Though we never heard back from Guardian editors, the journalist, to her credit, did eventually respond to apologise, and informed us that the sentence would be corrected.
In comparisons to other British media outlets, The Times is normally one of the more reasonable and thoughtful news outlets in their coverage of the Israel-Palestinian issue and antisemitism in the UK, a fact that makes their glorification of a pro-violence, antisemitic teen especially perplexing.
After ten years, we remain dedicated to promoting accurate coverage of Israel, and to combating antisemitic narratives and tropes which often accompany reports compromised by anti-Israel bias.
In June, journalist Melanie Phillips and former Israeli MK Einat Wilf participated in an Intelligence Squared debate in London in which proposed the motion “Anti-Zionism is antisemitism” before a largely anti-Israel audience. They were opposed by academic Illan Pappé and journalist Mehdi Hasan.
The Guardian review suggests there’s little self-criticism or reflection on display from these Palestinian writers – no evidence of stories in the anthology premised on the view that Palestinians are masters their own fate, that a distopian future is not pre-ordained and that better Palestinian decisions in 2019 will likely result in better outcomes in 2048.
Ultimately, what Bell is doing is gas-lighting British Jews, dismissing their profound fears about the hatred directed to their community, and lending credibility to those bigots who view the entire row as a conspiracy to bring down their beloved leader.
The truncated quote significantly alters the true meaning and significance of the prime minister’s words, and thus fails to adhere to the Editors’ Code, which demands that newspapers avoid publishing inaccurate, misleading or distorted information.
Even by British media standards, this represents an egregious example of anti-Israel bias, as not a word in the report even alludes to Israel’s motivation for erecting the security barrier – the 2nd Intifada’s campaign of Palestinian suicide bombing that claimed the lives of hundreds of Israeli civilians in the early 2000s.
His email provides yet more evidence that, even by Guardian standards, Bell is an extremist in his hatred of Israel and what appears to be his utter contempt for the values and concerns of British Jews.
Thus far, most British media outlets – including the Guardian, Independent, Telegraph and BBC – have ignored Hammad’s call for genocide, a speech, our sister site BBC Watch observed, that’s at odds with the media narrative of the Great March of Return, which has downplayed such extreme antisemitic incitement, whilst characterising the violent riots as mere “protests”.
Here’s the latest installment in our ongoing series of posts documenting BDS fails.
Even for those who avoid employing explicit classic antisemitic tropes while vilifying Israel, the acceptance of the view that the Jewish state isn’t merely a state that’s flawed as all states are, but, rather, represents, as the late Robert Wistrich phrased it, a singularly “organic obstacle to peace and progress” necessarily vilifies Jews qua Jews.
Though the Guardian occasionally acknowledges – albeit perfunctorily – the profound fears of the Jewish community amidst a Labour Party that has become institutionally antisemitic, their editorial decisions more often than not suggest an ideological inclination to legitimise those racist voices within the hard left who believe the entire row is some sort of anti-Corbyn plot hatched by embittered ‘Blairites and Zionists’.
We’re not sure at this point if the article has been temporarily removed pending an edit, or if it was taken down for good. Either way, it marks a positive trend within the British media whereby editors are far less inclined than they used to defend the counterfactual assertion that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel.
Regardless of journalists’ individual views on the logic behind the economics-first approach of the new US peace plan, their insistence on treating Palestinians and their leaders like children by robbing them of agency serves, as much as any other single factor, to grossly distort their readers’ understanding of the conflict.
In a classic case of burying the lede, the Guardian obfuscated the fact that the only baby among the triplets born in the Jerusalem hospital to have survived did so because she received intensive state-of-the-art medical care for six months – the same exact level of care that a Jewish baby would have received.
Joseph Cohen, head of the grassroots organisation Israel Advocacy Movement, recently sat down with British writer and comedian Lee Kern, who gave a very interesting take on what motivates the hatred of Israel by much of the hard left.
Though economic problems facing Gaza and the West Bank are different, the editorial’s reflexive dismissal of the US plan and myopic diagnosis of the territories’ challenges have one common – and characteristically Guardian – thread: the failure to hold Palestinians even minimally responsible for their fate.
Earlier today, we tweeted a Guardian contributor, alerting her to an error in an otherwise unproblematic June 25th article about the increasing acceptance of film by ultra-orthodox communities: the false claim that the Israeli community of Yad Binyamin is a “settlement”.
It’s hard to see how we can trust the Financial Times “integrity” and “accuracy” when reporting on Israel and the Palestinians if their Mid-East editor openly sides with one side in the conflict.