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.
Like this:
Like Loading...
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.
Related articles
Like this:
Guardian corrects one of Mohammed el-Kurd’s lies
You may also like
UK Media Watch prompts Daily Mail correction – admits that Bibi was cheered
Jewish Daily Forward ‘Top 50’ list includes “journalist” who promotes antisemitism
Palestine Solidarity Campaign complains that Holocaust denier was harassed by Millett and Hoffman