Guardian

Guardian ignores the Zionist conspiracy theory in the room


An article published yesterday in The Independent linked to a Guardian report by Anne Penketh and Matthew Weaver on Jan. 14th titled ‘Charlie Hebdo poster burned in protest as Muslim leaders condemn cover’.  

Here’s a snapshot of the Guardian article, about a protest in the Philippines against the depiction of Muhammad on the cover of Charlie Hebdo a week after the deadly terror attacks in Paris:

image

So, the headline and accompanying photo tell us two things:

First, Muslims in the Philippines burned a Charlie Hebdo poster in protest of the decision, by surviving editors of the satirical magazine, to depict the prophet Muhammad on their cover a week following the jihadist massacre.

Second, the Philippine protesters are evidently alleging that the decision by Charlie Hebdo to ‘mock’ the prophet Muhammad represents a ‘Zionist Conspiracy’.

However, in over 600 words of text, Penketh and Weaver completely fail to mention that the bizarre Zionist conspiracy allegation played a role in the protest in the Philippine town of Marawi – despite the fact that the photo used to illustrate story makes this fact perfectly clear. (The Guardian photo caption does note that the Israeli Prime Minister is on the poster, but doesn’t mention the ‘Zionist Conspiracy’)

Of course, other journalists may have decided to contextualize the photo by explaining to readers that such antisemitic conspiracy theories – which attempt to explain the “real cause” of terror attacks around the world – are quite common throughout the Arab and Muslim world, and certainly within the anti-Israel “activist” community. 

Moreover, to those who would argue that anti-Zionist and antisemitic conspiracy theories may be held by some within the Arab world, but are not widely accepted, recent polling indicates that this may not be true. 

A poll conducted by Ma’an News Agency after the Paris terror attacks demonstrated that the vast majority of Palestinians believe Israel may have played a role in the attacks.  According to the poll, 84.4% believed that “Israel may be behind” the attacks, while only 8.7% believe the attacks were the result of “growing Islamic fundamentalism in Europe.”

Another poll commissioned by Anti-Defamation League reported that 65% of respondents in 18 Middle Eastern countries agreed with the statement “Jews are responsible for most of the world’s wars”.

The article by Penketh and Weaver once again demonstrates that paying attention to what the Guardian doesn’t report is as important in understanding their pattern of bias as carefully fisking what they do report. 

39 replies »

  1. ” the vast majority of Palestinians believe Israel may have played a role in the attacks. According to the poll, 84.4% believed that “Israel may be behind” the attacks, while only 8.7% believe the attacks were the result of “growing Islamic fundamentalism in Europe.””

    I would bet a considerable amount of money that if in the same poll they next asked:

    “Do you think the attacks on Charlie Hebdo and the Jews were Justified?” about the same number of respondents would answer “Yes”.

    And if they then asked:

    “Are you proud of the the attackers defending Islam in this way?”

    the same proportion would answer “Yes”

    • Exactly. Perhaps the Palestinian Street need to attend a workshop about the impact of cognitive dissonance.

      • that we entail logic. something missing in the arab street/cosmos. in aza they are protesting against egypt. what next ?

  2. I think you are being a little harsh. While I can see how omission can often be as suspect as putting in falsehoods, in this cast the Guardian’s angle was the worldwide backlash by Muslim leaders against Charlie Hebdo.

    They cite examples in France, Turkey and other places where there was a backlash. The photo they used of the Philippines protests had both Netanyahu and Zionist conspiracy on the burning flag, but it’s obvious that they had no further reference as to what these specific protesters were attempting to say. In fact the Independent article can only guess that it must be something to do with the sacked CH cartoonist.

    Rather than seeing this as a deliberate act of omission designed to misinform, I’d say exploring Zionist theories was not the main point of the news item AND there was no background information available to allow them to comment further on what the protesters meant by that.

    Finally I’d say that the polls you use (to support the notion that there are many anti-Zionist conspiracy theories held in the Arab world (which I don’t dispute)) were published after the Guardian article was written. It’s a little unfair to expect the Guardian to use future information.

    • You think, not thing anymore, piece of s…? Thing was such an appropriate and nice self description of you.
      🙂

    • “exploring Zionist theories”
      says Dinkle.
      Of course they are actually anti-Zionist/anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, not “Zionist theories. ”
      BTW When does the Guardian explore the crude and ubiquitous antisemitism of the Muslim “world” in all the glory of its lethal narratives about Jews and ‘Zionists’? I mean besides never.

    • Dinkle: “the Guardian’s angle was the worldwide backlash by Muslim leaders against Charlie Hebdo”.

      Yes, an angle that yet again sympathises with Muslims who feel aggrieved with offensive cartoons, while once again, ignoring, excusing or obfuscating what should be offensive to any decent human being -murderous anti-Semitism. That’s why the Guardian is a shit-rag of a paper.

      • I disagree that the report sympathizes with Muslims. Its an overall even-handed report which in no way sympathizes with the Muslims’ position. If anything I can detect a whiff of exasperation at the scale of objection to what the Guardian believes in – a free press.

        Also can you point out the “*murderous* anti-Semitism” in that report?

        • Yes Dinkle, if you build a world-view on the delusion of the ubiquitous and destructive nature of Jewish power, blaming everything you hate on Jews / Zionists, then you are an anti-Semite that will see the elimination of Jewish power as paramount. That is what the picture linking ‘Zionists’ with Charlie Hebdo is about, and that is what the Guardian continually fails to recognise.

          • Do you really think that, among all the financial and production pressures the Guardian faces that they have this anti Jew/Zionist agenda? You do know they had to sell Auto Trader to keep themselves afloat last year?

            Do you really think that a photo about a Muslim protest in the Philippines which shows the protesters in the Philippines is a deliberate attempt to discredit Jews/Zionists (I’m using your phrase). If so ,surely they should have used a photo where the picture of Netanyahu and the word ‘Zionist’ was mush clearer?

            • yes. They are anti Semitic . Them being skint or selling auto trader has nothing to do with their political bias.

              Yes. You don’t have to walk around in jackboots and a hitler T shirt to advocate anti Semitism.

            • Piece of s.. returns to his denial of antisemitism. Surprise.
              Do you really think, .. Do you really think …. Nice try to occupy reality and the porr word think by an antisemite, when that piece of s… normallly things.
              🙂

            • No Dinkle, it’s about excusing, obfuscating or ignoring anti-Semitism. Nobody at the Guardian, and you as a Guardian reader, are able to overcome their prejudices and actually think – what does it mean to symbolise Jews or the Jewish state in this way? By not acknowledging it, you condone it. The pathology of thinking that Charlie Hebdo’s provocative cartoons are part of a Jewish conspiracy is what led to the murders of four Jews in a kosher supermarket, and yet that same sentiment expressed in the Philippines on this burning poster does not warrant a condemnation, or even a recognition by you or the Guardian. What is it – a hostility so visceral that you and others like Rusbridger don’t even register it as being anything out of the ordinary, or cowardice – you are too scared to confront it?

              • Thank you for entering a discussion without hurling insults (though I’ve just noticed you’ve called me an anti-Semite in another post – poor).

                Now without trying to analyse every piece that the Guardian has ever done (I’m not a regular reader), I’d like to explore with you this specific piece in the Guardian. I’d like to understand what you think makes its anti-Semitic (so please reply) and I hope you try to see why it might not.

                1) “not acknowledging it, you condone it.” – can you be specific in what I’m not acknowledging? To explain my point: What I see in that photo is a burning flag which CH is being condemned, and a possible conspiracy theory that Netanyahu and the Israel state were involved – Possibly. The photo of Netanyahu and the word Zionist may also refer to the fact that a cartoonist was sacked by CH for antisemitism (according to the Independent) but still printed cartoons of Muhammad. . Either ways its a report on a protest, and that report is even handed (IMO). The ‘why’ of the burning flag is not known – neither reporters were in the Philippines to find out why, but Nethanyahu is mentioned in the photo caption so it is not unacknowledged. I honestly can not see how anyone can be sure that this is ‘murderous antisemitism’.

                But even if it was an accusation that the state of Israel/Israel PM was somehow involved in the CH attacks, how is that specifically anti-Semitic? There are many who say the Bush authorized the 9/11 attacks are they being anti-christian? Possibly anti USA ; anti CIA yes; anti Americans perhaps, Anti Bush administration, definitely, but anti a religion – no.

                2) “The pathology of thinking that Charlie Hebdo’s provocative cartoons are part of a Jewish conspiracy is what led to the murders of four Jews in a kosher supermarket” – perhaps, no one knows for sure. I have heard another theory that it was part of the operation to try and provide the CH killers with an opportunity to escape by diverting attention. And why the Kosher shop was chosen was nothing to do with CH (directly) but everything to do with targeting Jews because they are Jews and because the diversion would be doubly effective. (So that is definitely anti-Semitic IMO)

                3) “this burning poster does not warrant a condemnation”. Posters are burnt all the time. I have never seen a mainstream news outlet condemn any burning of a poster of Blair, Bush, Drago, Merkel – anyone – within a *news* item. In an opinion item, yes, but not a news item.

                • But even if it was an accusation that the state of Israel/Israel PM was somehow involved in the CH attacks, how is that specifically anti-Semitic? There are many who say the Bush authorized the 9/11 attacks are they being anti-christian? Possibly anti USA ; anti CIA yes; anti Americans perhaps, Anti Bush administration, definitely, but anti a religion – no.
                  Religion?? Antisemitism isn`t confined to religious Jews, you poor piece of s…
                  Just another antisemite, that piece of s…, who explains Jews what they have to judge as antisemitism and what not. What a conceited piece of s…, deluded by his own banal ‘thinging’.

                • Dinkle . I only have time to address point [3]
                  You say burning posters are not really an issue . Its an allegory of burning the person.
                  Yesterday they burnt the Jordanian pilot alive .
                  Allegory to reality in an easy intellectual step

                • Dinkle:

                  ““this burning poster does not warrant a condemnation”. ”

                  Now you start sounding like the thugs who burnt my father’s synagogue in 1938.
                  They torched all the books.
                  Burning efiges, images, books, words, ideas… and yesterday people.

                  We all know how it ends.
                  Look inside you, do you want to see it end in that way?
                  If so Fritz is right and quit whining!
                  If not, denounce it!

                  About you first point:

                  “…and a possible conspiracy theory that Netanyahu and the Israel state were involved ”
                  Not possibe! According to the idiots burning the poster it is a fact. You can see Zionist conspirecy written on it.
                  Sure you can say I’m not certain that the person on the left is actually burning it…
                  I mean He could be trying to put it out because it was hit by a lightining?
                  Did I mention that maybe little green man appeared?
                  Or was ot god himself who torched it?
                  Dinkle, I think you need to spend more time with Richard Reid… Are you by chance from Bromley?

                  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/shoe-bomber-richard-reid-shows-no-remorse-after-a-decade-in-prison-for-failed-terror-atrocity-10022074.html

                  Back to your silly attempt at excusing anti Zionist mob demos:

                  “But even if it was an accusation that the state of Israel/Israel PM was somehow involved in the CH attacks, how is that specifically anti-Semitic?”

                  Pathetic!
                  Whoever was behind the CH attack was behind the Kosher supermarket attack and the roundup and execution of the only Jewish woman in the CH office while leaving the other women alive.
                  That means that Israeli Zionist Jewish leaders have ordered the killing of Jews to poush in an agenda.
                  Now that is Anti Semitism trope!

                  Maybe you and Alexander Zakharchenko should hook up for a drink?

                  Now did I just say you were an Anti Semite like Zakharchenko or did I suggest you may enjoy Ukranian Vodka and he is probably a good chap to discuss Operas with?
                  After all, you were not here and didn’t interview me or him, now did you?

                  http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4622200,00.html

                  http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4622200,00.html

                  http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.640616#!

                  And guess what else.
                  I don’t seem to find the Guardian mentioning this guy’s rant about Jews?
                  Odd…

                • @ItsikDeWembley timed 4.21am.

                  ““this burning poster does not warrant a condemnation”. ”
                  My Reply: This article in the guardian is a News item. You do not mix editorial with News items. This was a News item on a protest in the Philippines. Of course I don’t want things to end as you suggest but there is a very long road to travel between burning posters and state endorsed destruction of synagogues in Europe and in-between these two points are strong laws protecting property, freedom, religious tolerance and specific laws protecting Jews.

                  “Not possibe! According to the idiots burning the poster it is a fact. You can see Zionist conspirecy written on it.”
                  My Reply: You are deliberately missing my point. Idiots can assert stuff and even burn posters, it does not make them right. If they (the Philippine protesters)believe Israel (the state) was involved in the CH and supermarket attacks, that’s their prerogative. Its called freedom of speech/protest. What the Guardian should NOT do in a NEWS item is condemn them directly. In an op/ed piece yes but not a News item

                  “That means that Israeli Zionist Jewish leaders have ordered the killing of Jews to poush in an agenda.”
                  My Reply: I think the suggestion that Israel/Zionists were involved in the CH / supermarket attacks is beyond ridiculous – its just not true. But deluded protesters can make deluded accusations against states for perceived wrongs. I think they are utterly mistaken, but surely they can protest against activities they think has happened. And Again I say it was inappropriate for the Guardian to put an opinion into a NEWS item. Adam is being harsh on the Guardian in this instance.

                • Dinkle, I’m happy to discuss things with you, and like to think I’m abusive only when abuse is first given. There are different ways of interpreting events and the way the news reports on it, but by answering your points further, I think I’ll be going around in circles. My first discourse with you was about the implicit and explicit recognition of anti-Semitism, and how by not explicitly recognising it creates a grey-zone in which it can be ignored or excused. This is the grey-zone that you like to operate in, in which you give the benefit of the doubt to the motives of the anti-Semites. That’s is also what the Guardian does, and that is what I have already argued. I didn’t say the Guardian produced the poster, or that Guardian readers set fire to it, but that the Guardian – and you – are guilty of sweeping its true, malicious meaning, under the carpet.

                  Why does it translate into murderous anti-Semitism? Because that’s what historically we have seen this pathology transform into time and time again. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are, to coin a phrase, the Nazis’ warrant for genocide. That’s what Jewish conspiracy theories are all about – finding an excuse to justify hate and murder.

                  All that Euro-centric liberal conjecture about not knowing the motives for why four Jews were gunned down at point blank range in cold-blood in a Paris supermarket, does not deserve the dignity of a response, other than to repeat; you choose not to understand, it provides you with an opportunity to ignore, obfuscate or excuse contemporary anti-Semitism and its murderous consequences.

        • ” If anything I can detect a whiff of exasperation at the scale of objection to what the Guardian believes in – a free press.”
          i.e., free to ignore what’s actually going on when it detracts from the desired narrative. A case of the unscrupulous leading the silly.

    • “in this cast the Guardian’s angle was the worldwide backlash by Muslim leaders against Charlie Hebdo.”

      As Ace Ventura would have said: Reeeeaaallly?

      If the backlash was, as you and the Guardian claim, against Charlie Hebdo, why burn the Israeli flag and its leader’s photo in the Philippines?
      And if you chose such a photo, which you claim was unique (hardly the case) then why not explain what is this all about?

      “but it’s obvious that they had no further reference as to what these specific protesters were attempting to say.”

      Why of course Mr mind reader, it is so obvious everyone could have guessed it!

      I don’t think Adam is being harsh at all!
      He is expecting a professional level of journalism from the “world’s leading liberal voice, instead of this sorry excuse for lazy journalism.

  3. if it was not central to the story , why show a photo of a massive [ 15ft ] anti Israel , Zionist conspiracy banner being torched next to a nice sweet smaller anti hebdo banner , next to all them nice sweet gentle peace loving tea drinking ladies ?
    What do the Guardian think will be digested by the readers of such an image ?
    The editor chose the photo for publishing . It gives a clear malicious message .

    • Some of the posters here do not think that editors have agency.
      And they don’t understand how editors work.
      They seem to believe that editors just throw the photos (and sentences) in the air, and paste into the paper whatever happens to land conveniently on the floor nearest their feet.
      They have no explanation for the fact that the Guardian’s and Independent’s and BBC’s photos and sentences are imbued with Jew-hatred 98% of the time. Just by pure chance, eh?

      • I don’t know about 98% Jew hatred but certainly every photo is there for a reason to drive in a message.
        The above for example could may well be a sub conscience theme while the editor hope to get some more trouble stirring closer to home to rip the cash reward.

        However much they complain about arms dealers and wars over oil they’re jobs are the same. stir sh!t and report it.
        Whoever dies or gets hurt in the cross fire is fair game to these editors.