Guardian

Guardian posts article by conspiracy theorist about ‘secret’ cause of the Gaza war


The headline alone accompanyin a July 9th column by  at the Earth Insight page of the Guardian says it all:

hot air

Ahmed explains:

Since the discovery of oil and gas in the Occupied Territories, resource competition has increasingly been at the heart of the conflict, motivated largely by Israel’s increasing domestic energy woes.

So, contrary to reports demonstrating that Israel will soon achieve energy independence and is set to become a net exporter of natural gas – and may one day, due to its reserve of oil shale, be able to pump 100,000 barrels of oil a day – Guardian readers are asked to believe that Israel has an energy crisis, one which prompted the current war against Hamas.

Ahmed continues:

Mark Turner, founder of the Research Journalism Initiativereported that the siege of Gaza and ensuing military pressure was designed to “eliminate” Hamas as “a viable political entity in Gaza” to generate a “political climate” conducive to a gas deal. 

While information on Research Journalism Initiative is sparse, Turner appears to be a pro-Palestinian activist who was once active with the pro-terror International Solidarity Movement.  (Further, the article by Turner cited in the previous passage was published at Electronic Intifada in 2008.)  

Ahmed continues:

A 2012 letter by two Israeli government chief scientists – which the Israeli government chose not to disclose – warned the government that Israel still had insufficient gas resources to sustain exports despite all the stupendous discoveries. The letter, according to Ha’aretz, stated that Israel’s domestic resources were 50% less than needed to support meaningful exports, and could be depleted in decades:

However, the article he linked to merely cites one opinion suggesting that Israel should reduce the quantity of natural gas it plans to export by 2020, warning that, otherwise, it may exhaust its reserves in four decades or so – reflecting the broader debate over how the government should balance domestic use with exports.

Though Ahmed pivots later in the article to different matters entirely, the other ‘evidence’ he adds to buttress his main theory consists of the following:

For the Israeli government, Hamas continues to be the main obstacle to the finalisation of the gas deal. In the incumbent defence minister’s (Ya’alon) words: “Israel’s experience during the Oslo years indicates Palestinian gas profits would likely end up funding terrorism against Israel. The threat is not limited to Hamas… It is impossible to prevent at least some of the gas proceeds from reaching Palestinian terror groups.”

However, Ahmed is quoting Ya’alon from a 2007 JCPA article, and it’s unclear how his warning 7 years ago are relevant to either Israel’s Tamar Gas Field, located far from the Gaza coast (within Israel’s own economic zone, roughly 80 kilometers west of Haifa), or with the current war against Hamas.

In the final paragraph, Ahmed concedes that the “Israel-Palestine conflict is clearly not all about resources”, but fails of course to hint that the current conflict may, just possibly, have something to do with thousands of rocket attacks launched by an Islamist extremist group committed to the Jewish state’s destruction.

Finally, perhaps we shouldn’t be at all surprised by Ahmed’s bizarre theory on the “root cause” of the current conflict, given his history of such fanciful “troof’ telling.  It appears that the Guardian contributor is somewhat of a 9/11 (and 7/7 bombings) conspiracy theorist.  Here’s the Amazon synopsis of his book, titled ‘The War on Freedom: How and why America was attacked on 9/11‘.

A disturbing expose of the American government’s hidden agenda, before and after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. A wide range of documents show US officials knew in advance of the ‘Boeing bombing’ plot, yet did nothing. Did the attacks fit in with plans for a more aggressive US foreign policy? Nafeez Ahmed examines the evidence, direct and circumstantial, and lays it before the public in chilling detail: how FBI agents who uncovered the hijacking plot were muzzled, how CIA agents trained Al Qaeda members in terror tactics, how the Bush family profited from its business connections to the Bin Ladens, and from the Afghan war. A ‘must read’ for anyone seeking to understand America’s New War on Terror.

And, as we’ve demonstrated repeatedly, the Guardian is clearly a ‘must read’ for anyone curious about the hard left’s continuing descent into the intellectual abyss of ‘radical’, anti-Zionist, conspiracy-minded agitprop. 

46 replies »

  1. That would be this group of ‘open-minded’ individuals, (sarcasm intended)

    “Research Journalism Initiative

    RJI staff living in the West Bank work with Palestinian students to produce film, radio, photographic and print media that American educators may incorporate into a wide variety of high school and university curricula.

    RJI facilitates live videoconferences between American high school students and Palestinian university students, creating opportunities for a direct exchange that is free of the filters typical of the mainstream American media. The program exposes American youths to elements of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict not usually discussed as part of the formal educational system and allows them to process their fears, anger and suspicions in an open environment.

    Through interaction between the two groups, RJI enables American students to engage in learning about realities of life in Palestine from those actually living such experiences.”

  2. You seem to be ignoring the fact that another article with a different interpretation also appeared in the Guardian yesterday.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/09/hamas-goes-to-war-gaza-israel-ceasefire

    You may think that the Guardian is unbalanced, it is by no means perfect, but I have read through Cifwatch mainly from curiosity and of the 2 websites it is Cifwatch that comes down as having a more biased viewpoint, particularly in its btl commentators.

    • This isn’t a newspaper, Jake. A newspaper is made of the word NEWS.

      This is a blog. Information may be here, but it is not run by a editorial staff trained in journalism.

      The Guardian is an embarrassment to journalism. The sheer number of corrections they have made due to Adam’s diligence should show you that.

      • Hi koufaxmitzvah, I think we could have a very long argument about what constitutes a newspaper or news source but I think you are missing my point. I agree that the pointing out of inaccuracies and dubious sources is a great service to journalism and from what I have seen Adam is generally very thorough about this. However to claim that he should not aspire to the same editorial standards that he would wish to see in others benefits no one. The Guardian has long been known to play a bit fast and loose on occasion, particularly with grammar (hence Grauniad) and should be criticised when it misrepresents. However if you read btl on almost any issue from the ukraine to stand up comedy you will find commentators decrying the level of bias (from either side) on any of these topics. My opinion is that the Guardian’s editorial bias does not have the significant anti-semitic bias that is commonly asserted here, but instead presents a plurality of view points, this was what I was pointing out in the comment above. If I understand anything about middle eastern politics it is that they are complex, as someone who wants to understand geopolitics I am always looking for good news sources to allow me to understand them better, Cifwatch could be one such useful source too if it played to its audience slightly less. Instead I guess I’ll just have to head back to the New York Review of Books.

        • Adam is one person. As far as I know, this website is him and maybe a couple of guest bloggers. I don’t think Adam gets paid a salary for doing this, but I don’t know. I’ve never met Adam, and I’ve never stopped by his office. I also have never been to the Guardian, so for all I know, it could be run by 2 chimps in a basement.

          The fact remains, however, that they have shown a skewered vision of life in Israel. Yesterday’s juxtaposition of 2 Israelis on a beach (pointing to the sky in their swimwear) with images of dead Palestinian bodies is along the line of Der Sturmer. I mean, that was blatant and pathetic. Stuff like that is taught in journalism classes as imagery to avoid and be aware of.

          Like I said, an amateur has successfully called the Guardian out for the repeated offenses of biasness and false reports. If they can’t figure it out by now, that their approach needs tweaking for it to be objective, then to hell with them. They have made their decision. They are leading the way in Israel bashing sentiments.

          And I hope they go broke for it.

          • ‘along the line of Der Sturmer’ – I imagine you have heard of Godwin’s law, its not a good place to go to so quickly in a debate. Haaretz ran a story which too plays on the contradictions of the current conflict ‘Tel Aviv parties while Jerusalem burns’, are they being exposed for such a shocking journalistic contrast? I don’t believe so as it appears that such contrasts are there to be seen.

            There was masses of coverage in the Guardian (and BBC for that matter) over the 3 poor teenagers who were murdered, do you think that every Palestinian who has died in the conflict in the last month has had the same amount of coverage? Now I don’t take the as a big anti Palestinian bias, just as the reality of the way multiple deaths tend to be reported.

            While I have no problem with Adam calling out the Guardian he is clearly a bit more than an amateur ( I just read his profile), I have no idea whether he is funded in his work or whether he carries it out from a sense of moral responsibility.

            I take the point both from yourself and the site generally that Israel should not be held to higher standards than any other functioning democracy, but I’m not sure that it is. Any outsider looking at the problems sees a massive imbalance in power between the two sides, and with Israel having the economic, military and to an extent the diplomatic advantage, it is a normal expectancy that they are best positioned to create the environment where a better solution may be found.

            Anyway the Guardian won’t I think go bust, it will keep going whether you wish to or not. I hope Cifwatch continues calling out its errors, however I don’t think that picking at the Guardian is going to have much of effect when there is a lack of a narrative that places Israel’s policies in a more positive light.

            • Maybe you’ve heard of looking to your past in order to clean up some mistakes? If they sound like a Nazi, and they behave like a Nazi…. You’re right. I should just ignore it.

              Don’t play Godwin’s Law with rather than notice the point being made. Photo juxtapositions is a major part of all propaganda machines.

              Learn from your history. Do not repeat the history. Yes, even if Nazis are there.

              Thanks!

              • Oh yes, Godwin’s so-called Law. It’s like the common currency of equating Zionism with Nazism, no? Perhaps Godwin should update his “law” for the Durbin inspired Apartheid strategy.

            • “There was masses of coverage in the Guardian (and BBC for that matter) over the 3 poor teenagers who were murdered, do you think that every Palestinian who has died in the conflict in the last month has had the same amount of coverage?”

              That’s a bit skewed, don’t you think?

              Was every Palestinian hitchhiking home from school, kidnapped, and have 10 bullets pumped into them with a silencer? Why would every Palestinian or Israeli for that matter who dies in a war get that kind of coverage? You said it yourself, “murdered” as opposed to “died in the conflict.”

              But, of course, the Arab teen murdered by Jewish terrorists in Jerusalem got plenty of coverage, and rightly so.

              Then again, every time that Israel is forced to do something about rockets launched from Gaza, we get an endless stream of experts to convey a message that Israel doesn’t care about the sanctity of human life.

              • I deliberately used the phrase died in conflict to be anti-inflammatory but if you feel it conveys the point better then I am happy to say that they have been murdered by the IDF. What is the moral equivalency of murdering a child deliberately or a child dying as a result of collateral damage? Well while one seems a more brutal act because of its directness there is also something frighteningly dehumanising about remote killing. Either way parents are left without their children.

                I really don’t think that the general judgement of Israel (in the UK at least) comes from anti-semitism or anti Zionism even, but much more from the fact that Israel seems to have a lot in common with developed western european countries and as such it is more shocking to see it knowingly causing the deaths of civilians.

                I don’t see the UK as particularly blame free in its foreign policy either, we have behaved appallingly throughout much of the world for most of the last 200 years.

                • “I deliberately used the phrase died in conflict to be anti-inflammatory but if you feel it conveys the point better then I am happy to say that they have been murdered by the IDF.”
                  O.K. So now you’ve revealed yourself.

                  “What is the moral equivalency of murdering a child deliberately or a child dying as a result of collateral damage? ”
                  Legally there is quite a difference, and the legal standard is born out of a moral concern. That concern is that you’re not using war as a cover for simply murdering people, or as you would say, a child.

                • “I really don’t think that the general judgement of Israel (in the UK at least) comes from anti-semitism or anti Zionism even, but much more from the fact that Israel seems to have a lot in common with developed western european countries and as such it is more shocking to see it knowingly causing the deaths of civilians.”

                  Jake, this is just more bullshit. The only thing Israel does differently than other western countries in warfare is to take greater care in avoiding unnecessary civilian casualties. The militaries of both the UK and the US study Israeli techniques in this regard, and probably Hamas does too, but with a completely different objective. And yet this is quite a different image than the one propagated by the media. One must ask why.

                • “Legally there is quite a difference, and the legal standard is born out of a moral concern. That concern is that you’re not using war as a cover for simply murdering people, or as you would say, a child.”

                  I am not convinced that the civilian deaths in Palestine are a necessary evil, in that they seemed to have very limited long term effect while having such awful short term consequences. I agree that generally Israel tries to minimise civilian casualties, however it does not seem to be that successful at this. I have no respect for Hamas, but I do believe (perhaps wrongly?) that they are largely in place due a power vacuum.

                  This is clearly not just Israel’s responsibility – other countries have clearly stoked this conflict with funds and guns, however ultimately who is it who suffers the most?

  3. Speaking of Conspiracies, I’ve got one.

    Notice how the Media is talking about the 9 Palestinians killed while watching the World Cup at a beachside cafe? I’ve heard about that in every article and TV and radio report. Some things to remember:

    1. Boko Harem blew the crap out of a World Cup watching party in Nigeria a couple weeks ago.
    2. In terms of Israel, Hamas launched a barrage of rockets during the Germany-Brazil semi-final match (notice the proper British enunciation). I’m not sure if the media caught wind of that, but my Facebook had comments like, “You know these people are brutes because this is the semifinal between Germany and Brazil, and I need to go to bomb shelter.”
    3. Couple these two facts and I can presume
    – Radical Islamists tend to lash out against Western excess like World Cup soccer (sorry, I’m still an American);
    – Hamas invites their friends down for a World Cup / End of the World party (for Allah), where the radicals go down for a game and a missile launch right outside the front door

    Most of the news I get is from in-between the lines I read in the media, so I feel my secure with my sources.

    • I did also address the point directly. You failed to address mine apart from to try inflate the debate into comparison’s with Nazi Germany. I’m afraid this rather suggests your inability to present a more reasonable and persuasive message.

      • Actually, I stopped reading your post the moment you brought up Godwin’s Law, as if I had done something wrong by comparing the Guardian’s behavior with that of the Nazis. Just so you know, I don’t have a lot of respect for this medium. I’m not changing you, you’re not changing me. If you want to ignore that the Guardian behaves like the Nazis did for sake of claiming some kind of transgression on my behalf, then I really don’t need to talk to you.

        For reals.

          • I wouldn’t worry about it. The way the margins head over the right, I wouldn’t be able to read anything if I was interested in reading. So no big whoop on that behalf.

            Listen, I’m not accusing you of anything, but I am rather dubious of folks on the net. Especially when they mention certain clues for me to be rather dubious about them.

            But no big whoop with that either.

            • Its a shame because if you re concerned that people are reading to much propaganda in the Guardian I would have thought that you would have wanted to get an alternative view point across. I am firmly of the opinion that the medium has a better chance of success if you show it a bit of respect, which I try to.

              I do have a number of issues with you comparing the Guardian to the Nazis, my main one is that it shows a complete lack of proportion. Is it transgressive? No, I don’t think so, I just think its too easy to roll it out as a weapon to close off debate.

              • To the contrary, I don’t think it lacks any proportion. The Nazi machine includes their propaganda and news branch, and the Guardian behaves the way THEY did. Like I said, THEY printed a photo of Israelis on a Beach in direct comparison with Dead Palestinians in the Street. That tells me nothing, Jake, but their own disrespect for the LIVES OF ISRAELIS (i.e. JEWS).

                So I don’t agree with you. The electronic medium means that Ali Abomination can lie through his pointy piece of shit head to untold masses. He’s a lying sack of shit, using 3 year old footage and some from Syria to then blame Israel? UHHHHH…. NAZI MANEUVER, MAN!

                Ali wouldn’t have had a journalist job 10 years ago. Don’t go fooling yourself anymore than you have.

                • The Guardian has published articles by Adam I believe? And by lots of other commentators. In fact if you look at a lot of their political coverage they regularly publish articles from authors who they know will irritate the majority of their readers. Its click bait to a degree. I personally would like more insight into Israel, my friends who live in Tel Aviv seem pretty unengaged with the politics, while I have other Jewish friends who have left Israel as they did not like the political climate. So I don’t think I’m particularly fooling myself.

                  I ask you this, do you think that the Guardian editorial board, wishes for the destruction of Israel / Jewish peoples, or do you think it would be more supportive of a solution where Israelis and Palestinians lived together without violence (whether in a single or 2 state solution)? For me – if you can answer yes to the first question then the Nazi accusation could be justified, however I honestly think that if you believe that is the Guardian’s aim you are misguided.

                • I honestly think that you are completely misguided due to a sophomoric condition which affects a lot of people when it comes to Israel.
                  That people of the extreme left left and leave Israel is not news, but to call them Jewish is unfriendliness to your friends on your part and a definition they will reject.
                  But for covering his own ass everybody has Jewish friends since the time of Lueger, the famous mayor and political antisemite of Vienna at the turn from the 19th to the 20th century,
                  According to legend he said that he defines who is a Jew.

                • Jake “I ask you this, do you think that the Guardian editorial board, wishes for the destruction of Israel / Jewish peoples,”

                  Why do you think that the Guardian have no problem with publishing lies about Israel ?

                • “I ask you this, do you think that the Guardian editorial board, wishes for the destruction of Israel / Jewish peoples, or do you think it would be more supportive of a solution where Israelis and Palestinians lived together without violence (whether in a single or 2 state solution)?”

                  I don’t think the Guardian is interested in peace. And they’re not the only Western Media whom I believe thinks this way. War means money for more than the MIC. Yellow journalism brought more than the encouragement of outside engagement. It eggs on the hate. Why is Fox such a force in America? They’re coverage sucks. It’s not transparent. But they speak to a flustered audience, and they’re able to show the level of their reach. The same goes for the Guardian. The coverage sucks, but their concern is their reach. Can they pull enough to justify ad rates? They’re not looking for peace. If they did, they (and others) would rehash how Israel has actually offered peace 3 times over the past 15 years rather than claim all she does is drum the beats of war.

              • He’s not concerned. He’s here to troll.

                They’ll never use their real names, never put a face to their thoughts an opinions.

                Why? Because the incite racial hatred.

                Illegal? Very much so, hence they hide.

                Cowards.

      • The Guardian, to me, is organized hate.

        The Internet, to me, has organizations all over it spewing hate.

        There are even people getting paid to trash Israel in comments sections. For reals.

  4. If anyone is wondering when that ‘beacon’ of truth George Galloway MP is going to intervene and give us his words of wisdom. You might have to wait as he is busy counting the money he is making on top of his salary as an MP.

    “Galloway, Respect MP for Bradford West, was the highest earning, registering £25,600 from Associated Press for work on the TV station Russia Today, £21,450 from LBP TV (a channel broadcast out of the offices of former Iran-backed station Press TV) and £18,000 from Arab-focused satellite channel Al-Mayadeen TV between January and April (he has yet to declare for May and June).

    According to the register, Galloway also presents two weekly television programmes for Press TV on an unpaid basis. He hosts two programmes a month for Al-Mayadeen in Beirut and has his return flights and hotel accommodation paid for.

    A spokesman for Galloway said: “He does believe in spreading his message as widely as he can – not just through the prism of Parliament.” ”

    That is for the first four (4) months of this year.
    He who pays the piper calls the tune, remember it next time you read or hear of Galloway.

  5. Publishing this article by the Guardian written by a card-carrying Jew-hater, who (not incidentally) is an idiot chewing on conspiracy theories is only natural. They are ready to sink this low even lower if they can do anything for Hamas – a well known Islamist terrorist organization with openly declared intention to kill every Jew.

  6. I went and read the original article, and while almost no one in the comments section directly addressed it–it became a lovely exchange between annoyed pro-Israeli commenters and pro-Palestinian liars and idiots–the few who did had these general responses:
    1. The information Ahmed pinned his central point on was either out-dated or incomplete.
    2. This is kind of old hat for Ahmed: not that he isn’t an asshole, but he tends to tie pretty much every conflict on Earth into energy issues, whether the point is really relevant or not (which, sometimes, it has been, but more often like here not quite).
    3. There’s so little impact from the amount of natural gas that could be controlled by Hamas relative to the gargantuan amounts that are controlled by Israel–which proves Ahmed overstated one ME issue, the Egyptian gas cutoffs after 2011 which really DID start an energy crisis in Israel, and is ignoring the much wider Israel-neighbors gas issues because they don’t fit into his asinine Gaza theory box.
    Like a lot of CiF writing in general, this piece seems to want to pretend things are much worse for Israel than reality, and also that Hamas is much better than reality. It was encouraging that even amongst the CiF regulars, Ahmed puked up a hairball on this one. Quite sure he’ll try again, sigh.

  7. I humbly acknowledge how stupidly gullible I was when I read the Guardian article… but goes to show you… that if I am gullible with all I know, how gullible the readers of the Guardian are… Glad there was a response.

    Love, Lynn

  8. Nafeez Ahmed’s article was a re-run of one he had written for another Israel-disparaging Internet publication, Le Monde Diplomatique in November 2012. The wacky ideas about Israel coveting the miniscule Gaza gas field- awarded to the Palestinian Authority by Ehud Barak during his term as prime Minister- were ludicrous then and more so now, since the exploitation of the Tamar and other gas fields. The Guardian should have known better but it seems that swallowing conspiracy theories, especially where Israel might be involved, is irreversibly embedded in editorial policy.