The implicit argument that the religious background alone of David Friedman and Jared Kushner renders them biased, and may help explain US policy, is a toxic and racist charge that should have no place in mainstream British publications.
Though the Telegraph is normally responsible when it comes to avoiding language that could be seen as antisemitic, this particular sentence clearly serves to legitimise the historically toxic dual loyalty trope, codified as antisemitic by the IHRA Working Definition.
All of the British publications we surveyed ignored the UN report criticising the Palestinian Authority, despite the fact that most of the outlets routinely report on the UN’s egregiously disproportionate reports critical of Israel.
At the end of the day, the reports all relied on the same premise: only a clear distinction between good Jews and Zionists could exonerate Tunisian Jewry and clear them of the charge of being “Zionists in Jews’ clothing”.
Those Labour activists who advocate for anti-Zionism (an opposition to the existence of a Jewish state) are doing just that by demanding that, for acceptance into their ‘progressive’ community, Jews renounce and abandon a key component of their Jewish identity.
In comparisons to other British media outlets, The Times is normally one of the more reasonable and thoughtful news outlets in their coverage of the Israel-Palestinian issue and antisemitism in the UK, a fact that makes their glorification of a pro-violence, antisemitic teen especially perplexing.
After ten years, we remain dedicated to promoting accurate coverage of Israel, and to combating antisemitic narratives and tropes which often accompany reports compromised by anti-Israel bias.
In June, journalist Melanie Phillips and former Israeli MK Einat Wilf participated in an Intelligence Squared debate in London in which proposed the motion “Anti-Zionism is antisemitism” before a largely anti-Israel audience. They were opposed by academic Illan Pappé and journalist Mehdi Hasan.
The Guardian review suggests there’s little self-criticism or reflection on display from these Palestinian writers – no evidence of stories in the anthology premised on the view that Palestinians are masters their own fate, that a distopian future is not pre-ordained and that better Palestinian decisions in 2019 will likely result in better outcomes in 2048.
Called “No Room for anti-Semites, We’re Already Full,” the website provides “some basic tools to understand antisemitism so that we can hide it better.”
Ultimately, what Bell is doing is gas-lighting British Jews, dismissing their profound fears about the hatred directed to their community, and lending credibility to those bigots who view the entire row as a conspiracy to bring down their beloved leader.
His email provides yet more evidence that, even by Guardian standards, Bell is an extremist in his hatred of Israel and what appears to be his utter contempt for the values and concerns of British Jews.
Thus far, most British media outlets – including the Guardian, Independent, Telegraph and BBC – have ignored Hammad’s call for genocide, a speech, our sister site BBC Watch observed, that’s at odds with the media narrative of the Great March of Return, which has downplayed such extreme antisemitic incitement, whilst characterising the violent riots as mere “protests”.
Here’s the latest installment in our ongoing series of posts documenting BDS fails.
Even for those who avoid employing explicit classic antisemitic tropes while vilifying Israel, the acceptance of the view that the Jewish state isn’t merely a state that’s flawed as all states are, but, rather, represents, as the late Robert Wistrich phrased it, a singularly “organic obstacle to peace and progress” necessarily vilifies Jews qua Jews.
The Guardian is now indistinguishable from the very antisemitic organs that the newspaper itself used to hate
Though the Guardian occasionally acknowledges – albeit perfunctorily – the profound fears of the Jewish community amidst a Labour Party that has become institutionally antisemitic, their editorial decisions more often than not suggest an ideological inclination to legitimise those racist voices within the hard left who believe the entire row is some sort of anti-Corbyn plot hatched by embittered ‘Blairites and Zionists’.
The BBC has once again legitimised the view that Israel’s supporters in the UK use false charges of antisemitism to silence criticism of Israel.
“Here, the rise of Jeremy Corbyn had an unforeseen side-effect – it galvanised and united British Jews, mobilising the community. We have come to understand that there is no point talking about settlements with someone who denies the Holocaust. Nor any reason to entertain discussion over a partial Israeli withdrawal with someone who seeks to destroy Israel. We have learnt that there is no point negotiating anything at all with antisemites and we recognise that often, when they say ‘Zionist’, they actually mean ‘Jew’.”
It’s extremely troubling that Sky News Arabia – a network which purports to uphold Western journalistic standards – would evoke classic antisemitic tropes by suggesting that the editorial decisions of a rival Arab media outlet were made at the behest of ‘the Zionists’.