To say that Israel bombed the headquarters of the Confederation of Disabled People is technically accurate, and highly misleading. It was not the target, it was only one single office in a multi-story building, and the target was (at least) Fatah operatives, and possibly other terror related spaces in the building.
The fact that there’s still a blockade after 12 years is not the result of Israeli malevolence, but the consequences of Hamas’s extremist ideology and their refusal to meet these reasonable conditions – an incredibly intuitive cause and effect that somehow manages to elude putatively intelligent and well-informed journalists.
Providing a voice for: demonisation of Israel and ‘right wing’ Jews; defence of anti-Zionists; gaslighting of Jews who complain of antisemitism; and the legitimisation of even the most indefensible pro-Palestinian claims – all in a days work for Guardian editors.
When the entire country is labeled “occupied” “Palestine”, these Arabic-language Western media outlets – which purportedly uphold Western journalistic standards of objectivity and accuracy – are legitimizing extremist rhetoric negating Israel’s very existence.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Whilst it’s not fair to label most Guardian journalists and editors antisemitic, one thing seems certain: Their obsessive criticism of Israel day in and day out, characterising the state as not only flawed but as some sort of organic obstacle to peace and progress, reinforces in the minds of those already prone to such thinking the idea that the Jew indeed remains “humanity’s greatest problem”.
Zionism is the belief that Israel has a right to continue to exist. Anti-Zionism is the belief that says Israel has no right to exist and shouldn’t continue existing. It is not a theoretical position. It’s an effort to forcibly dispossess over six million Jews of a right they currently have. It doesn’t say that nation-states shouldn’t exist, just that the Jewish state – the only safe-haven for Jews around the world – shouldn’t exist.
The cruel and inhumane treatment of Palestinians by Palestinian leaders, and the misery they impose upon the population by their strict adherence to an extremist ideology which prioritises the hatred of Jews and Israel over all else, isn’t the story the Guardian wants to tell. To tell such a story would require viewing Palestinians as not just victims, but as moral agents whose decisions impact their society’s economic and political outcomes, a story that those in thrall to the facile and reductive victimological explanations for complex problems are loath to tell.