What do true free thinkers do when presented with new information contradicting their most cherished beliefs? They carefully consider the new information and adapt their views accordingly. What do rigid, closed-minded thinkers do when presented with new information contradicting their most cherished beliefs? They ignore the new information. The Guardian falls into the latter category.
The hypocrisy of a PA official lecturing the US ambassador on factual or historical accuracy was no doubt lost on Peter Beaumont, as the veteran Guardian journalist has consistently ignored the continuous Palestinian denial of Jewish history in Jerusalem and the existence of the Jewish Temple
The word “bellicose” is defined by Merriam Websters as “favoring or inclined to start quarrels or wars”. Yet, a recent Guardian article bizarrely characterised Israeli accusations – based on satellite photos – that Iran is building sites to produce missiles in Syria and Lebanon as “BELLICOSE” rhetoric. Of course, the article doesn’t even allude to ongoing “bellicose” Iranian threats to annihilate Israel.
Though reasonable people can of course disagree with Netanyahu’s response to Charlottesville, to characterise the prime minister of the Jewish state as an “appeaser” of anti-Semites who needs lessons in courage from a Guardian journalist is a breathtaking display of hubris.
Guardian cartoonist Martin Rowson was interviewed recently on BBC. During the interview, he revealed that, after the 2015 Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, Guardian editors wouldn’t let him draw a depiction of Muhammad out fear of jihadist violence against their staff. Rowson then immediately pivoted to (non-violent) criticism of his cartoons by pro-Israel activists – contextualising both as ‘dangerous’ examples of attacks on free expression.
Truly a new low for the Guardian: Their veteran columnist Giles Fraser has actually compared white supremacism to Zionism. “The parallels with Charlottesville” Fraser said, “are sometimes difficult to avoid”.
The Guardian has again demonstrated its unique capacity to impute pathos to nearly every aspect of Israeli life. A photo story about Israeli bomb shelters in today’s Guardian managed to deride the security precaution, born of decades of cross border attacks by enemies sworn to its destruction, as reflecting Israel’s “siege mentality” – a term which evokes ‘unwarranted fears’ or even ‘paranoia’.
the Guardian’s caption just so happened to omit the key words “following an attack on Israeli police at the site”, thus giving readers who didn’t closely follow events in Jerusalem that week no idea why the security measures, including the temporary closure of the mosque, were implemented.
Here’s what the Guardian’s ‘largely non-violent’ Palestinian ‘campaign of civil disobedience’ looks like
The advocacy journalism practiced by Beaumont seems to demand that the Palestinian cause be framed – regardless of the evidence – as a peaceful and progressive, and so all information that runs counter to this narrative must be whitewashed and obfuscated.
The fact that the Guardian found John Lyon’s conspiracy theory for pro-Israel attitudes in Australia credible would not come as a surprise to anyone even vaguely familiar with the media group’s record on issues pertaining to Israel and antisemitism.
The Guardian’s Sarah Helms erroneously suggests that Israel is responsible for the recent death of newborns in Gaza, while all but ignoring the role of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority in the current humanitarian crisis.
CAMERA’s Israel office yesterday prompted correction of an Associated Press article (also published at The Guardian) which had erroneously stated that “Iran remains on the State Department’s list of sponsors of terrorism for its support of anti-Israel groups”
With antisemitic incidents in the UK at an all time high, news outlets with even the most strident pro-Palestinian editorial lines – such as the Guardian and Independent – should avoid amplifying toxic anti-Zionist agitprop that doesn’t edify or inform, but only inflames those most likely take their anger over Israel out on Jews
Complaints about the resolution (introduced by Lebanon, Kuwait, and Tunisia) focused in part on the claim that Tomb of the Patriarchs is “in danger”, but mostly on characterisations of the site (the burial place of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah) as “Palestinian”, thus denying the Jewish (and Christian) heritage of the Biblical city.
These errors and omissions represent a pattern by Beaumont, in which he fails to distinguish between homes built within existing Jerusalem neighborhoods and West Bank settlements (which would almost certainly become part of Israel in a peace deal) and those built on land Palestinians claim as part of their future state.
Guardian columnist Zoe Williams actually compares Israel’s defenders – whom she characterises as defenders of “killing children” – and climate change deniers. This bizarre analogy is indicative of a view of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, held by many in the media, which sees it as a binary tale of ignorance vs truth, good vs evil.
BDS is not, as Ben Jamal suggests in his Guardian op-ed, a progressive movement that champions free speech. It’s a regressive political campaign which silences Jews and consigns millions to pariah status, promoting their social exclusion from the international community.
The Guardian’s failure to challenge Ismail Patel’s claim that the government was “acting on hearsay from a pro-Israeli lobby group” is classic Guardian: failing to reveal the well-documented evidence demonstrating that individuals and groups they cover – who claim to be merely ‘pro-Palestinian’ – are compromised by extremism, support for terror and antisemitism.
A Jerusalem court recently ruled in favor of a female passenger who sued El Al when she was asked by a flight attendant to move seats at the behest of an ultra-Orthodox man. She was not forced to move seats, but was merely asked – a request the court still found to be illegal. Nonetheless, reports by Times of London and the Guardian botched this crucial detail.
The fact that the article completely omitted any mention of the extreme anti-Jewish rhetoric during al-Quds Day represents yet another example of the Guardian’s broader failure to acknowledge the antisemitism that is endemic within much of the pro-Palestinian movement.