Whilst Ilhan Omar’s story, as a Somali immigrant elected to Congress, is inspiring, the excusing, obfuscating or erasing of her use of antisemitic tropes, based on an illiberal reflex in which her immutable traits trump reasoned discussion and universal moral standards, represents the very worst of the modern left.
It’s hard not to see troubling parallels between Jeremy Corbyn’s loyal band of anti-Semites and antisemitism deniers and the Guardian contributor’s rush to defend Ilhan Omar against charges of antisemitism whilst questioning the motives of her accusers.
Contrary to Guardian claims, 85% of those killed on May 14th along the Gaza border were combatants – numbers consistent with an examination by Meir Amit Terrorism and Information Center revealing that most of the rioters killed between March 30th and Jan. 14th were similarly operatives of terror groups.
This morning, CST published their latest antisemitic incidents report showing that 2018 saw the highest levels of antisemitism on record – an increase, CST noted, was driven in large measure by the ongoing Labour Antisemitism row. Yet, the Guardian’s report on CST’s latest figures used a photo from Gaza to illustrate the piece, as we noted in a tweet to their photo editor minutes after it was published.
The Guardian has consistently published such pro-BDS letters by British ‘artists’ over the years – missives which amplify and grant credibility to what are extremely marginal – not to mention almost always unsuccessful – anti-Israel campaigns.
Last week, we tweeted in response to a misleading caption below a Guardian video segment on Israel’s interception, over the Golan Heights, of an Iranian missile fired (by Iranian troops) from Syrian territory. […]
Our survey of photos highlighted in their ‘Photos of the Week’ series since March 31st (when the Hamas-led ‘Great March of Return’ began) included no less than 31 photos depicting scenes from the weekly Gaza border riots. In contrast, the Guardian published a mere 21 photos depicting the Syrian Civil War over the same 10 month period.
We’ve been monitoring the Guardian and commenting on the media group’s institutional hostility to Israel for nearly 10 years, and nothing much shocks us at this point. Yet, an official editorial published yesterday reaches a new low in malice and plain out dishonesty.
A 2016 Israeli Institute for Democracy poll did show that serious tensions between Arabs and Jews persist, but that most Arab Israelis (55%) are nonetheless proud to be Israeli. The bottom line is that the Guardian writer’s contention that ‘Arab-Israelis’ reject their Israeli identity, and primarily identify as ‘Palestinians’, simply does not hold up to critical scrutiny.
So, when Angela Davis had the opportunity to truly ‘speak truth to power’ on behalf of actual political prisoners in a totalitarian regime, she failed to do so. Yet, decades later, she ardently champions for the release of Palestinian terrorists convicted for acts of violence against citizens of a democratic state – and is of course bestowed the moral badge of “civil rights activist” by the Guardian for doing so.
The Guardian’s insistence that one or two wealthy Jews are behind Trump’s pro-Israel policies is facile and myopic at best, and, at worst, promotes exactly the kind of antisemitic dog whistles about the ‘injurious’ influence of Jewish power that, when directed at George Soros, their editors and contributors have ardently denounced.
Once again, we see how the Guardian seems to be institutionally incapable of holding Palestinian leadership even partly responsible for the misery in Gaza. It’s a pattern of coverage informed by an ideologically-driven propensity to deny Palestinians agency: the seeming belief that, as individuals, they lack the capacity to act independently of Israel and make choices of their own free will.
Narrowing down an entire year of Guardian anti-Israel reporting to the five most egregious examples is not an easy task, but, as a public service to our loyal readers, here are a few errors and lies by their contributors and reporters in 2018 which especially stand out.
Such holiday trickery reminds us that though events in the region may change from year to year, the British media’s annual tradition of blaming Israel for ruining ‘Christmas in Palestine’ continues, unimpeded by facts, statistics or even the most painfully obvious observations.
This isn’t merely one poorly written headline. It represent an institutional pattern of reporting informed by a pro-Palestinian sympathy so pronounced that it often erases the most intuitive moral distinction between victim and perpetrator.
Anti-Israel propagandists-cum-journalists from around the world attended a “journalism” conference in Turkey last month designed to help participants develop skills to more effectively push the Palestinian narrative and delegitimise Israel in the international media. Among the “journalists” who attended was the Guardian’s veteran columnist Jonathan Steele.
Marc Lamont Hill is not merely a pro-Palestinian ‘activist’ who criticises Israel and calls for a ‘free Palestine’. He’s a radical anti-Israel propagandist who’s repeatedly justified Palestinian terror, rejected Israel’s continued existence of a Jewish state and expressed admiration for one of the more infamous disseminators of antisemitic hate.
Jerusalem correspondent Oliver Holmes has offered something akin to a master class in how the Guardian – by use of selective, distorted and at times outright false information – skews what are ostensibly ‘straight news stories’ to promote the pro-Palestinian agenda and paint Israel in the worst possible light.
A Guardian article, about warnings by Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahatir Mohamad, that Australia’s decision to consider moving its embassy to Jerusalem said about the 92-year old leader that he’s known for his outspokenness. However, what the Guardian didn’t tell you is that he’s also well known for expressing classic antisemitic rhetoric.
We listened to the NY Times podcast the Guardian contributor is likely referencing, and, contrary to his claim, the NY Times journalist never makes anything resembling the claim that Netanyahu’s “racial policies” have made Israel a “model” for the alt-right on how to construct an “ethno-state”.