The fact that the article completely omitted any mention of the extreme anti-Jewish rhetoric during al-Quds Day represents yet another example of the Guardian’s broader failure to acknowledge the antisemitism that is endemic within much of the pro-Palestinian movement.
This attacker had just watched a film with multiple scenes of Israeli soldiers committing acts of violence against Palestinian children and wanted someone (preferably a Jew) to take it out on.
The Sky News Arabia report omitted any mention of the Muslim rioting at the Temple Mount which necessitated the police response and falsely claimed that “Israeli extremists stormed the mosque”.
Hezbollah humiliated on streets of London as their Al Quds Day protest is blocked by pro-Israel activists.
We came we saw we conquered! While the Hezbollah Al Quds Day terror parade was allowed to take place on Sunday 18th June in the heart of London’s West End a group of 20 to 30 pro-Israel activists stepped out into the road to block the march no sooner than after it had just started.
Around the world, there are many countries who are building walls to protect their citizens. Saudi Arabia is building a 600 mile wall to keep out ISIS. India is building massive walls on its borders with Bangladesh and Pakistan. One can agree with these decisions, or disagree with them. But in the end, there is only one country who built a wall to defend its citizens from murderous attacks on its civilians that is called apartheid for doing so – and surprise, surprise the one country singled out for unfair criticism is Israel.
The London-based Jewish blogger Richard Millett was banned, by the putative free speech advocates at Amnesty International, from attending an event last night in London called “Accountability and Human Rights at 50 years of Occupation”. Organisers justified the banning of Millett by accusing him of being a “disrupter”.
As we explained in a subsequent complaint to Times editors, the Gush Etzion main communities were founded before 1948, in the 1920s and 1930s, on land legally purchased by Jews. Jews living at the original Kibbutzim were killed during the 1929 Arab riots, then re-established and destroyed again during Arab revolt of 1936-1939. Though the communities were re-established in the 1940s, they were again destroyed by Arabs fighters during the 1948 war.
The Indy journalist not only effectively ignored Judaism’s holiest site, but also managed to parrot Palestinian talking points, thus leading many readers to falsely believe that the location of the Israeli government meeting represented some sort of provocation against Palestinian Muslims.
The Guardian’s claim regarding the putative position of “Israeli” thinktanks on the Saudi-UAE isolation of Qatar not only comes completely out of nowhere, and is seemingly irrelevant, but is also erroneous. The link embedded in the claim takes you to an article in Middle East Eye, which clearly identifies the think tank as Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a thinktank based in Washington, D.C., not Israel. We contacted Guardian editors, who upheld our complaint and revised the passage accordingly.
Times of London editors upheld our complaint and revised the sentence in question to note that it was only the opinion of former UN General Secretary that Israel had committed crimes against children, not an indisputable fact.
To be fair, the Telegraph is far from the worst UK news outlet when it comes to such media double standards. However, their omission of Palestinian car rammings within the context of the London Bridge attack seems indicative of a wider phenomenon by which Israelis are placed in a different category of victims – men, women and children whose suffering often seems to occupy a space beyond the sympathetic imagination of many journalists and editors.
We can only hope that Economist will one day engage in self-reflection on their coverage of the region, and begin to critically scrutinize Palestinians with a rigor that’s currently almost entirely reserved for Israelis.
In fact, the suggestion that the country is moving to the far right couldn’t be further from the truth. Despite a few bills of questionable merit which many on the left here disagree with, and which have little actual impact, fundamentally Israel remains – as the respected human rights group Freedom House reports each year – a bastion of liberal, democratic values.
The trope in the Guardian/Observer editorial concerning Israeli puppeteers controlling the foreign policy of a US president is based on toxic historical calumnies about the Jewish people, and in fact is characterised as antisemitic by the Working Definition on Antisemitism recently adopted by the UK government.
The claim, that there’s been 750,000 Palestinian prisoners since 1967, stated as fact by McKernan, is at minimum highly disputed. As blogger Elder of Ziyon has persuasively demonstrated, it’s almost impossible for these numbers (cited frequently despite the fact that it originated from a radical NGO with ties to a terror group) to add up
The lead story in the May 22nd afternoon edition of the BBC World Service radio programme ‘Newshour’ was the visit of the US president to Israel which, at the time of broadcast, had commenced just a few hours earlier. The programme included the false ‘Israel Apartheid’ claim by guest Mustafa Barghouti, a smear that wasn’t challenged by the BBC presenter.
The Economist is currently promoting a seven-part “special report” titled “Six days of war, 50 years of occupation”. The online version of the unattributed sixth installment goes under the title “The half-life on an occupied Palestine”. The article, quite predictably, solely blames Israel for the occupation and suggests that Palestinians have no responsibility for the ongoing conflict
On May 18th listeners to BBC Radio 4 heard the fourth part in Jeremy Bowen’s series of programmes ‘Our Man in the Middle East’. Titled ‘Jerusalem’, the programme is both rambling and predictable, with Bowen’s portrayal of the city focusing on blood, violence, religion, power and nationalism at the expense of any mention of its diversity and eclectic coexistence.
I do understand Sarah Helm’s desire to paint Hamas in a positive light in her May 19 article at the Guardian. I too wish that their intentions were as positive as she seems determined to present them as being; peace between Israel and the Palestinians – the magical goal that every politician yearns for – would be so much more easily attainable.
Love is in the air at the Guardian. With summer approaching in the UK, down at Guardian towers (soon to be moving out of London to try to cut their dreadful financial losses) they continue wooing one of the most anti-Jewish outfits since the Nazis: Hamas.