The Guardian’s former Jerusalem correspondent (currently their religion correspondent) Harriet Sherwood penned a piece (“Gaza confirms first coronavirus cases as West Bank shuts down”, March 22) claiming that the Israeli blockade limits […]
The Palestinian sermon highlighted above is important because history has surely shown that bad ideas almost always result in bad choices and, often, horrible individual and societal consequences – and we ignore them at our peril.
Moreover, the apparent credulity of the journalist and his editor in the face of Samara’s wild claim that soldiers considered shooting him for no particular reason – or that the army would have blown up his family’s house if he complained – is staggering, and provides another example of how the caricature of Israeli malevolence is ingrained in the Guardian imagination.
Wallach’s insistence on framing the complex Arab-Israeli political divide through the facile lens of Palestinian (progressive) Davids battling Israeli (far-right) Goliaths, rather than engaging in a sober analysis of the moral and ideological fissures which separate Jewish and Arab parties, serves to reinforce Guardian readers’ immense misinformation about Israel’s messy but undeniably democratic reality.
A Guardian article (New York: college volleyball players kneel during Israeli national anthem, Feb. 29) by Victoria Bekiempis began straightforwardly enough: Two Brooklyn College volleyball players kneeled during playing of the Israeli […]
This revision is far from ideal, as the correct course of action would have been to delete the misleading image entirely. Nonetheless, it’s still an improvement in that it no longer claims that Palestinian celebrations of the terror attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people represents “fake news”.
Though there is serious disagreement about whether Zwaiter was directly involved in the Munich attack itself, his connection to Fatah/PLO, and his involvement in helping to plot terror attacks more broadly, isn’t debatable.
Either way, the claim that he was assassinated merely “for being Palestinian” is a flat-out lie.
Whilst such footage should never be used to vilify Muslims as a whole, the Guardian’s suggestion that Palestinians never in fact celebrated the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people by al-Qaeda terrorists is clearly a lie.
We’re not arguing that peace isn’t possible, nor that, over time, such regressive Palestinian views couldn’t change. But, the polling does clearly indicate – at least to those who genuinely care about “what Palestinians think” – that Palestinian attitudes, as they exist today, represent a major impediment to a peaceful solution to the conflict.
An official editorial in the Observer (sister publication of the Guardian) on Brexit, “The Observer view on leaving the European Union”, Feb. 2, included the following paragraph: In the coming months, Britain […]
If Guardian editors are not, as we argue, guilty of the bigotry of low expectations, and do impute moral agency to Palestinians, then we’d love it if they attempted to prove us wrong by publishing an editorial on what Palestinian leaders can do to promote peace in the Middle East.
Guardian readers should – but, of course, won’t – take note: For Saeb Erekat, words and lofty, progressive rhetoric don’t have objective meanings. They mean ‘just what he chooses them to mean, neither more nor less’.
We contacted the journalist, Sachin Nakrani, to object the false claims that Arab Israelis are “restricted” to specific areas in Israel, and that they have “little or no political representation”.
A Dec. 29th Guardian report on the brutal Monsey stabbings which targeted Chasidic Jews on Saturday included the following passage, noting comments by NYC mayor Bill De Blasio: De Blasio invoked the Crown […]
In short: Soviet Bloc countries’ fences kept their own citizens from leaving. Israel’s fence keeps hostile non-citizens from entering. Any suggestion that both of these measures are morally or politically analogous is simply absurd.
Before we provide our examples of Guardian articles, op-eds, cartoons and letters that covered for Jeremy Corbyn’s well documented record of aiding, abetting and, at times, personally engaging in antisemitism, let’s begin with some numbers:
For an op-ed to suggest – in late 2019 – that the chrages of antisemitism against Corbyn were “manufactured”, after years of revelations attesting to his long and well-documented record of supporting anti-Semites who call for the mass murder of Jews, in the context of polls showing 87% of British Jewish believe he’s personally antisemitic, and in the midst of an EHRC investigation into whether the party has become institutionally antisemitic on his watch – is obscene.
A Guardian article on a new Human Rights Watch report vilifying Israel didn’t even feign objectivity or professionalism. In the 475 word piece by their Middle-East correspondent Michael Safim there isn’t even one sentence quoting someone critical of the report – neither an Israeli official nor NGO Monitor.
As even Nicholas Watt, Guardian’s former chief political correspondent, once acknowledged: “quite often on the left the term right-wing is just used to mean ‘bad'”.
The Labour Party’s reluctant acceptance of the IHRA Working Definition of antisemitism in 2018 didn’t occur without a fight. There was one notable dissenter to the proposal to adopt, in full, the […]