Contrary to the views of the Guardian Readers’ Editor, the ideological similarity between tropes concluding that “Zionists are our misfortune” and tropes concluding “Jews are our misfortune” is simply impossible to deny.
In short, Zonshein’s op-ed on the planned eviction of illegal Bedouin encampments employ all the tools within the Guardian’s delegitimisation playbook: lies, half truths, the use of hyperbolic language and completely unsubstantiated accusations of criminality to characterize Israeli policy.
We surveyed hundreds of tweets, spanning three years, by British journalist Sarah Helm and uncovered what we suspected all along: Helm is a pro-Palestinian activist. Not a journalist.
We tweeted the Guardian’s head of photography, Fiona Shields, alerting her to the inappropriate photo accompanying an article on increased UK arms sales to Israel. Shields promptly replaced the photo with one more appropriate.
COGAT, the Israeli authority tasked with processing such travel requests, flatly denied the Guardian claim that a young Palestinian suicide victim had been denied a travel permit to study at Hebrew University. In fact, they said he had never applied for permission in the first place.
If you defend Israel’s actions in Gaza, your ethical impulses are, according to the Guardian columnist, not those of an ordinary human being. It would be difficult to find a better illustration of why so many Jews believe that media coverage of Israel incites antisemitism than a column suggesting that they, by virtue of their pro-Israeli political views, are morally deranged, even sub-human.
Contrary to the Guardian Jerusalem correspondent’s claim, Hamas has not “softened” its founding charter’s rejection of Israel’s existence, nor has it abandoned its promotion of violence to achieve this end.
Guardian accuses Israel of “war crimes” in shooting “protesters” who “posed no credible threat”.
However, in what world do thousands of rioters attempting the breach the border of a sovereign democratic state, at the behest of a proscribed terror group, not represent a “credible threat”?
Here is the basic question: Why is the Guardian more concerned about the possible future instability caused by Washington’s pullout from the Iran Deal than the actual death and destruction that Tehran is causing today in the Middle East?
By Richard Millett It seems the Guardian wants to shut down all social and cultural life in Israel. Last week it published an article which accused the Jewish state of “sportswashing” its […]
Guardian uses cycling column to “suggest” Palestinians “have been shot from behind and intentionally maimed.”
By Richard Millett Hot on the heels of the BBC using its cycling report on the Israeli stage of the Giro d’Italia to quote Amnesty International’s accusation that Israel is “trying to […]
In February, following our communication with Guardian editors, an article focusing on a row between Israel and church leaders was corrected. The article originally claimed that proposed Israeli legislation (currently on hold) would allow the state to confiscate church land in Jerusalem, when the bill actually targeted land which the church had already sold to private (Jewish) developers. However, on May 1st, the Guardian made the same error, which, after we lodged a new complaint, was corrected.
The Guardian once again has demonised Israel, smearing the state as one defined primarily by racism and violence – an ugly caricature which has little resemblance to reality. The notion that Jerusalem should take security advice from the Corbyn-sympathising London intelligentsia is as risible as their suggestion that its citizens should take seriously the moralizing tales of Israeli darkness by the Hollywood left.
Guardian suggests equivalence between President Rivlin’s ‘greater Israel’ and Gaza protest leader’s ‘No Israel’
The Guardian’s comparison between the views of Israeli President Reuven Rivilin and those of chief Gaza protest organiser Ahmad Abu Artema is highly misleading. Unlike Abu Artema, who believes in a one-state scenario which ends Israeli sovereignty, Rivlin champions the idea of an Israeli annexation of the West Bank with Israelis and Palestinians living side by side under Israeli sovereignty and Palestinians being granted full Israeli citizenship. Abu Artema wants to end Israeli sovereignty. Rivlin wants to expand Israeli sovereignty.
When facts are ignored in favour of a fictitious narrative in which ‘brutal’ Israel is cowing the people of Gaza ‘into submission’, truth is sacrificed upon the altar of storytelling.
It was perhaps inevitable that The Guardian would provide a platform to amplify an antisemitic campaign against the ADL. The piece that criticized Starbucks for its “misguided racism workshops” garnered more than 10 000 Facebook shares and was written by Hina Tai, an Associate Director of Research at The Islamic Monthly and, naturally, an ardent supporter of BDS.
The argument by the Guardian contributor that Yom Haatzmaut doesn’t leave room for nuance is simply wrong. One can be right-wing or left-wing, secular or religious, Jewish or non-Jewish, pro-Netanyahu or anti, and basically subscribe to any political ideology under the sun, and celebrate Yom Haatzmaut. This isn’t just theoretical – this is the reality in Israel! Celebrating Yom Haatzmaut simply means you celebrate the existence of a Jewish state of Israel in some form.
The fact that 10 out of the 16 Palestinians killed since Friday have been verified by the IDF as members of terrorist groups, or that the border protests have included the throwing of Molotov cocktails, the planting of EIDs and – in at least two cases – shots fired at Israeli forces hasn’t hampered the desired media narrative: a ‘disproportionate’ Israeli response to ‘peaceful’ Palestinian protesters.
Will media report on investigation’s conclusion that Ibrahim Abu Thuraya was NOT killed by IDF snipers?
Though we may never learn what caused Ibrahim Abu Thuraya’s death on the Gaza border last December, the media’s immediate rush to judgement – presuming Israeli guilt whilst ignoring evidence undermining such accusations – once again demonstrates their institutional failure to subject Palestinian claims to the same degree of skepticism and critical scrutiny that Israeli claims are almost always subjected to.
In fairness, the Guardian – over the last few years – has been a bit more vigilant in avoiding antisemitic language, and we’re certainly glad that their editorial position on the antisemitism scandal currently engulfing the Labour Party is morally clear. However, it would benefit their readers – and help contextualise the problem of antisemitism on the British Left – if senior editors would show a bit more self-reflection by acknowledging their own troubling history of sanctioning toxic rhetoric historically used by anti-Semites.