His email provides yet more evidence that, even by Guardian standards, Bell is an extremist in his hatred of Israel and what appears to be his utter contempt for the values and concerns of British Jews.
Thus far, most British media outlets – including the Guardian, Independent, Telegraph and BBC – have ignored Hammad’s call for genocide, a speech, our sister site BBC Watch observed, that’s at odds with the media narrative of the Great March of Return, which has downplayed such extreme antisemitic incitement, whilst characterising the violent riots as mere “protests”.
Here’s the latest installment in our ongoing series of posts documenting BDS fails.
Even for those who avoid employing explicit classic antisemitic tropes while vilifying Israel, the acceptance of the view that the Jewish state isn’t merely a state that’s flawed as all states are, but, rather, represents, as the late Robert Wistrich phrased it, a singularly “organic obstacle to peace and progress” necessarily vilifies Jews qua Jews.
The Guardian is now indistinguishable from the very antisemitic organs that the newspaper itself used to hate
Though the Guardian occasionally acknowledges – albeit perfunctorily – the profound fears of the Jewish community amidst a Labour Party that has become institutionally antisemitic, their editorial decisions more often than not suggest an ideological inclination to legitimise those racist voices within the hard left who believe the entire row is some sort of anti-Corbyn plot hatched by embittered ‘Blairites and Zionists’.
We’re not sure at this point if the article has been temporarily removed pending an edit, or if it was taken down for good. Either way, it marks a positive trend within the British media whereby editors are far less inclined than they used to defend the counterfactual assertion that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel.
Regardless of journalists’ individual views on the logic behind the economics-first approach of the new US peace plan, their insistence on treating Palestinians and their leaders like children by robbing them of agency serves, as much as any other single factor, to grossly distort their readers’ understanding of the conflict.
Contrary to claims by Sky, AFP and Reuters, Jordan does not have a guardianship role over Jerusalem’s Christian holy sites.
While the BBC gave generous coverage to Palestinian Authority and PLO talking points throughout its coverage of the Bahrain conference – and not least their claim to aspire to a ‘two-state solution’ – it has to date completely ignored those threats of violence and the PA’s intimidation of Palestinian citizens.
In a classic case of burying the lede, the Guardian obfuscated the fact that the only baby among the triplets born in the Jerusalem hospital to have survived did so because she received intensive state-of-the-art medical care for six months – the same exact level of care that a Jewish baby would have received.
Joseph Cohen, head of the grassroots organisation Israel Advocacy Movement, recently sat down with British writer and comedian Lee Kern, who gave a very interesting take on what motivates the hatred of Israel by much of the hard left.
Though economic problems facing Gaza and the West Bank are different, the editorial’s reflexive dismissal of the US plan and myopic diagnosis of the territories’ challenges have one common – and characteristically Guardian – thread: the failure to hold Palestinians even minimally responsible for their fate.
Earlier today, we tweeted a Guardian contributor, alerting her to an error in an otherwise unproblematic June 25th article about the increasing acceptance of film by ultra-orthodox communities: the false claim that the Israeli community of Yad Binyamin is a “settlement”.
It’s hard to see how we can trust the Financial Times “integrity” and “accuracy” when reporting on Israel and the Palestinians if their Mid-East editor openly sides with one side in the conflict.
Though the Sky News Arabia article is correct in observing that there have been no Arab players on the team, their claim that Beitar hasn’t had a single Muslim player is completely untrue.
A supporter of UK Media Watch complained to Indy editors, noting that their suggestion that the racist behavior of some Israeli fans is symbolic of Zionism is as absurd as claiming that English football hooligans symbolises all of English culture.
The factual error in the piece involved passage which repeated the church’s claim, as if it were an established fact, that the specific land sale was fraudulent in part because the properties were sold for a sum “less than half the market value”. As we pointed out to editors, this allegation was specifically refuted by the court ruling,
Though their new headline (“Sick Palestinian girl suffers lonely end”) is still, in our view, problematic, it is, nonetheless, a significant improvement over the original in that it no longer makes the explicit claim that the child “died alone”, and doesn’t attribute blame to the “Israeli permit regime”.
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.