Once again, the Guardian has done what it does best: deceive readers by whitewashing the extremism and terror ties of pro-Palestinian “activists” in omitting widely available open-source information that definitively contradicts their desired narrative.
As pro-Israel LGBT rights activist Scott Piro argued previously on these pages, the real queer foes are those (like the Guardian Jerusalem correspondents) who consistently ignore the horrors committed against LGBTs in the Palestinian territories – and throughout the Middle East – in order to satisfy their readers’ malign obsession with the world’s only Jewish state.
We of course are not optimistic that the Guardian will head our advice and begin viewing Palestinian choices as an important factor in analysing the conflict, in part because the ideology they’re institutionally wedded to demands a narrative in which Palestinians exist solely as passive victims of Israel, the only party that matters.
Walter Russell Mead Mead points to younger Palestinians he met on a recent visit to the region who, he claims, increasingly reject the failed politics of the older generation, in part because they acknowledge that Israel “is better-governed than the West Bank under the PA—with better administration, less corruption and more responsiveness to public opinion” – and desire a dramatic shift from the stale policies…that have led the Palestinian people to its current plight”.
To say that Israel bombed the headquarters of the Confederation of Disabled People is technically accurate, and highly misleading. It was not the target, it was only one single office in a multi-story building, and the target was (at least) Fatah operatives, and possibly other terror related spaces in the building.
The fact that there’s still a blockade after 12 years is not the result of Israeli malevolence, but the consequences of Hamas’s extremist ideology and their refusal to meet these reasonable conditions – an incredibly intuitive cause and effect that somehow manages to elude putatively intelligent and well-informed journalists.
Providing a voice for: demonisation of Israel and ‘right wing’ Jews; defence of anti-Zionists; gaslighting of Jews who complain of antisemitism; and the legitimisation of even the most indefensible pro-Palestinian claims – all in a days work for Guardian editors.
Following a complaint by UK Media Watch, the Guardian amended an article which had falsely claimed that the recent violence between Israel and Gaza was triggered by the IDF shooting of Palestinian protesters.
Neither the Guardian nor Indy noted the egregious examples of antisemitism at Saturday’s anti-Israel demo in London, with their articles providing entirely positive accounts of the protests – representative of a pattern of both publications obfuscating antisemitism and support for violence within the pro-Palestinian movement.
Ian Black, the Guardian former Middle East editor, managed to blame Israel for the latest round of violence with Hamas, despite the fact that his own paper reported the sequence of events accurately.
The word “cleansed” of course suggests that 97% of Palestinians were expelled or in some way forced out by Israeli forces that year – a claim totally at odds with the historical record. As CAMERA, and commentators such as Dr. Petra Marquardt-Bigman, recently demonstrated, the overwhelming majority of Jaffa’s Arab residents fled in 1948 – and were not forcibly removed.
It seems not to have occurred to the Guardian’s Jerusalem correspondent that those who promote Israel’s cause, and submit “relentless complaints”, may be making reasonable arguments and could impart information about the region he wasn’t aware of or provide perspectives he hadn’t previously considered.
Antisemitism isn’t an immutable trait. It’s a habit of mind. Antisemitism is a conspiratorial way of understanding of how the world works, premised on the belief that ‘the system is rigged’ by an “elite using its control of the mechanisms of society” for nefarious purposes – and which of course imagines Jews at the center of this cabal.
Whilst we’re glad that Jonathan Freedland at least partially gets why Israelis vote as they do, the chance that the Guardian as a whole will undergo some sort of transformation and begin to take Palestinians seriously as agents of their own fate, thus modifying their myopic framing which views Israel as the only party in the conflict that matters, is pretty close to zero.
Much like the apartheid smear, the Guardian’s use of the word ultranationalist in this context serves one major purpose: to reinforce the Corbyn-style left narrative which suggests that Zionism is illegitimate and that Israel – the most progressive state in the Mid-East – is not only moving ‘dangerously right’, but arguably lurching towards fascism and, thus, represents a state beyond the pale.
In 2011, we interviewed Jonathan Spyer about his book The Transforming Fire: the Rise of the Israel-Islamist Conflict. Our first question focused on his contrast between the real Israel and what he termed the […]
The Guardian’s secular dogma, which rests on a confidence in the the inherent superiority of their own virtue and the assumption that anyone who disagrees with them on how to create a more just Mid-East is not just wrong but evil, has inevitably led to the simply delusional belief that they, and they alone, posses insight into Israel’s security needs that has managed to elude millions of actual Israelis.
Whilst it’s not fair to label most Guardian journalists and editors antisemitic, one thing seems certain: Their obsessive criticism of Israel day in and day out, characterising the state as not only flawed but as some sort of organic obstacle to peace and progress, reinforces in the minds of those already prone to such thinking the idea that the Jew indeed remains “humanity’s greatest problem”.
Zionism is the belief that Israel has a right to continue to exist. Anti-Zionism is the belief that says Israel has no right to exist and shouldn’t continue existing. It is not a theoretical position. It’s an effort to forcibly dispossess over six million Jews of a right they currently have. It doesn’t say that nation-states shouldn’t exist, just that the Jewish state – the only safe-haven for Jews around the world – shouldn’t exist.
The cruel and inhumane treatment of Palestinians by Palestinian leaders, and the misery they impose upon the population by their strict adherence to an extremist ideology which prioritises the hatred of Jews and Israel over all else, isn’t the story the Guardian wants to tell. To tell such a story would require viewing Palestinians as not just victims, but as moral agents whose decisions impact their society’s economic and political outcomes, a story that those in thrall to the facile and reductive victimological explanations for complex problems are loath to tell.