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.
As the sun sets this evening in Jerusalem, the sirens will sound throughout the country and Israelis will stand at attention to honour the nation’s 23,741 fallen soldiers and 3,150 terror victims […]
An April 18th op-ed in the Independent by Ahed Tamimi – the terror-supporting Palestinian teen ‘activist’ from Nabi Saleh who recently spent time in prison for assaulting a soldier – included the false claimed that Israel only implemented one of the 38 recommendations by the NGO UNICEF on the treatment of Palestinian minors.
Daily Mail editors responded to our complaint and amended an article which initially stated that a Gaza baby and her mother were killed by an IDF strike.
At 10:00 this morning, millions of Israelis observed two minutes of solemn reflection as sirens could be heard throughout the state in honour of Yom HaShoah (Holocaust and Heroism Remembrance Day), Israel’s day of commemoration for the six million Jews murdered by the Nazis in the Holocaust.
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.
The revised article now asserts only that Jews entered the larger Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa compound, which they are legally permitted to do, as the Temple Mount is Judaism’s holiest site.
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.
Though a column in Times of London by Janice Turner (Let’s break free of this age of intransigence, April 28) included two sentences about Israel, nearly every word is misleading or false.
The April 22nd edition of BBC Radio 4’s ‘Six O’Clock News’ included an item that began by relating to an antisemitic incident which had taken place a few days earlier in Poland.
Over the years we have documented numerous examples of the BBC’s refusal to call Jerusalem Israel’s capital city. “The BBC does not call Jerusalem the ‘capital’ of Israel, though of course BBC […]
The Channel 4 News presenter’s unsubstantiated allegations against both Sa’ar and Gantz represent yet another example of the British media promoting the “Israel is moving dangerously right” narrative regardless of the facts.
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.
Though the idea of a ‘thaw’ in Arab antisemitism may sound good and seem attractive to editors as a good counter-intuitive regional analysis, it has little relation to reality.
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.