Guardian editors erased Dandan’s Israeli citizenship and US residency from the original Reuters report, misleading readers into believing that he (like the winner of the contest) is from the Palestinian territories.
The Guardian’s failure to convey to readers the antisemitic nature of the anti-Netanyahu placard in Sydney is not in itself antisemitic. However we do believe it’s indicative of their continuing obfuscation of endemic antisemitism within the pro-Palestinian movement and, more broadly, representative of how media outlets can normalise antisemitism without setting out to do so.
An op-ed in the Guardian by George Browning (the former Anglican Bishop of Canberra and the President of the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network) concerning the Israeli prime minister’s visit to Australia is full of significant errors and distortions.
Remarkably, Guardian editors gave more space on their home page to the Azaria manslaughter verdict than to a report on 74 dead migrants washing up on shore in Libya this morning.
The journalist’s decision to quote Bouattia expressing her view that “blatant antisemitism should not be tolerated in our universities” without even mentioning the current row over her own use of antisemitic tropes is a classic example of how the Guardian can whitewash antisemitism even when putatively taking such hatred seriously.
We don’t know where Helm was driving at the time, but we know for certain that it wasn’t through the historic 3,000 year old Jewish cemetery adjacent to Jerusalem’s Old City. The writer may have conflated Mt. of Olives with another tunnel, Mt. Scopus Tunnel, or what’s known as Olives Interchange shown below.
Most the world’s actual refugees today are from three war-torn countries – Syria (4.9 million), Afghanistan (2.7 million) and Somalia (1.1 million). Perhaps the reason why Anish Kapoor didn’t mention Palestine when he spoke out against “abhorrent government policies” towards refugees is because he broadly knows these figures, and understands intuitively that there are relatively few actual Palestinian refugees in the world.
We have got so used to these extreme critiques of settlements, that we forget the basis on which they rest – that for a Palestinian state to exist, there must be no Jews whatsoever within its territory. This assumption is often unchallenged, but when one analyses it, it is hard to characterise it as anything other racist.
Beyond the bias within this specific Guardian analysis, the truth is that UK media coverage of negotiations similarly suffers from the failure to take Israeli concerns seriously – rational fears born of the failure of past territorial withdrawals to bring peace, and a refusal to ignore the reactionary Palestinian political culture which – most Israeli believe – lays at the root of the conflict.
However you want to characterise demographic changes in the holy city since 1967, the implicit suggestion that Palestinians have been or are currently being ethnically cleansed in Jerusalem (or anywhere else in Israel for that matter) is the opposite of the truth.
Yesterday, most major UK news outlets were quick to report on the guilty verdict of Israeli soldier Elor Azaria, convicted in a military court for shooting to death a wounded Palestinian attacker, Abdel […]
Among those objecting to the government’s decision to adopt the Working Definition of Antisemitism were a group of anti-Zionists in the UK (such as Tony Greenstein) whose letter – accusing British Jews of falsely crying antisemitism to silence debate about Israel – appeared in the Guardian on Dec. 17th.
Not for the first time, the Guardian`s coverage of this Israeli story says far more about the Guardian than it does about Israel. The Israeli Knesset has a dress code that is not in the least bit noteworthy or surprising – but for the Guardian, this is another opportunity to demonise Israel.
If the Guardian journalist had done some fact checking, he would have easily found such evidence clearly contradicting the WCC spokesperson’s claims that they have “no connection to BDS”.
When the Guardian talks about Benjamin Netanyahu`s election victory, there is no semblance of balance. Netanyahu is described as having “crossed red lines,” “dealt a grievous blow to any prospect of peace process,” and is accused of having “trampled” upon democratic principles
Our point isn’t to debate the merits of the Knesset’s muezzin bill, but to question why Fraser highlighted only Israeli efforts to limit noise from mosque loudspeakers – in a column focused on noise from a British airport – when he could have used similar examples from anywhere in the world.
At times we take our collective memory of Guardian coverage of Israel for granted, so we’ve decided to provide a list of some egregious examples of bias and over the years – information helpful in contextualizing our ongoing analysis of the ‘liberal’ British newspaper.
In the Guardian mentality, you cannot carry a story of an ex-muslim persecuted for his apostasy for fear of inspiring hate against muslims. Thus a genuine case of hate crime is ignored on the grounds it could lead to other, imagined hate crimes.
There are many reasonable criticisms of British and French involvement in the war, but to characterize the military action to end an illegal blockade of Israeli ships as an “unprovoked” attack is just absurd.
Mazzig and Jewish attendees were repeatedly intimidated and harassed and eventually had to be evacuated by police. The incident prompted a chorus of criticism from MPs and Jewish organizations, which led to an announcement by the university that an official investigation would be launched. UK news outlets reporting the incident include the Times of London, the Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the Independent, the Express, the Evening Standard, Channel 4 News and LBC. Yet, the ‘anti-racism’ campaigners at the Guardian have thus far completely ignored the story.