Guardian

Guardian falsely claims that PA official Jibril Rajoub supports non-violence


A Dec. 25th Guardian report by Peter Beaumont (West Bank risks being plunged into chaos in 2016, warn Palestinian officials), on the response by PA officials to the latest wave of terror, includes the following passages:

Jibril Rajoub, a former Palestinian security head and now leader of the Palestinian Football Association, is another figure who remains close to Abbas.

Like [Mohammed] Shtayyeh, he insists that Palestinian society should pursue a policy of non-violent resistance but cannot disavow those behind the current wave of attacks, instead arguing that Palestinians need to be patient.

Rajoub may indeed support a policy of “non-violent resistance” when speaking in English to Western journalists, but here’s what he said in October, in Arabic, on official PA TV, per Palestinian Media Watch (PMW):

In fact, that wasn’t the first time Rajoub expressed support for violence. Here’s what he said on PA TV on Aug. 13, 2014, again per PMW:

(Also, see this PMW video from 2013 in which Rajoub said that if he had a nuclear bomb he’d use it against Israel that very day.)

It’s clear that the Guardian misled readers when claiming that Rajoub “insists that Palestinian society should pursue a policy of non-violent resistance”.  We’ll follow-up on this post after contacting Guardian editors to challenge them on Beaumont’s claim.

 

24 replies »

  1. You’re being silly. Palestinian politicians always say one thing in English and then the complete opposite in Arabic, but being disingenuous and cheer-leading murder is just part of their culture and we have to respect that. Arab culture is different than ours and because we used to colonize that place we must never ever criticize it or else we sound a bit Nazi in our cocktail parties.

    Ziocons on the other hand are just evil evil people. They shoot to kill when someone tries to sell them a kitchen knife on the street.

    • Because they have no ethics and only one motive- to sell newspapers. A lot of their audience demand only reinforcement to their predetermined beliefs in a certain narrative, and if that narrative is challenged they might switch to the Independent or any other competing paper. So they give them what they crave, and the audience comes back for their fix. It’s a closed system that has nothing to do with news, truth, morality, etc. Just another consumer product.

      • ‘Because they have no ethics and only one motive- to sell newspapers.’

        I think that if that was true, the Guardian would have changed it’s editorial line years ago. The Guardian seeks social anarchy and violence in the horribly successful anti socialist western liberal democracies to enable the birth of a single unitary world socialist state where everyone is equal. Except those who are more equal. (Guardian employees).

  2. Adam, you are a clean fighter and bring all the proof needed that the brightest and slowest would understand, if they wanted. The fatal mistake we are all making is that The Guardian, BBC, Beaumont & others don’t report. They are Propagandists,they stage , collude are Agent Pravacateurs that Goehring would be proud of and the truth be damned regardless of proof b/c then they’ll just say we deserve it.

    • I do believe that there is a growing realisation that some UK news media are propaganda platforms for extremism rather that ‘informing the public’. Guardian manipulations and spin need to be constantly exposed. BBC radical left wing agenda needs to be exposed too. It is just appalling that both the BBC and The Guardian no longer see themselves as ‘news publicists’ but more along the lines of politically agendered organisations dedicated to changing society. Yes. Accurate well presented news can effectively change society for the better but, it should never be the intent of any news media to ‘bring a better world’. The definition of ‘better’ is simply too subjective.

      The Guardian and the BBC have become experts in ‘framing’ what news items that there are to try to promote their own demented world view.

  3. Someone should flat out ask Journalist Beaumont scratch that Reporter Beaumont if he asks the hard questions and follows up on answers like a pit bull. Does he utilize both open ended and closed end questions to steer his interviewee towards his real objectives? Does he speak and understand Arabic well enough to do the interview in Arabic and does he listen to PA/HAMAS broadcasts in Arabic or are just afraid to report the truth and become persona nongrata in the areas under Palestinian contl this losing your ME assignment. Does your Editor give you an outcome to reach and you need to fill in the blanks to arrive at that goal? I’d bet on some of these answers especially asking only closed end questions without serious followup.