CiF Watch prompts revision to Guardian op-ed justifying Palestinian antisemitism

On May 15th we commented on an op-ed at the Guardian (written by two pro-Palestinian activists) which morally justified Palestinian antisemitism – in the context of poll which demonstrated that Palestinians are the most antisemitic people among the 100 countries surveyed.  

The op-ed not only defended the Palestinians’ belief that Jews have to too much power in the world, and that Jews in the diaspora are more loyal to Israel than to the countries where they reside, but actually accused ADL, the Jewish civil rights group which commissioned the poll, of using the results to “silence and intimidate those who don’t share their unwavering support for Israel”.

Shortly after our post, we contacted Guardian editors and pointedly asked them how the op-ed could possibly be read as anything other than a defense of classic antisemitic tropes, and whether they were comfortable tacitly legitimizing such racism.

To their credit, they at least partially agreed with our analysis – and decided to delete the entire paragraph justifying the dual loyalty canard.

Here’s the paragraph that no longer appears in the Guardian op-ed:


 And, the following addendum was added:


Though we commend Guardian editors for their decision to revise the op-ed, we believe that it should never have seen the light of day in the first place.  To those who disagree, we offer the following brief thought experiment:  

Suppose there was a comprehensive poll indicating that 93% of Brits held racist beliefs towards Muslims.  In such a scenario, is it even conceivable that the Guardian would publish an op-ed justifying such widespread British Islamophobia as an understandable reaction to Islamist terror attacks in the UK?

We believe the answer to this question should be painfully obvious to anyone who’s ever so much as glanced at the opinion pages of the “liberal” London broadsheet. 

Enhanced by Zemanta

20 replies »

  1. that all article is inconsistent with the guardian community standard, but I’ve seen them do it when it fits the overall guardian agenda.

  2. The attempts to obfuscate and apologize for racism are sickening.
    The reason, to BEGIN with, that there MUST be an Israel is that historical fact has demonstrated that without such a (incredibly tiny) state the Jews were subjected to an unbelievable number of pogroms, expulsions, genocide attempts, repressions, blood libels, crusades, and official 2nd class status. One religion’s founding and ‘perfect document even according to it FINEST SCHOLARS victimizes them for canonical racism.
    Therefore without a nation like Israel, we would, as HISTORY shows, soon have no jews in this world.
    Germany was just the FIRST intersection of this racism and an industrialized state in which some plurality to majority were believers that this sick inner compulsion was objectively real. The Pew studies, and the ADL poll, the political cartoons in the world, the continuing best seller status of the Protocols of Zion and Mein Kampf in certain parts of the world show NOTHING is any different.
    This is why it is impossible to pull apart political criticism of Israel (which MIGHT be no different from criticism of France) and racism.
    That is why attempts to explain a political and therefore objective basis for racism is a FARCE.
    Functional antisemitism ( which is a best case explanation invented here for argument’s purpose) has the same precise end as the KKK’s, the 1st Crusade’s, Edward I’s, and the innumerable events of the last 2500 years

  3. Of course, to call the Guardian or their Op-Ed writers “anti-Semites” is just too mean spirited to be taken seriously. That’s the gist of their complaint, yes? That they wish to stifle complaint about their extremist and violence-infused verbiage by reflexively complaining about being reflexively being labeled as anti-Semites?

    This hypocrisy isn’t shocking or new or unexpected. It is utterly AMAZING. CiF Watch constantly gets these morons at the Guardian to go back on their incendiary words days after publishing them originally, and these same editors can’t think twice BEFORE printing this trash?

    Fuck the Guardian. What a dump.

  4. Congratulations, Adam, this is quite an achievement.

    Imagine how bad things would be if there was no Cifwatch to monitor and pressure the Guardian and its soul mates into correcting at least some of their lies and distortions.

  5. To the “doesn’t conform to editorial guidelines” they might as well have added “….but we agree with the rest of the piece”…..which in any case is what their wording implies.

  6. Has Netanyahu ceased thanking world leaders such Silvio Berlusconi on behalf of the Jewish people?

    • ‘Jimmy’ would you be kind enough to explain how your post is relevant to the subject of this thread?

      • Quite. But I imagine there are many who’d consider your point to be the irrelevant one, and the statement you’re replying to the crux of the matter from which no deviation is permitted. Talk about stifling debate, pot/kettle/black. None so blind as those etc etc.

        • Eva.
          I am asking a question of ‘Jimmy’ not making a point or replying to his post. If you wish to answer on his/her/whatever behalf do feel free to do so.

          • On the contrary, I was most certainly not answering on his behalf but pre-empting the response one too often received from those who feel as he appears to feel which is often off-the-point, among other things. Apologies for jumping gun or interfering. I also wait his response.

  7. Jimmy Neth is busy this week turning Israel into an officially Apartheid state. He has also too concerned watching his back as some in his administration are meeting with Abbas on the sly.

  8. Yet another correction in the Guardian, one of many this year prompted by Cifwatch.

    Adam, keep exposing the lies, bias and double standards of the Guardian.

  9. In the wake of the fallout from the ADL survey I’ve written a piece for the JC about:

    * That Jews are often accused of ‘crying wolf’

    * That I’ve never met a Jew who ‘cries wolf’

    * That ‘crying wolf’ isn’t the worst thing someone can do

    I’ll put it on OyVaGoy after it’s published