Corbyn and his supporters – including those on the Guardian editorial board – wish to remain free to assert, in some form or another, that “Zionism is racism” and that “Israel has no right to exist” with moral impunity – a fact which explains why the overwhelming majority of British Jews will continue to see the current Labour Party (as well as the pages of the Guardian) as a “hostile environment” antithetical to their values.
In smearing Israel, Jonathan Sacks and – by association – most British Jews, Steve Bell has attempted to grant Jeremy Corbyn and his cult-like band of acolytes the ultimate political get-out-of-jail-free card the times – lifetime moral impunity for expressions of anti-Jewish racism.
Yesterday, the Labour Party adopted – at least for the time being – the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism with all its examples, though with a caveat which Labour Friends of Israel claimed […]
Despite a brief moral throat-clearing, in his Guardian op-ed, on the need to fight ‘real’ antisemitism, by impugning the motives of those calling for the full definition’s adoption, and using dog whistles about ‘Zionist power’ in the UK, Ash Sarkar appears to be as committed to fighting anti-Jewish racism within Labour as the party leader his publication so enthusiastically supports.
Let’s remember that Zionism is the simple recognition that Israel has a right to exist. Anti-Zionism is the belief that Israel doesn’t have a right to exist and shouldn’t exist. It’s not a theoretical discussion, but a radical campaign which seeks the destruction of an actually existing nation-state. Further, anti-Zionists such as Khalidi don’t say nation-states shouldn’t exist. They say that only the Jewish state shouldn’t exist.
British Jews, according to an op-ed endorsed by Sarah Helm, have too much power in Britain, and are using this power to subvert democracy with a well-coordinated smear campaign alleging that Jeremy Corbyn is antisemitic – a charge they know to be untrue.
The real ‘irony’ is that Corbyn’s own words vindicate the work of Millett, which is premised upon the understanding – based on sound empirical evidence and their first person reports over the years – that there’s a strong correlation between antisemitic and anti-Israel attitudes in the UK.
Yet, despite Hamas well-documented history of using such putatively ‘civilian’ structures for military uses, the Guardian largely ignored the IDF’s statement, and parroted Hamas claims the IDF targeted what was merely a cultural centre. In three articles, encompassing over 2500 words of text, the Guardian devoted a mere four sentences, and 173 words, to the Israeli position.
Here’s the latest installment in our ongoing series of posts documenting BDS fails.
Once again, the Guardian has denied readers the full story, omitting crucial details, failing to provide relevant context and erasing nuance – all of which helps advance the desired Guardian narrative, one which invariably imputes maximum Israeli malevolence to any dispute between the two parties.
We immediately filed a complaint with Daily Mail editors, taking issue with their claim that the IDF broke the ceasefire with Hamas when they used force in response to violent border riots. After several days, editors upheld our complaint, and revised the sentence in question to more accurately contextualise the Palestinian riots in relation to the ceasefire.
Whilst it would be wrong to blindly accuse journalists and editors of being personally antisemitic, some within the top echelons of media group – though at times condemning antisemitism in the abstract – seem, much like Corbyn himself, to hold the values and concerns of the mainstream British Jewish community – united in the belief that Labour Party leader represents, as The JC phrased it, “an existential threat to Jewish life in the UK” – in utter contempt.
Are Guardian columnist Owen Jones’ views on Israel and Hamas shaped by “racism = prejudice + power”?
As long as they’re held hostage to the theory that powerlessness grants a degree of impunity against universal moral standards, such an intuitive causal relationship between Hamas’s actions and Gaza’s economic and political outcomes will continue to allude Owens and his fellow travelers within the Corbyn-left.
The British Daily Mail apparently can’t be sure that Palestinians from the Gaza Strip really fired 180 rockets and mortars at Israel in a 24-hour period earlier this week. A Daily Mail article three times referred to these attacks as “alleged,” as if the fact that Hamas fired 180 rockets and mortars at Israel has not yet been confirmed.
UKMW prompts Guardian correction to claim the Balfour Declaration granted Palestine to the Zionist Federation
The Guardian upheld our complaint to an article which erroneously claimed that the Balfour Declaration promised “the land of Palestine” to the “Zionist Federation” of the UK and Ireland.
We contacted the Financial Times Jerusalem correspondent to express our concern that his characterisation of the change to Palestinian access to the Supreme Court is extremely misleading. A few hours later, we received a reply from the journalist thanking us for the clarification and informing us that the agreed to change the sentence.
UKMW prompts Irish Examiner to correct bizarre suggestion that there are Israeli settlements in Gaza
It took several days of communication between UK Media Watch and editors at the Irish Examiner, but we finally secured a correction to a sentence in a July 23rd op-ed which bizarrely suggested that there were still Israeli settlements in Gaza.
The Guardian’s Deborah Orr was widely mocked for her bizarre argument that the Shalit prisoner swap with Hamas demonstrated Israeli racism, and she was eventually forced to offer an ‘apology’ of sorts. Corbyn’s 2012 comments on Press TV mirror Orr’s, and provide another illustration of the truly warped thinking which animates many anti-Zionist activists in the UK.
Such fake Zionist quotes demonstrate a broader problem within the Irish media: the frequent dissemination misinformation about Israel by pro-Palestinian activists that routinely goes unchallenged by newspaper editors, thus grossly distorting the debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in that country.
The decision by the Indy editor to promote Noam Chomsky’s charge on Israel’s putative influence on the US political system, without informing readers of the academic’s record of unhinged commentary on Jews, Israel and a host of other international issues, is extremely worrying.