When, in May, the Board of Deputies’ outgoing president Jonathan Arkush met with Jeremy Corbyn, he asked the Labour Party leader: “Why is there nothing good you can say about Israel? According to Arkush, Corbyn didn’t respond, but remained silent – a silence likely driven by the same “mythical Israel” that continues to haunt the political imagination of Guardian editors.
Contrary to the views of the Guardian Readers’ Editor, the ideological similarity between tropes concluding that “Zionists are our misfortune” and tropes concluding “Jews are our misfortune” is simply impossible to deny.
We surveyed hundreds of tweets, spanning three years, by British journalist Sarah Helm and uncovered what we suspected all along: Helm is a pro-Palestinian activist. Not a journalist.
Donald Macintyre: a case study in how ‘enlightened’ British opinion can appear to empathise with Hamas
Instead of reporting facts, Donald Macintyre openly lets the narrative run over them. He appears to possess admiration and evoke sympathy for a terrorist organisation, whilst accusing the opposing army of slaughter. That he believes what he believes is upsetting – that his writing is considered enlightened, intelligent, and worthy of print is egregious.
It is becoming increasingly clear that Hamas pushes Gaza’s people into harm’s way because it knows their suffering will strike a chord across the West. Because it knows images of their hardship will be shared widely, wept over, and held up as proof of the allegedly uniquely barbarous nature of the Jewish State.
If you defend Israel’s actions in Gaza, your ethical impulses are, according to the Guardian columnist, not those of an ordinary human being. It would be difficult to find a better illustration of why so many Jews believe that media coverage of Israel incites antisemitism than a column suggesting that they, by virtue of their pro-Israeli political views, are morally deranged, even sub-human.
Guardian accuses Israel of “war crimes” in shooting “protesters” who “posed no credible threat”.
However, in what world do thousands of rioters attempting the breach the border of a sovereign democratic state, at the behest of a proscribed terror group, not represent a “credible threat”?
Guardian suggests equivalence between President Rivlin’s ‘greater Israel’ and Gaza protest leader’s ‘No Israel’
The Guardian’s comparison between the views of Israeli President Reuven Rivilin and those of chief Gaza protest organiser Ahmad Abu Artema is highly misleading. Unlike Abu Artema, who believes in a one-state scenario which ends Israeli sovereignty, Rivlin champions the idea of an Israeli annexation of the West Bank with Israelis and Palestinians living side by side under Israeli sovereignty and Palestinians being granted full Israeli citizenship. Abu Artema wants to end Israeli sovereignty. Rivlin wants to expand Israeli sovereignty.
When facts are ignored in favour of a fictitious narrative in which ‘brutal’ Israel is cowing the people of Gaza ‘into submission’, truth is sacrificed upon the altar of storytelling.
The argument by the Guardian contributor that Yom Haatzmaut doesn’t leave room for nuance is simply wrong. One can be right-wing or left-wing, secular or religious, Jewish or non-Jewish, pro-Netanyahu or anti, and basically subscribe to any political ideology under the sun, and celebrate Yom Haatzmaut. This isn’t just theoretical – this is the reality in Israel! Celebrating Yom Haatzmaut simply means you celebrate the existence of a Jewish state of Israel in some form.
Why do you hate Israel more than any other nation? Why does Israel anger you more than any other nation does? Why do Israel’s military activities aggravate you and disturb your conscience and provoke you to outbursts of street protesting or Twitter-fury in a way that no other state’s military activities do? These are the questions that hang darkly over today’s so-called progressives. Which eat away at their self-professed moral authority, at their claims to be practitioners of fairness and equality. They are the questions to which no satisfactory answer has ever been given. So they niggle and fester, expertly avoided, or unconvincingly batted away, a black question mark over much of the modern left: why Israel?
Here’s the latest installment in our ongoing series of posts documenting BDS fails.
The only difference between Hamas and Ahmad Abu Artema, the Great Return March chief organiser, is that Hamas is a terror group founded on the idea that Israel has no right to exist, and Abu Artema is a “non-violent” activist dedicated to the idea that Israel has no right to exist.
In a mere one minute and twenty seconds, the Sky News clip accurately capsulizes the media’s continuous credulity when faced with Palestinian soundbites that echo the narrative of proscribed terror groups – representative of a broader institutional failure to contextualise coverage of events in the region by reminding news consumers of the malevolent aims of the Hamas tyrants who rule Gaza.
In fairness, the Guardian – over the last few years – has been a bit more vigilant in avoiding antisemitic language, and we’re certainly glad that their editorial position on the antisemitism scandal currently engulfing the Labour Party is morally clear. However, it would benefit their readers – and help contextualise the problem of antisemitism on the British Left – if senior editors would show a bit more self-reflection by acknowledging their own troubling history of sanctioning toxic rhetoric historically used by anti-Semites.
If foreign journalists covering the region held Palestinian leaders to the same level of critical scrutiny that they consistently hold Israeli leaders to, the ten seconds of Abbas addressing the UN would cause nothing less than a media storm – with reports, analyses and commentaries informing readers that Abbas’s claim that Palestinians “are committed to fostering a culture of peace and a rejection of violence” is simply the opposite of the truth.
The Guardian simply has no credibility on the issue of anti-Jewish racism, and we seriously doubt that the editor responsible for the piece condemning attacks on Soros was motivated by a genuine anger towards antisemitic expressions. As Guardian journalist Michael White tweeted, on an unrelated controversy, “we all cherry pick our outrage sometimes”.
The suggestion in the EU report that the Jewish “narrative” is being promoted “at the expense of other religions” represents the opposite of the truth, as Israel continues to safeguard Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem, whilst Palestinian leaders continually deny Jewish history in the holy city and incite their people to view any Jewish presence on Judaism’s holiest site as an intrusion onto an exclusively ‘Muslim’ site.
Indy’s former Jerusalem reporter: Gaza tunnels are a testament to Palestinian “hard work and ingenuity”
Macintyre, the Indy’s former Jerusalem correspondent, said that Hamas were “a relatively pragmatic Islamist regime”, suggested Gazans are free to criticise the regime, and that the terror group’s building of tunnels was “testament to their hard work and ingenuity”.
Whilst Fisk’s criticism of Ross’s AIPAC connections is legitimate (as are questions about Jared Kushner’s Israeli financial and business ties), questioning the loyalty of Ross and the other Jewish peace negotiators – suggesting they can’t be trusted to negotiate fairly with the Palestinians because of their faith – crosses the line.