Category not assigned

Guardian culture critic characterizes Six Day War as the ‘Israeli invasion of the West Bank’


nbNicholas Blincoe is an author, critic, screenwriter and former advisor to Nick Clegg who now devotes much of his time to various forms of anti-Israel activism.  Indeed, Blincoe is an enthusiastic supporter of BDS, and has written a book sympathetic to the terrorist-abetting International Solidarity Movement.  

He also has a troubled relationship with the truth, having once opined that the mission of Israeli archeology is “to erase the traces of non-Jewish civilizations” and, as we revealed in a recent post, falsely claimed in a Guardian op-ed that Binyamin Netanyahu argued (in his book A Place Among the Nations) that Israel shouldn’t have to abide by international legal norms.

Blincoe has even praised the writings of a neo-Nazi style racist named Gilad Atzmon. 

So, we obviously weren’t expecting much – by way of adherence to journalistic and professional norms – when we came across his recent Guardian review of a new film by “Palestinian” film-maker Annemarie Jacir (Annemarie Jacir: an auteur in exile, June 5).

Sure enough, the second paragraph of his review included this ‘historical’ howler.

When I Saw You is the tale of a 12-year-old boy and his mother – though comparisons to About a Boy stop there. Set in the aftermath of the 1967 Israeli invasion of the West Bank, the film follows Tarek, a refugee living in a UN camp within sight of the land he and his mother have lost

As anyone even vaguely familiar with the war would surely know, to characterize the Six Day War in June 1967 as an “invasion of the West Bank” is supremely dishonest.  First, there is no historical debate about the fact that Israeli leaders, in the weeks leading up to the outbreak of hostilities on June 5, tried desperately to avoid a military confrontation with Arab nations which, in addition to blocking the Straits of Tiran, amassed massive quantities of troops and heavy weaponry along its borders while issuing bellicose statements predicting Israel’s imminent destruction.

More relevant to the passage at hand, even when the war began, Israeli officials – trying desperately to avoid having to fight on another front – appealed to Jordan’s King Hussein to not enter the war. It was only when – buoyed by erroneous reports of Egyptian success on the first day of the war – Jordan initiated offensive actions against Israel from east Jerusalem and the West Bank (Jordanian artillery began shelling Israeli targets from Jerusalem to Tel-Aviv) that Israeli forces counter-attacked.

Of course, Nicholas Blincoe knew exactly what he was doing in obfuscating the real sequence of events in the Six Day War.  Indeed, the Palestinian narrative – especially regarding the fate of the “refugees” – requires that such activists mislead readers into believing that the occupation was the result of an Israeli war of aggression, rather than a desperate Jewish fight for survival against multiple Arab nations openly calling for Israel’s “eradication”.  

The ‘occupation’ of the West Bank and east Jerusalem was the direct result Israel’s defensive war fought during six days in June, and based on the sober determination that, absent a real peace treaty with its Arab neighbors, the state would never again allow itself to be at such a strategic disadvantage as was the case with its indefensible pre-June boundaries.

Characterizing the Six Day War as the “Israeli invasion of the West Bank” is ahistorical and dishonest, and represents the style of pro-Palestinian propaganda we’ve come to expect in almost any Guardian report, op-ed or literary criticism which so much as touches upon the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

Enhanced by Zemanta

19 replies »

  1. I sigh when I read crap like Blincoe writes. In fact, I think his name is very appropriate. Constant blinking means that you only see half the truth, so “Blink-O” is an excellent name for him. Journalism used to be an honourable profession. Until liars like him perverted it.

  2. This is as dishonest as characterising WW2 as “the Polish invasion of Germany”, after all there were Poles fighting with the British Army.
    But honesty is not what these BDS prats are about. They are about hate. They get their rocks off by expressing the ‘permissible hatred” of Israel and the Jews. It gives some excitement to their dull bourgeois conformist lives.

    • And, let’s not forget that the US Civil War should more accurately be called the “Northern War of Aggression”.

      • In fact some Southerners in the habit of flying the confederate flag do claim exactly that, as well as calling Lincoln a genocidal war criminal. Those are die in the wool racists and supremacists who find the notion that they have to accept African-Americans as equals simply intolerable.

        The irony is that Nicholas Blincoe fantasizes himself a peace-loving humanitarian leftist while sharing an attitude and a methodology (lies and distortions) with those he no doubt would hold in contempt.

        I will always ask this puzzler: What good is a cause if you have to resort to lies and re-writing history in its support?

        • Yes. I actually got into an argument once with a fellow at a bar. Because I had said something along the lines that “Lincoln are Teddy Roosevelt were the only Republicans I could support.” This was considered fighting words by the other fellow! His response was, “I don’t come into bars expecting to get into political arguments.” Of course, I wasn’t talking to him, but to my friends who happened to be beside the guy. “Interesting,” I said, “because I tend to not talk about 140 year old politics.”

  3. What the Guardian doesn’t tell you is that Nicholas Blinkered is married to a Palestinian.
    So perhaps if he doesn’t supply us with a regular supply of anti-Israel bile, he’ll be met with a certain coolness at home when requesting his marital rights.

  4. “He also has a troubled relationship with the truth …”

    Adam, this is brilliant 🙂 Could be applied to so many at the Guardian-BBC junta

    • Not only with the truth but with geography too. In one of his anti-semitic rants on CIF he described his adventurous travel to the IKEA outlet in Tel-Aviv including some details of the store. The was only a small but significant problem in his fiction – at the time of the publication there was only one IKEA shop in Israel – in Netanya. (Since then they have opened two more, one in Rehovot and one in the vicinity of Haifa). The guy simply didn’t know the difference between two Israeli cities and didn’t make the minimal necessary effort to check some basic facts before publishing his lies.
      He must be an excellent adviser for Clegg without having the slightest idea of the geography of the place supposed to be his area of expertise.
      Or maybe he just felt the average Guardian readers’ requiremenst regarding the facts? Or for Blincoe and his editors the name of the city is indifferent if both are populated with the cursed Jews?
      Knowing Harriett Sherwood’s serious problems with topography Blincoe is a perfect match.

      • “The guy simply didn’t know the difference between two Israeli cities and didn’t make the minimal necessary effort to check some basic facts before publishing his lies.”
        You mean asking question such as “duh, where am I, duh?”

    • Amie, thanks for pointing this article out. I’ve just read it and all the BTLCs and I get the impression it is clearly difficult for the average Observer/Guardian reader/poster to know how to react. The majority say these are brave young Israelis but a few posters are so hate-filled they can’t even agree with the posters who praise these voices even though they serve the Palestinian cause.
      According to a few posters ‘the Guardian’ has begun taking orders from Washington and Zionists are running the Guardian offices (which would be funny if it wasn’t so unfunny), Some of these posters don’t even realize the article appears in today’s Observer, which is not actually the Guardian. One poster suggests that Zionism has always been violent and that is why there were reactions against it in Nazi Germany.

      • I know- how straitjacketed their prejudices are that they even crowbar the Guardian into the narrative of being the lackies of the powerful Jewish lobby!

  5. Was the West Bank a country when Israel “invaded”? Of course not. And you won’t that out when reading hate-filled articles by biased commentators like Nicholas Blincoe.

  6. “Nicholas Blincoe is an author, critic, screenwriter and former advisor to Nick Clegg”

    I’m not sure what such a person would be advising a politician about, but if it’s policy, then that’s one really messed up polity!

  7. Of Britain’s mainstream parties, the Liberals are the most hostile to Israel’s existence and the Jewish right to self-determination. The charming and delightful Baroness Tonge, a Jew-hating obsessive, deploys fantastic conspiracy theories and traditional anti-Semitic tropes that appeal to a white, parochial, middle-class demographic, that arrogantly and delusionally believes itself to be immune from the anti-Semitic bigotry that has infected the party and wider British and European society.

  8. On June 5, 1967, Israel only entered the West Bank after repeated Jordanian artillery fire and ground movements across the previous armistice lines. Jordanian attacks began at 10:00 a.m.; an Israeli warning to Jordan was passed through the UN at 11:00 a.m.; Jordanian attacks nonetheless persisted, so that Israeli military action only began at 12:45 p.m.