CiF Watch prompts Guardian correction to anti-Bibi smear by Chris McGreal

On Aug. 1st we fisked the claim in the following Tweet (on July 22) by Guardian reporter Chris McGreal

McGreal actually doubled-down on the Tweet’s suggestion – that the Israeli conflict against Hamas is, in fact, a racist war designed simply to murder Arabs – in his July 31st Guardian article titled ‘American media’s new pro-Israel bias: the same party line at the wrong time.

His column began thusly:

Here are a few questions you won’t hear asked of the parade of Israeli officials crossing US television screens during the current crisis in Gaza:

  • What would you do if a foreign country was occupying your land?
  • What does it mean that Israeli cabinet ministers deny Palestine’s right to exist?
  • What should we make of a prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, who as opposition leader in the 1990s was found addressing rallies under a banner reading “Death to Arabs”?

However, after a modest amount of research – evidently more than McGreal put into his own column – we were able to establish that the banner in question, at a right-wing rally in Jerusalem in 1994, did not read ‘Death to Arabs’ but, rather, death to the father of modern terror – Yasser Arafat.

After contacting Guardian editors, they acknowledged McGreal’s error, revised the passage in question and added the following addendum to the article:


We commend Guardian editors for their positive response to our complaint. 


7 replies »

  1. Pro Zionist people are just wining the battle on the media: the matter is not that the israeli offensive is totally out of proportion and clearly not being a “pinpoint” operation as they claim in the first place. It seems that the important matter, the stuff that cares here, is antisemitism. And it is always like this when Israel is reported to kill civilians or when we’re shown nasty messages written by young zionists in missiles or rockets, or any kind of lame behaviour by the army or local population. It is just leftist propaganda and/or antisemitism, it seems. The aftermath of all this, is that Israel has a blank check to do just what they want, no matter how bloody, cruel, and unforgiven it is.

    As a final thought: Israel is ruled by rankers. Not the kind of people who will work to build peace. On the contrary, they’re delighted with the perspective of a permanent confrontation.

      • I know what’s going on there. Yes, I know about Hamas. They are terrorist, or have at least a terrorist branch. They had defined themselves as yihadists. Yep, it’s an ugly thing to have such people as neighbours, to know that they want to destroy you, to suffer terrorist attacks. But, really, it’s not all of them. Maybe it is just extremists. And that’s when the trouble begin: questioning that not every palestianian is a terrorist, or that the method used by Israel are way too far violent and pointless, bring the magic words: antisemitism.

        Steven Spielberg was called “no friend of israel” (,7340,L-3182751,00.html), despite being maybe one of the most important individuals telling people about the holocaust by means of their films. But the film Munich was not so pleasant whith the Israel government doctrine: they show them as human beings. Evil human beings, but human beings in the end. And that was too much for many people. Because it was a torpedo to the zionist idea of “they are like animals, they are the devil, so we can kill them as f***ing rabbits”. So Spielberg was called no friend of Israel. That’s exactly what’s going on.

  2. Adam yes it is good the editors at “The Guardian” have acknowledged McGreal’s errors.
    But when will McGreal acknowledge his own error?

    McGreal’s silence demonstrates his own continuing malice and spite towards Israel.

  3. CifWatch: “We commend Guardian editors for their positive response to our complaint”.

    F**k the Guardian. Semantics over substance. It remains a rotten, bigoted bourgeois institution, viscerally hostile to the aspirations and security of the majority of Jewish people.

  4. “a year after the Palestinian leader signed a peace accord with Israel”

    That’s certainly one way to put it – one that keeps Arafat’s concurrent and unsavory activities off the pages of the Guardian.