Once again, the Guardian has erased a chapter within the well-documented ethnic cleansing of over 800,000 Jews from Arab countries in the mid 20th century. The latest example involves the history of Jews in Iraq, in the context of a short review by their film critic Peter Bradshaw of Fiona Murphy’s documentary ‘Remembering Baghdad’.
Israel, and only Israel, is judged exclusively by a list of its (perceived and real) flaws. With remarkable confidence, journalists throw together opinions, a few stories, select quotes, and feelings of impending doom – and hey presto, Israel is demonised. Israel is not a uniquely bad country. Journalism about Israel is often uniquely bad journalism
A Guardian editorial claimed that Israel has ‘banned’ Arab political parties. In fact, as we noted in a complaint to editors, though there was, in 2009, a decision by the Israel Central Elections Committee to bar two Israeli Arab parties due to allegations they supported terrorism, the Israeli Supreme Court overturned the ‘ban’ only two weeks later, before it could go into effect. The Guardian upheld our complaint and issued a correction.
Beyond the specific lies and distortions in Abbas’s Guardian op-ed lay a broader one: that Palestinians are victims who possess no moral agency and that Palestinian leadership shares no responsibility for their people’s suffering. It’s not merely unfair to assigned exclusive blame to Israel for every conceivable Palestinian failure, but also suggests a fundamental flaw in the Palestinian national movement.
The Guardian’s suggestion that there are haredi-only hospitals is just absurd, as anyone familiar with Israeli hospitals would surely know. Whilst Bikur Cholim Hospital in Jerusalem likely treats a large number of Haredim (due to its close proximity to Haredi neighborhoods), like all Israeli hospitals, it treats all patients who come through its doors, regardless of religious background.
UKMW contacted Observer readers’ editor Stephen Pritchard (by email and twitter) to express our concerns over their contributor’s failure to acknowledge that he was the author of the book he was quoting, The text was changed, and additional information added at the end of the article to make this fact clear.
By Richard Millett, London. It seems the Guardian is resorting to favouriting its own journalism. Maybe there aren’t many objective commentators who will do it for them? First, it endorses its own […]
By Richard Millett, London. What a nasty, bigoted, ahistorical piece Donald Macintyre wrote for yesterday’s Guardian. Macintyre is upset that while there is a Jewish state in light of the 1917 Balfour Declaration […]
By UKMediaWatch staff. You can normally tell something about a play by the audience it attracts and last night British Jews leafleting outside the Young Vic’s revival of anti-Israel polemic My Name […]
By Richard Millett, London. The Guardian’s Michael Billington gave My Name Is Rachel Corrie four stars out of five in his review of the anti-Israel play now showing at the Young Vic […]
The Guardian frames events at the University of Manchester not as a reasonable attempt to avoid creating a hostile environment for Jewish students, but through the predictable lens suggesting the nefarious influence of a free-speech stifling ‘Israel lobby’, a distortion which speaks volumes about the media group’s continuing double standards when covering allegations of antisemitism.
Buttu’s allegations in the Guardian, characterising Israel’s crackdown on incitement to terror as an ‘assault on Palestinian dissent’, are both context-free and counter-factual – essentially everything you’d expect from a PLO propagandist with such well-documented record of lying about the Jewish state.
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.