it has no far-flung colonies).

          • I disagree. It would be designating a politically contentious territory as its capital. That’s the similarity I was drawing.

            • “It would be designating a politically contentious territory as its capital. That’s the similarity I was drawing.”
              Sanity,
              If “they” want not to recognize the eastern part of the city of Jerusalem containing the old city, which has been seen as the capital of the Jews for thousands of years, and the capital in that time for absolutely no one else, a jewish majority city for the last century and a half, I suppose that as a sop to anti-Semites it is defensible in some dubious legalistic way. But how can anyone defend the idea that the part of Jerusalem recognized as within Israel and where it’s government sits, as not being its capital ?
              There is a difference here between disputing an area an delegitimizing a country, i.e., disputing that which is supposedly beyond dispute.

              • What have ‘Jews’ got to do with it? We’re talking about the capital city of Israelis. Israel does’t speak for ‘the Jews’ and neither do you.

                • “What have ‘Jews’ got to do with it? We’re talking about the capital city of Israelis. Israel does’t speak for ‘the Jews’ and neither do you.”

                  And Poland doesn’t speak for all people of Polish descent, and Britain doesn’t speak for all people of English descent. Any more red herrings Sanity?
                  The overwhelming majority of Jews around the world see Jerusalem historically as the capital of the Jewish people and of the modern state of Israel.

                • You are in no position to tell who is speaking on behalf of Jews or not, but it is common that Antisemites believe that.

          • Israel has 4 colonies as far as I’m aware: the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. Not far flung, to be sure.

            • You left out the USA – Which is a Zionist colony in all but name according to the progressive Left. AIPAC owns America and Israel owns AIPAC – Now you cannot get more far flung than that!

              Agh – i forgot – the whole world is a Jewish conspiracy

            • The West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights are obviously disputed. The term “occupation” even applies in certain areas – but “colonies” they are not.

              • Well, the Golan Heights is not disputed at all. By anyone. It’s Syrian territory.

                But in any case, they are all colonies, in any reasonable sense of the word. In which ‘certain areas’ does the word ‘occupation’ apply, exactly?

                • You are definetely colonized, by a certain obsession.
                  There exists not one colony of Israel, like the Italian, French, German or british colonies.
                  This is politics for dummies.

            • “Israel has 4 colonies as far as I’m aware:”

              Then you’re not “aware,” and your screed is still “far flung.”

            • sanity you forgot to mention Hungary our newest colony. Ask your neo-Nazi friends there they know this already..

          • “And nor does Israel (not least because it has no far-flung colonies)”

            No, but it has plenty of colonies close to hand.

        • Sadly I don’t give a flying shwarma about the capital of the UK, if they fancy they have their capital in Tower Hamlet. That who recognises Jerusalem as our capital has the relevance of a hot kiss given to the cold body of Ayatollah Khomeini. The only authority who can designate the capital of Israel is the people of Israel and its elected representatives in the Knesset and they did it.

          • if they fancy they have their capital in Tower Hamlet

            You really need to widen your information sources re. the UK.
            a) You hate the UK for bizarre reasons.
            b) You think it’s run by Muslims.

            • a./ hating the UK? Never tought of hating a geogaraphical location, but now when you say this…the climate is disgusting, the local food reminds me of dogshit, most Brits don’t know any foreign language and the lack of their general knowledge of the world and its history (including their own) is simply second to no one…
              b./ Muslims? like Clegg? Cameron? Maybe Miliband?

              • Yes … as I said: plenty of hatred there.

                If you get ulcers as a result – it’s not our fault!

                • Ulcers? The Lebanes shishlik I had an hour ago says differently. I have only one health problem with this website – the laughs on posters like sanity end co cause pain in my side.

                  • Well, just please don’t believe that British people in general are anti-Semitic or pro-Islamist.

                    Your comments on English food are, it must be said, understandable.
                    (but lucky you were never in Scotland!)

                    • But I’ll be there in the coming week because some of my family members want to see some rain.
                      And regarding your belief of my opinion about the UK is totally wrong. I worked with many Brits in different countries incl. the UK and Israel and I know that the ordinary working people are not interested in Israel/Jews at all. What disgust me is the British “chattering classes” with their condescending, ignorant and extremely hypocrite preaching and yes their antisemitism.

                    • @ peterthehungarian

                      “What disgust me is the British “chattering classes” with their condescending, ignorant and extremely hypocrite preaching and yes their antisemitism.”

                      OK – but these people do not represent us. Please consider that in future comments.

                    • Maybe they don’t represent you but you on these pages keep whitewash their behavior with absolutely inane comments like the Guardian can’t be antisemitic because it has Jewish employees and there are days when they don’t mention Israel, when you say that the BBC only “criticizes” Israel when they job obviously is reporting and not criticising. And what about the acquittal by a British court a high ranking racist FCO employee who according to tens of witnesses is a racist criminal, the allowing the advertising of murderous antisemite propagand on London buses by the so called Advertising Authority? The Church of England with its antisemite priest and vicars? They don’t represent you either?

                    • @ peterthehungarian

                      with absolutely inane comments like the Guardian can’t be antisemitic because it has Jewish employees and there are days when they don’t mention Israel

                      You are referring to my own comments.

                      But how can the Guardian be anti-Semitic given that it has Jewish staff and a Jewish podcast?

                      It is not “inane” to point that out.

                      And the posters who suggest that the G. is the new Der Stürmer are simply insane. In fact they are denigrating the Holocaust.

    • To you, maybe, but you are hardly the epitome of reality-based assessment are you realzionist?

      Why not admit it. The Groan got battered and deserved it. Whether it’ll learn from its defeat is a different story.

        • You after your sickly obsessive love affair with Jonathan Hoffman shouldn’t mention the word “obsession”. You know in a hanged man’s house…

          • Well ok that’s my obsession. The Guardian is yours. It’s a free cosomos is it not. We can have different obsessions can we not ? Anyway you have the advantage on me. Adam allows you to mention his name but he doesn’t all me to o))

    • RZ, Israel can still claim West Jerusalem, so you only have to split hairs over its sovereignty in the East. Your anology would only make sense if Israel was claiming Damascus or Amaan.

  9. One has to have a little bit of sympathy for the guardian here. The whole world knows that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. So if one is asked or ponders the question, ” what is Israel’s capital what can one say except that it doesn’t have a capital ?

      • What the Guardian, and “people” like realzionist, really want to say is that Israel doesn’t exist.

        • What the Guardian, and “people” like realzionist, really want to say is that Israel doesn’t exist.

          No, they want to say that Israel exists in the 1967 borders, and that the territory that is for the Palestinians and the Syrians should return to them.

          Massive fail for you.

          • OK – as I’ve said on numerous occasions in the past (and never with any response from “Nat”, “Sanity”, “RealZionist”, “Benyamin” or any of the other anti-Zionists who post here…

            … let’s accept for a moment your argument, that “East” Jerusalem is “occupied” and therefore not part of Israel, and that the 1967 ceasefire line (that has never ever ever been recognised as an international border) is the border of some future Palestinian state.

            Now – which part of “West” Jerusalem (you know, the biut containing the Israeli Parliament, the PM’s office etc) is on the “Palestinian” side of that Green Line? What on Earth gives you, the UN, the BBC or the Guardian the right to say that Israel cannot declare THAT to be its capital?

            Any answer to that?

            • Since I posted this, “Sanity”, “Sencar” and “realzionist” have all posted on this thread, but no response to this point about “West” Jerusalem at all.

              I’m still waiting!

              • The status of Jerusalem under international law is based on General Assembly Resolution 181 of 29 November 1947, under which the city and its surroundings were to come under United Nations control. The UN has confirmed this position since and condemned the steps towards annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967 and 1980. However Resolution 181 has never been withdrawn or overruled.

                • sencar as you accept Resolution 181 I would be grateful for some advice from you. In Part III, Section B ‘Boundaries of the City’ it defines it as this “The City of Jerusalem shall include the present municipality of Jerusalem plus the surrounding villages and towns, the most eastern of which shall be Abu Dis; the most southern, Bethlehem; the most western, ‘Ein Karim (including also the built-up area of Motsa); and the most northern Shu’fat, as indicated on the attached sketch-map (annex B).”

                  So as you accept the Resolution, can you advise me where you have called for the Palestinian Authority to remove themselves from Bethlehem and other places specified in the Resolution?
                  If you have, can you tell me what their response was?

                    • “Why are you in favour of those fat ugly settler extremists?”

                      pretzelberg are you referring to ex-pat Brits. who go to live elsewhere in Europe?

                  • I think you’d find that the PA would be more than happy to live with Resolution 181, Gerald – in its entirety.

                • This would be the Resolution 181 which was rejected by all the Arab states in 1947 and which they and the Palestinian “leadership” treated as if it was an insult for the ensuing decades (at least until 1988 when they decided it wasn’t so terrible after all).

                  And you say the PA would be more than happy to accept it now. Well hey, we’d all love to turn the clock back and make different decisions if we could, but we can’t, can we.

                  And I very much doubt they would accept it now, unless it were (as enshrined in the charters of Fatah and Hamas) a mere step on the road to the elimination of the “Zionist entity” in its entirety.

                  The fact now is that nobody (except the one-staters who believe in the total destruction of Israel) disputes the fact that “West” Jerusalem is sovereign Israeli territory.

                  In any event, 181 was clearly and explicitly merely a RECOMMENDATION and was not implemented in any number of ways. It’s funny how the one part you are complaining about is the bit about the Special International Status of Jerusalem.

          • Where did you learn this sanity? Did you overheard the chat of the undergratuate students when cleaned the cafeteria at your “academy”?

          • “No, they want to say that Israel exists in the 1967 borders,”

            How unfortunate, because that’s not what 242 says. Do you want to tell them or shall I ?

            Massive fail for you and them.

            “and that the territory that is for the Palestinians and the Syrians should return to them.”

            Who gave it to them?

          • Interesting that Syria is the only nation to get its original land back…the other two are offloading onto the Palestinians.

            Oh, never mind. I can’t twist Jordan’s arm, and as for Egypt, I can really see where they’re coming from.

      • (a) I don’t believe that you actually think, sanity
        (b) as I said to your friend above about his “contribution” – bollox

  10. What I never understood is what this lefty hairsplitting is about? Fact is all government offices are in Jerusalem, as are the supreme court yada yada. The MOD is in Tel for obvious reasons. So what ever others say, the capital is Jerusalem. In feeds into the way the world never excepted the Hebrews, ever. The Hebrews do what they have to do to survive and be themselves, as they have always done.
    The argument that Tel is the capital because of economical reasons is laughable, see NY or Frankfurt.
    Jerusalem is the capital because it is the seat of government. End of story.
    The only reason why the west has no balls admitting it is because the Arabs have the oil.

    • “Jerusalem is the capital because it is the seat of government. End of story.
      The only reason why the west has no balls admitting it is because the Arabs have the oil.”
      Oops! Now you’ve done it Daniel. You’ve mentioned the 800 hundred lb. gorilla in the room.