Guardian hysteria over Bibi’s Congressional speech recalls their worst anti-Israel attacks

A guest post by AKUS

The Guardian is up to its old tricks again.

When it has only the flimsiest case on which to base an attack on Israel, it pours out article after article on a particular matter, assuming, perhaps correctly, that sheer volume will overcome lack of evidence for its claims. Loaded language, carefully selected “facts” even when none exist, and avoidance of any attempt to actually do the research to validate claims are the hallmark of its columnists.

This was the strategy it has used against Israel in numerous cases such as the Al-Durrah/al-Dura incident, the shockingly false claims of a “massacre” in Jenin in 2002,  the 2010 “Gaza flotilla” affair, the endless references to the Sabra and Shatilla massacre in any context at all even when it has nothing to do with Sabra and Shatilla implying that Israel carried it out, the various Israeli campaigns against Hamas in Gaza, and so on.

Not content with letting their own attack dogs loose, and making the most spurious and often simply false claims (for example, that Israeli shells hit a packed school in Gaza last year), the Guardian frequently opens these sorts of articles up to the commentariat below the line, in the hope, only too often fulfilled, that they will write what even the Guardian is hesitant to do.

If there is such a thing as a verbal nuclear attack against a person or country, the Guardian is premier user of that tactic against Israel and Israelis.  

Now the Guardian has used the same tactic to do a hatchet job on Netanyahu prior to his speech to the US Congress last night. Even though I am among those who believe that he should not have accepted the invitation to speak on the Iran issue before Congress, especially given the way the invitation was issued, I have been appalled by the level of vituperation, hatred, personal attacks and fear-mongering that has accompanied this issue at the Guardian.

The first article regarding his current trip to the US to address Congress was printed on February 6thLeading Democrats threaten to snub Netanyahu speech to Congress . Between that date and March 2nd,  I count at least 28 articles that refer directly to his visit or do so in the context of reporting on various Israeli scandals involving the Netanyahu family in the harshest of terms.

The objective is to “prove” that he overstated his claims about Iran at the United Nations. In order to attempt to defuse what he has to say about Iran’s nuclear capabilities and the negotiations being held by the P5+1, many of the articles mock his famous presentation at the UN. For example:

An article by Tim Dowling leads with a sub-header that states: According to his predictions, we should all be dead by now .

On February 26th  Simon Tisdall asked: Is Netanyahu out to foment war with Iran? ,  followed by the claim that the Mossad and Netanyahu did not agree about Iran’s nuclear program.  

“As the Guardian revealed this week, Netanyahu has repeatedly talked up the Iranian threat in the past, making alarmist claims unsupported by Israel’s intelligence agencies. In this he was assisted by the former hardline Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who appeared to threaten Israel with annihilation.

The articles on the nuclear enrichment program rely on the extraordinarily fortuitous timing of Qatar’s Al Jazeera release of a purportedly secret document about Iran’s enrichment program provided to South Africa by the Mossad on October 22nd 2012. One has to assume that Al Jazeera, and possibly the Guardian, held it back in order to time its release for maximum effect on his visit to Washington.

On February 23rd, the Guardian wrote:

“The cache, which has been independently authenticated by the Guardian, mainly involves exchanges between South Africa’s intelligence agency and its counterparts around the world. It is not the entire volume of traffic but a selective leak”.

But are we expected to believe that these revelations just happened to land up in the Guardian’s hands, thanks to a close relationship between Qatar’s Al Jazeera and the Guardian, just in time to be used in the campaign against Netanyahu’s address to Congress? Or were they withheld to serve the Guardian’s political campaign against Israel and Netanyahu for the most appropriate occasion?

The Guardian builds its case around this extract from the portion that was supposedly provided to the SSA by the Mossad, for no apparent reason (ask yourself why the Mossad would provide information to South Africa, of all countries):


Are these yellowed pages, stamped “Al Jazeera”, and apparently printed on a teletype machine even real?

Even if real, the information supposedly provided by the Mossad to South Africa (why? For what purpose?), a country whose ministers refuse to even visit Israel, differs principally in timing rather than intent and potential from the simple and effective bomb cartoon Netanyahu presented – which certainly had one effect: everyone remembers it.

Paragraph 1, not shown by the Guardian, indicates that “Iran is making great efforts to activate the IR40 reactor (which is expected to produce military-grade Plutonium) as quickly as possible”:


And, in summary, the document closes with another paragraph indicating that the Mossad believes that Iran could move immediately to renew work on nuclear weapons if it chooses:


If you read the whole document that Al Jazeera provided, and if you believe it is real, it is different in detail but does not actually contradict Netanyahu’s claim that Iran is working to have the capability to produce nuclear weapons at short notice when the time comes and the decision to produce weapons should not be left in their hands.

In typical overkill mode, the Guardian ran with this story three times in one day:


Why would they do this?

The objective is to paint Netanyahu as a warmonger hoping to bring down destruction on a country (with Cuba and Venezuela, one of the Guardian’s examples of what a country should be) that has no intention of attacking Israel. But even the Guardian must know by now that the Iranians wage war by proxy – through Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel directly, and through the Shia majority of Iraq against Sunni Muslims in Iraq and Syria.

How reliable is their source, Al Jazeera?

Internal SSA papers purportedly obtained by Al Jazeera and passed to the Guardian accuse Israel of attempting to dry up the Nile (!) with a kind of “water sucking plant” – apparently a tamarisk.

On February 25th the Guardian’s Seamus Milne provided a video of some dried up ground, repeating the bizarre claim that the Mossad is drying up the Nile (does he have any idea how much water flows through the Nile, one wonders?). It is reminiscent of the Egyptian conspiracy theories about Israel selling contraceptive chewing gum to unsuspecting Egyptians, or training attack sharks to drive tourists away from Sharm el Sheikh:

Leaked spy cables obtained by al-Jazeera and the Guardian claim Israel has been trying to sabotage Egypt’s water supply with water-sucking plants for decades. Once in place, the river Nile would begin to dry up. In fact it may already have done, according to one intelligence report, which claimed the plant can ‘significantly reduce the volume of water that reaches Egypt’. Other cables reveal most of the spies’ work is far from the glamour of Bond movies

 Not content with one reference, Milne and Ewen MacAskill pen another article on the same day   that presents the same fatuous conspiracy, distancing themselves from the report, yet managing to present it as if they believe it might represent an actual Mossad operation:

The allegation against Mossad could be true or preposterous. Either way it offers an insight into the thinking of intelligence agencies. If true, then Mossad is guilty of reprehensible tactics. If untrue, the South Africans are guilty of naivety in presenting this as fact.

This is like the famous Middle Eastern joke about the man who claims that his friend’s sister is a whore – even when his friend has no sister.

In another example of Al Jazeera’s investigative prowess, it hastened to republish the claim by the Palestinian news agency, Ma’an, that Israel had deliberately flooded Gaza by opening its dams in the Negev. Of course, there are no dams in the Negev and Al Jazeera actually retracted the claim (at least in this respect, the Guardian could follow its lead and learn to apologize for its lies about Israel). One of those commenting below the line (see snap shots of comments below) had no trouble repeating this outlandish lie.

With mad, over the top claims like these from its source, can the Guardian really be the one mocking Benjamin Netanyahu for holding what they think is an unfounded opinion – or a simple cartoon?

Of course, one of the Guardian’s goals is to whip up the desired anti-Israeli, anti-Netanyahu responses from its eager below the line commenters. It did not have to be concerned. The usual foul accusations were flung at Israel, and ad hominem attacks on Netanyahu were the order of the day. A visitor from Mars reading the comments below the line might be compelled to take out his ray gun and – well, wipe such a wicked country off the map, to coin a phrase:

Netanyahu is an existential threat to Israel (how?) – but Iran is not:


Perhaps we ought to deal with a sociopathic Netanyahu permanently before he singlehandedly starts WW III?


All he wants is war:


Iran – the peace-loving country – never at war for 200 years – Netanyahu lies about nuclear weapons:


200 years – or 300?  Is the “Zionist empire” is behind ISIL?


Iran – supporter of global terrorism – is a light unto the nations unlike Israel’s moral degeneracy:


The apartheid libel now attached to “floodgate” – note the specificity of the details – it happened at night, it wiped out 80 homes and many farms with no warning – “I only saw it reported on Al Jazeera”:


83 replies »

  1. Nice analysis, Akus, pointing out the pernicious Guardian mechanism which needs to be pointed out.

    The comments from commentisfree quoted illustrate the extent to which the UK media, especially but not only the Guardian, construct an alternate evil Israel, the whipping boy scapegoat of the world.

    • The Independent is worse. Or at least, it makes less of an effort to hide its profound antisemitism. Ditto C4.

      • Take a look at the BTL comments which appear in Israeli papers (eg, Jerusalem Post and Times of Israel) if you really want a shock. Some of the racist comments about Arabs (and Palestinians in particular) would make your hair curl, not to mention the fantasies of “nuking” or otherwise “exterminating” them. Most wouldn’t last a nano-second under the scrutiny of Guardian moderators.

        • 1. Nice dodge attempt, the problem is you’re making claims without evidence on a website that backs up its claims with evidence. Trying to make a point by using abstract emotion is nice but it gets trumped by people who know what they’re talking about.
          2. “Most wouldn’t last a nano-second under the scrutiny of Guardian moderators.” I’m trying to be nice, but–have you SEEN what the moderators let stand at CiF? That’s not a hill you really want to charge on, and again, the documented facts back that up.
          Ironically, I have seen and been disgusted by racist remarks about Arabs on Israeli papers–and then seen them get deleted a lot more often than CiF deletes the kind of shit you’re pretending is a non-problem.

          • Ben:

            I did try posting some examples earlier, but no joy – so here’s another go…

            The following are all taken from a Jerusalem Post article headlined ‘Rebuilding Gaza Strip could take a century if Israel keeps blockade’, dated Feb 26. (I’ve checked again, and all remain intact after several days):

            Terry Tayars – ‘Rebuilding Gaza Strip could take a century if Israel keeps blockade’
            Music to my ears!

            Geer – Their job – why must Israel create a country for anybody that hates us?
            The lazy Arabs do nothing but whine and murder – if they want a country then they had better do something.
            In the meantime we need to level Gaza

            Anna M Sedda – There is no need to re build Gaza…we need to dismantle the terrorist Base and let the children and families go to Egypt and live there, so we can blow up Gaza and put the word end to this terrorist organisation….

            Eric Shorr – We shouldn’t be rebuilding it. We should be burning everything to ground and kicking them out!

            mld – Why rebuild a rat’s hole that will have to be demolished again?

            Shinku – luckily it wont have to be that long. give or take. 10 years and Gaza will be inhospitable due to lack of power and water. It will only be a few years before we start seeing Fakeistinians emigrating back to there choice of sh!t holes.

            Sonshine Patriot – Good! I hope it takes two centuries!

            vic ferida – Rebuild it? Hopefully in a century it will be rid of its arabs and back where it belongs as part of Israel

            But these are positively MILD compared to the (several) contributions of “Issraeli” to articles on Netanyahu’s US visit! Here’s a small sample of his/her posts in response to ‘Netanyahu to AIPAC: Reports of demise in ties with the US are ‘just wrong’’ (Jerusalem Post, March 2):

            * There will be no need for such [opinion] polls because we gonna slaughter all that Arab filth that call themselves Palestinians till the last one , and all of them !

            * And Diana Feinstein that little rat – I wish she will be raped by a Turk and then hanged !

            * Wendy Sherman that sharmuta that filthy liberal judenrat let’s see her if she can go walking in the streets of gaza with a skirt and going on the gaza beach with a bikini – she will be gassed immidiately

            * Instead of declaring war on the PLO and Hamas and destroying them completely , that gay PM [Obama] is afraid from filthy Persian monkeys that are the joke of the entire world

            If I were hosting a website which “monitored” Israeli press/BTL comments in the selective way this one does, I can assure you that an impression of a readership heavily dominated by racists hell-bent on oppressing and killing Arabs (pro-actively aided and abetted by the editors of those papers) would prevail no less “authoritatively”… and misleadingly.

            • Miranda enyoy this clip showing a Christian Arab walking on the streets of Haive with a huge cross – see the terrible abuse – not like in Paris.

                • Obviously by completely ignoring that he was wearing a cross and not spitting on him they were actually raping him with the intent to commit genocide in order to have enough gentile blood to completely control and dominate the world matzoh market.

              • Miranda,

                if you think this is bad, try Mondoscheiss and Electronic Intifada or how about Al Jazeera ? Or SOAS ?

              • The point Miranda is that in JPost these posters are considered extreme whereas in the Guardian both above and below the line the bile directed at Israel is mainstream.

            • A site is hardly responsible for its comment threads. That would be censorship like in the Arab world, Miranda. What we are about is the bile ABOVE the comments.

        • I see what you’re saying, Miranda. Unproven, of course, as in where are your quotes, your votes, your constant bickering to the JPost for allowing violence-filled comments of obtuse belligerence. Tell you what, Honey, when you are willing to see 2 states exist side-by-side is the moment your champions at the Guardian will consider you a threat to world peace.

          Here’s an idea. Start a Israeli Press Watch and get it going. Until then, learn to stick with the subject at hand or just shut the fuck up. People like you are pathetic creatures of shit, I can guarantee you that.

        • Miranda really means: “Take a look at the Jews, the Jews are the worst. Worse than everyone and everything”.

          Another sanctimonious Jew baiter, parading their anti-Semitism under the guise of ‘concerned citizen’ of the world.

        • Tut tut you didn’t understand me Miranda. You should have asked.

          The dear old Guardian lies to you about Israel. This is what it seems to me that this blog is attempting to convey to those who don’t have first hand experience.

          They do visual things like saturation pics of ONLY either people in uniform or in picturesque orthodox Jewish garb, neglecting to show you what the other 90% of us look like, ordinary people driving one of the start-up capitals of the world.

          Those insane sounding quotations above contain information fed to them by the Guardian: totally unrepresentative of Israel, but fostered by what used to be a solid respectable newspaper that everyone loved.

  2. The animus against Israel is built on lies, distortations and propaganda so foul no sewer could compete. I see that many of those who have commented on the Guardian (of lies, spin propaganda and hatred against the only democracy in the Middle East) have basic literacy problems, methinks their critical skills are defunct and all they do is join in 21st century hitlerian diatribes against Israel. Thus history will judge that they stood with evil. Give me Israel, Iran abuses the rights of Christians but of course that does not get a mention. No freedom of religion is allowed in Iran and minorities are persecuted beyond the pale. Shalom Israel may you proser and Netanyahu is a GREAT leader unlike the dhimmie craven liars who live in dystopia and think by forcing Israel into futile peace agreements they will bring on utopia, but the reality is dystopia most foul. Well done the American congressmen who listened to and applauded Bibi. They are men of courage and not fools living in la la cuckoo land.

  3. Judging by the below-the-line comments, there are huge numbers of severely mentally ill people with access to the Internet 😦

  4. I think that perhaps The Guardian is merely concerned with its bottom line here, rather than whether or not it incites hatred or reports facts. It has apparently found a large niche of mentally challenged anti-Semites in Britain, and so it now has come to rely on for the majority of its profit…

  5. Nice analysis and very considered article. The only trouble is Akus is trying to equate criticism and an attack on one Israeli politician’s foreign policy stance with an anti-Semitic attack on Israel.

    Or do you think that Netanyahu’s religion exempts him from all criticism? Or if you do criticise his foreign policy you are being anti-Semitic?

    Its this sort of hyperbole and exaggeration that causes a loss of support among the wider population in the fight against anti-Semitism.

    • Netanyahu’s religion?
      Dinkle you just completed the mission impossible proving that you are more idiotic ignorant what I thought before.
      Netanyahu is a well known atheist.

    • The only trouble is Akus is trying to equate criticism and an attack on one Israeli politician’s foreign policy stance with an anti-Semitic attack on Israel.
      The only trouble is Dinkle is trying to equate outright lies, distortions and incitement to murder with criticism.
      But I know that this is way above of the mental abilities of Jew-haters.

      • “The only trouble is Dinkle is trying to equate outright lies, distortions and incitement to murder with criticism.”

        Standard behavior for the “pro-Palestinian” crowd. Exemplified by the identity slumming BTL at CiF and encouraged by the slum lord Milne.

    • Don’t bother, the commenters around here are only interested in justifying their pre-existing worldviews. Facts and sound argument are inconvenient. I tried once or twice, but I should really learn to pack it in. This place is just an echo chamber.

      • Facts and sound argument… – Arnold. The textbook example of the expression “contradiction in terms”.
        I tried once or twice,… Do you mean the “electrified fence” fiasco? Arnold you really should learn – first of all to read.

      • Arnold:
        “Facts and sound argument are inconvenient.”

        You mean like the “facts” about the Mossad sharks or the plants that dry up the nile?

      • “This place is just an echo chamber.”

        Arnold the only ‘echo chamber’ where you are is the empty space between your ears.

        Now if it is the voices inside your head that are echoing, perhaps you should go and see your GP and ask for stronger medication.

      • And you are only interested in justifying your pre-existing Antisemitsm. And that`s fine with us, but please try harder.

      • That’s an “everybody’s confused but me” argument there, troll, and it doesn’t fit into either the posts here or the comments related to them. Facts are facts, this site traffics in them, and while it obviously pisses you off, that’s not going to change.

    • Dinkle:

      “Or do you think that Netanyahu’s religion exempts him from all criticism? Or if you do criticise his foreign policy you are being anti-Semitic?”

      A) This has nothing to do with his religion.
      B) There’s criticism and there are lies. The Guardian and Al Jazeera (with the above respect) have specifically told lies and hearsays.

      Unless of course, Dinkle, you believe the Mossad is flooding Gaza and are after flooding the Nile etc…
      I’m not saying you are but I’m not saying you aren’t either.

      • Not that its anything to do with this post or my comment but I don’t believe in those stories (Flooding, weird plants etc).

        I just find it depressing that criticism of a politician’s foreign policy ends up on a site designed to expose anti-Semitism.

        • Piece off is depressed. Why?
          I just find it depressing that criticism of a politician’s foreign policy ends up on a site designed to expose anti-Semitism
          Sometimes even an Antisemite like Dinkle can make me wonder. Some unknown politician`s foreign policy ends up on an unknown site designed to expose Antisemitism.
          Poor piece off has lost orientation.

        • Lies, distortions, incitement to murder – in Dinkle’s world it is called “criticism”.

        • Dinkle:

          “Not that its anything to do with this post or my comment”

          The post used precisely these examples as the perfect example of how the Guardian builds a hype over nothing using lazy journalism and out right fabrication or at leats uncoroborated stories. How does that not relate to the post?

          The post was showing how the Guardian was using Al Jazeera uncoroborated and misread “evidence” of a Mossad communication and showing why such items should be taken with more than a pinch of salt it details other examples such as the “Mossad Nile plantations” and the “Israeli invisible Southern Dam’ Gaza floodings” which were described in both outlets.

          Your comments defending the Guardian’s over hype analysis of Bibi’s speech in the past month as a meer attack on one person.

          That person is the Israeli current head of state whether I or you like it or not. A minimal amount of respect or at the very least a bit of objectivity and sensitivity when reporting about his reasons and potential knowledge of his own secret service details is in order.
          If such thing is not it is in a way an attack on the behaviour of the state as a whole.

          No, it is not Anti Semitic on it’s own, but when taken into account the vast amount of data collected to this date and the sources it is using such as Al Jazeera which propelled Conspirecy Theories before doing the very minimal of checks stinks of Anti Semitic or at least Anti Israeli motives.

          You do the maths.
          Next time you think twice where does your money go when you buy the Guardian or any of its twin outlets. Who’s pockets does it fill.
          No excuses!
          Either they are fully fledged Anti Semites or they simply do not care about what their writing can cause and spew out uncoroborated stories in a lazy manner to sell quick.

          • ItsikDeWembley: If the Guardian has presented the Water, triffid, Shark etc stories as fact, I’d really like to see it with my own eyes. Al Jazeera may have carried those stories but the Guardian didn’t, surely an example of the Guardian running its own standard over any potential story from that source.

            AKUS article criticises the Guardian’s coverage of Israeli PM. Fair enough- (though in the light of the upcoming General Election and Bibi’s own very political manoeuvres in the States, I think the amount of coverage is warranted). Yes perhaps the Guardian put too much store in the Al Jazeera evidence (but they would have been wrong to self censor on it) and perhaps to some its is not respectful enough (but again just look at how other leaders are portrayed when they are attacked – Bush and Hollande come to mind).

            BUT To put it on a site that is dedicated to exposing anti-Semitism is just plain wrong.

            PS Its plain to see why the PM would err, exaggerate the threat of Iran – votes – he needs lots of them in 13 days time. He is, after all, a politician.

        • Yea , we all find it depressing that Goonadian has taken criticism in its journalistic standards and ethics . That’s why the site exists .
          Am glad you don’t believe the tryffid stories and assassin wild boars etc but the fact they get circulated by the Goonadian ……along with anti Semitic books only the other week .

          A lot more goes on at this site than merely criticising .
          Mr Levick gets media to make corrections when they err
          There is coordination with CAMERA
          There is positive action
          There is information
          There is debate
          Plus there is now Hadar from BBCWatch . Holy Jam Roly ! she has catalogued and detailed and explained and monitored and contrasted and is a one woman legend

          • “Am glad you don’t believe the tryffid stories and assassin wild boars etc but the fact they get circulated by the Goonadian ”

            I’d like to see a link to that LC (Seriously)

              • Sorry LC, that’s a story about the weird and fantastical world of intelligence agencies. It is not an article which is offering the supposed stories as the ‘truth’. I mean just read the sub-head (“In the world of espionage, reports peppered with half-truths, rumours and the seemingly outlandish are par for the course, documents show”) and the picture of the actor Alec Guinness as a fictional MI6 agent.

                Anybody who takes that story as hard evidence of the Gooniard’s anti-Semitism is either insane, or has had a sense of humour by-pass.

                • I am possibly insane . I still have my sense of humour . So I will assume then that the Goonadian does publish stories under the premise that ” it may be preposterous or it may be true ” Next time show a picture of Mr Milne dressed up as Alice in Wonderland with the sign underneath ” It may be true or preposterous” . Actually Goonadian should do all their articles with a disclaimer that it may be preposterous .
                  BTW don’t diss Sir Alec by linking him with the story . Kind Hearts and Coronets was one of the best films ever made

                • Dinkle.

                  Just for you here’s a quote :
                  “this may be preposterous or it may be true ‘” Mr. Milne published in the Guardian is saying this about tryffids.
                  Why is the Guardian editor allowing the peddling of conspirecy theories through its pages?
                  To what possible cause?
                  Other than to sell some crap to a growing conspirecy theory looney followers club I fail to see why this sentence needed even mentioning, let alone published full stop.

                  You see Dnkle, you don’t only defend the Guardian’s poor journalism by execusing it’s editorial staff of negligence at best, but you defend their portrail of Arab representatives as a potential bunch of looneys who peddle scare mongring theories about the Israelis and the Jews.

                  Too many questions are being left unanswered by these intentional calculative opeds.
                  The Guardian refuses to answer any of these or even to carry out any investigations that will not tag along it’s party line.
                  Wouldn’t you call the Editor of this paper a politician?

                  “I just find it depressing that criticism of a politician’s foreign policy ends up on a site designed to expose anti-Semitism.”

                  When the Guardian’s editor behaves like a politician,peddling out its own agenda to whatever ends, who’s criticisning him / her?
                  And when that agenda seems to intentionally focus on one entity who happen to be a Jewish state, and focus solely on the negative aspects of that state and its supposed meddling in world affairs, what would you call such agenda?

    • That`s how the New Antisemites think: The religion makes Jews exempt from all criticism, something the New Antisemite can`t stand, and here he is, the piece off.

      • “He merely decries the automatic response that any Israeli PM gets from the Guardian”

        And that is perfectly legitimate.

        My quibble is why it has been reposted on this site which is dedicated to exposing Anti-Semitism.

        • Let’s try again, VERY SLOWLY:
          The automatic bile that any Israeli PM gets from Der Guardian is BECAUSE of antisemitic.
          Now go and play with your Barbie and Ken, you sad joke.

        • because there is anti Semitic sentiment and tendencies at the Gooniadian . Quibble over .

          • So anything the Gooniard writes is anti-Semitic and therefore should be on this site?


            • Once again, piece off isn`t worth the trouble. He denies the antisemitic bias of Al Guardian, a piece of sheet which propagates that the world would be better of without Israel, which demonises every PM of Israel as the figurative World Jew since the late Sharon. Don`t take that antisemite seriously.

            • nah , not everything .
              I like their apologies.

              but it is under scrutiny from us normal mortals . The ol microscope on Gooniad integrity and journo accuracy and bias . Not very nice when you have every word scrutinized and digested and possibly interpreted for racism ?
              But he ho , Gooniadian should be used to it . That’s what they been dishing out to Israel . Just call it free speech on internet like the goonadian has free speech in print . More and more people read this site and more and more people coming to same conclusions . Not all posters here are Jewish . None of us have ever met .

              Its just the sheer weight and volume of the anti Israeli articles and CiF . some blatant anti Semitism some innuendo ,. Its not all human error . sorry .

              I would love it if the editors of the Goonadian engaged with us here . I am sure they read or monitor what is said. Why not join in. If the Goonadian is serious about not being anti Semitic then show your hand .

    • Very depressing that the idiot dinkle still can’t grasp the difference between criticism and antisemitic lies.

      Religion has nothing to do with it, dumbass.

    • Did you read the fucking article? The only time we mention the religion of Netanyahu is in response to people who refer to Bibi as the reason why they hate Jews and Israel.

    • Dinkle, did you see the libels and conspiracies against Israel that the Guardian peddled as ‘facts’ or at least conjecture? Why would they bare such a close correlation to the libels European bigots have always told against Jews? Purely Aa coincidence that Israel is full of Jews?

      Did you see the delusions and pathologies expressed in the comments? Incapable of reasonable critiques of Israel’s policies or its prime minister, this is pure anti-Semitic hatred and fantasy. The Guardian indulges it, you excuse it.

  6. Although upsetting and requiring a reply from me in the comment section; I’m rarely surprIsed at the depths these so called “Journalists” will go to vilify Israel and whoever the current PM is in Israel. I’ve taken note that the wrath of the Media has not just been reserved for PM Netanyahu and Former PM Begin Z’L but it has been there for Rabin Z”L (when Rabin was PM, although today he is a Canonized) Shamir Z”L and Barak.
    What does hurt is a Jewish writer Jeffrey Goldberg/Atlantic trashing the PM with the exact Talking Points from the White House. The man has to be in direct contact with them and acting as their Agent, not a Journalist. The interesting thing today about the non-investigative reporters is that if I were to write that Israel has a device that can cause Earthquakes and the last three in Turkey were caused by this weapon they would pick it up and report it.

    • lehi48:

      “if I were to write that Israel has a device that can cause Earthquakes and the last three in Turkey were caused by this weapon”

      This is the Indi calling; Do tell us more…

      On a serious note, this is the sad reality of what we have to seeand read in today’s journalism.
      Lazy, half baked written madeup rubbish.

      They go to a war zone, grab a disgruntled farmer who has an opinion about someone and let him make up a story so he’s on TV.

  7. Its been a disturbing time for The Guardian. Their excessive hype and obsessive repeat articles on Bibi’s speech to Congress have reduced Guardian ‘writers’ to chanting and ideological reinforcements. Bibi bad. US Congress bad. Obama good. Palestinians good. Iranians good. AIPAC bad. Neocons bad. Nationalism bad. (Except when it is Palestinian or Arab nationalism).

    So continues the delusional world of The Guardian. Once a great newspaper. Now simply a propaganda platform for self loathing morally inverted radical extreme left wing social rejects.

    • I know , don’t talk about the war’s ( all over the Arab world ),

      There are only 11 million Syrian refugees at this time and Libya seems to be going down the same route.

      But let us not dwell on those tens of millions of Arabs, but fret about Bibi.

      Hamas is replenishing its weapons although there are 500.000 of its subjects without a roof over their heads. What Gaza needs right now is more Islamofascist missiles. Anybody can see that.

      “Hamas invested hundreds of millions of dollars in this project. It is patently clear that the organization paid way above the going rate for equipment purchased via Israel, since some of those involved needed to be bribed. Hamas’ military wing even had warehouses inside Israel in which it stored the equipment it purchased from Israeli traders and where it prepared the equipment to be transported into Gaza via the Kerem Shalom border crossing.”,7340,L-4633184,00.html

      Hamas clearly shows the way as it practices its version of the religion of peace.

  8. On February 25th the Guardian’s Seamus Milne provided a video of some dried up ground, repeating the bizarre claim that the Mossad is drying up the Nile (does he have any idea how much water flows through the Nile, one wonders?). It is reminiscent of the Egyptian conspiracy theories about Israel selling contraceptive chewing gum to unsuspecting Egyptians, or training attack sharks to drive tourists away from Sharm el Sheikh:

    Glad that you ‘caught’ that link. I suspect that this video will ‘come back’ to haunt The Guardian. A real hoot.

  9. “If true, then Mossad is guilty of reprehensible tactics. If untrue, the South Africans are guilty of naivety in presenting this as fact.”

    Jew baiting plus the racism of low expectations courtesy of the Guardian.

  10. OT:
    Article in the JC about Bowen’s latest disgusting Jew-insulting tweet re Netanyahu’s speech.