What do true free thinkers do when presented with new information contradicting their most cherished beliefs? They carefully consider the new information and adapt their views accordingly. What do rigid, closed-minded thinkers do when presented with new information contradicting their most cherished beliefs? They ignore the new information. The Guardian falls into the latter category.
Tellingly, nowhere in her new article warning of the dangers of Middle East conspiracy theories – published, interestingly, on the 16th anniversary of the September 11th attacks – does the intrepid journalist allude to her own recent ‘fake news’ faux pax of relying on the sage advice of a 9/11 truther.
UK study: those with strong anti-Israel views are dramatically more antisemitic than the general population
As much as anti-Israel activists – and their allies in the media, NGOs and Parliament – like to deny it, this new report by CST and JPR persuasively demonstrates what most Jews in the UK know intuitively: that there is in fact a strong correlation between obsessive criticism Israel and hostility towards Jews.
The Irish Times journalist could have responded civilly to our tweet, but instead chose snark, a complete non-sequitur designed to divert from the topic at hand, representing another example of how journalists who demand accountability from politicians and government institutions when gathering information for their reports often fail to hold themselves to the same standards when questioned by news consumers – and watchdog groups like ours.
CST’s 2016 Antisemitic Discourse report included an example of antisemitism in the mainstream British media. The article in question, published in February 2016 in the Daily Telegraph, characterised a well-known Jew who’s the founder of Elliott Management Hedge Fund as a ‘latter day Shylock’ – a reference to the antisemitic caricature from Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice.
The toxic charge that Israel (or Jews qua Jews) exercises a dangerous degree of control over US foreign policy or public opinion is sadly common within leftist discourse on the Middle East, and the fact that such invective have been published in a right-wing publication like The Spectator is another indication of the lure of such antisemitic logic among otherwise sober minds
The word “bellicose” is defined by Merriam Websters as “favoring or inclined to start quarrels or wars”. Yet, a recent Guardian article bizarrely characterised Israeli accusations – based on satellite photos – that Iran is building sites to produce missiles in Syria and Lebanon as “BELLICOSE” rhetoric. Of course, the article doesn’t even allude to ongoing “bellicose” Iranian threats to annihilate Israel.
Though reasonable people can of course disagree with Netanyahu’s response to Charlottesville, to characterise the prime minister of the Jewish state as an “appeaser” of anti-Semites who needs lessons in courage from a Guardian journalist is a breathtaking display of hubris.
The Economist made a pretty serious charge against Israel’s prime minister and offered literally zero proof to back it up.
The Working Definition of Antisemitism (adopted by the British government, European Parliament and the US State Department) includes, in its list of contemporary examples of antisemitism, “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination”.
Similarly, al-Abed’s apparent belief that Jews are subhuman certainly at least partially explains his motivation for entering an Israeli home and stabbing several Jews to death. By omitting this key passage in al-Abed’s Facebook post, the Indy has again obfuscated the lethal impact of Palestinian antisemitism and incitement.
On some issues, there aren’t two sides. You don’t have to be ‘pro-Israel’ to acknowledge that antisemitism – whether in Charlottesville or ‘Palestine’ – is never morally defensible, and – most of all – is always a path to ruin.
The Independent reported that former Pink Floyd front man Roger Waters complained that his pro-Palestinian views have been ‘silenced’ in the US by what he suggests is some sort of ‘media conspiracy’ by top editors, producers and executives.
An article in the Financial Times seems to legitimise charges by “critics” that senior White House adviser Jared Kushner’s Jewish faith should render him unfit for his role brokering peace in Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
The fact that the Guardian found John Lyon’s conspiracy theory for pro-Israel attitudes in Australia credible would not come as a surprise to anyone even vaguely familiar with the media group’s record on issues pertaining to Israel and antisemitism.
CST recorded 767 antisemitic incidents across the UK in the first six months of 2017, a 30 per cent increase on the 589 incidents recorded in the first six months of 2016. This is the highest total CST has ever recorded for the January-June period of any year
The misleading Indy photo purporting to depict ‘peaceful worshipers’ is just one more example of the media’s continuing obfuscation of the central role played by Palestinian incitement in fueling violence – an ongoing lie by omission which profoundly distorts news consumers’ image of the conflict.
With antisemitic incidents in the UK at an all time high, news outlets with even the most strident pro-Palestinian editorial lines – such as the Guardian and Independent – should avoid amplifying toxic anti-Zionist agitprop that doesn’t edify or inform, but only inflames those most likely take their anger over Israel out on Jews
Ken Loach’s claim in The Independent that there are apartheid-style, “racially segregated roads” in the West Bank is an outright lie, and we encourage you to lodge a complaint at the Indy using this online form.
How many people spreading Holocaust denial material would you expect to find in a group who claim to be “anti-racist”?