Guardian edits out Palestinian violence from AP story on Temple Mount clashes

Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount. (Copyright © 2019 National Photo Collection)

On Aug. 11th, the Guardian published an Associated Press article on clashes that day at the Temple Mount instigated by rioting Muslim worshipers objecting to a small number of Jews who were initially allowed to visit their faith’s holiest site.  (Sunday marked both the start of the Islamic holiday of Eid al-Adha and the Jewish fast day of Tisha B’Av.)

According to reports, dozens of Muslim worshipers were injured during the clashes, as well as four Israeli police officers.

There’s no question that the Muslim worshipers were responsible for the violence, as the original AP report explained:

Large numbers of Palestinians had gathered at the gates of the compound early Sunday after rumors circulated that police would allow Jewish visitors to enter the site. The protesters chanted “Allahu Akbar” (God is greatest) and threw stones at police, who then charged into the compound while firing stun grenades and rubber-coated bullets.

However, the Guardian version of the AP report just so happened to omit that key paragraph on the riot’s cause, leaving readers with no information on why exactly Israeli police “clashed” with Muslim worshipers.

In fact, other than the Guardian, every news outlet we surveyed that published a version of the same AP report included that original paragraph noting the Palestinian violence which caused the clashes on Sunday – providing another example of how the Guardian routinely omits important facts in order to obfuscate Palestinian culpability.  

Related Articles

5 replies »

  1. It seems to me that the chanted “Allahu Akbar” is becoming, or has become, a phrase better translated as “Our Allah is the Supreme Deity, and failure to submit to him, and to us as authoritative arbiters of all key ethical questions, being his vassals on this third planet from the local sun, will have very bad consequences for you,” accepting that such a translation would be very long-winded!
    But it would at least capture the dogmatic fanaticism and threats of retribution inherent in being part of a religious cult that insists failure, or conscious refusal, to agree with cult tenets unreservedly should lead to divinely sanctioned violence, eh? And that these consequences are fated by the very nature of the Divine Reality, which no infidel can evade.
    The Christian version might be some warning that claims not accepting Jesus Christ as one’s personal savior leads inevitably to eternal damnation. Not sure what, if anything, would be a Jewish version.
    I like to think if there is one, other Jews would object, raise doubts, posit a radically more compassionate alternative, and try to reason people out of one that threatens people, just as many Christians would no longer accept not accepting J.C. = eternal afterlife being punished in Hell, and many Muslims are appalled by the fanatics of Islam.