As even Nicholas Watt, Guardian’s former chief political correspondent, once acknowledged: “quite often on the left the term right-wing is just used to mean ‘bad'”.
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.
Once again, we see how the Guardian’s malign obsession with Israel manifests itself in the decisions made each day by their editors.
Here is the basic question: Why is the Guardian more concerned about the possible future instability caused by Washington’s pullout from the Iran Deal than the actual death and destruction that Tehran is causing today in the Middle East?
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.
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 trope in the Guardian/Observer editorial concerning Israeli puppeteers controlling the foreign policy of a US president is based on toxic historical calumnies about the Jewish people, and in fact is characterised as antisemitic by the Working Definition on Antisemitism recently adopted by the UK government.
The White House expressed the view that the overwhelming majority of settlement construction is not an impediment to peace. However, most UK media reports on the announcement instead focused on the muted condemnation of new settlements and construction beyond existing settlement boundaries.
Trump’s ban on citizens of seven foreign countries from entering the US represents a completely different dynamic than what he’s trying to describe in the Palestinian territories. There’s no Israeli “ban” on Palestinians. There are checkpoints and other security measures erected to prevent terrorism on both sides of the green line, but tends of thousands of Palestinians pass into Israel each day to work, visit family and receive medical care.
Are Israeli homes built across the green line only considered “illegal settlement construction” when the homes are built for Jews?
Earlier today, we heard back from Sky producers, informing us that they upheld our complaint and thanked us for bringing the information to their attention – particularly the AP correction.
Yesterday, we posted about an inaccurate headline accompanying a Jan. 1st Times of London article by Gregg Carlstrom. We demonstrated that no Israeli settlers – according to the text of the actual article […]
Here’s the headline accompanying a Jan. 1st Times of London article by Gregg Carlstrom. There are two elements of the headline that are interesting. First, the article primarily deals with Palestinian complaints […]
The goal of journalism is to report the facts and inform the reader. When the Independent chose to mislead with a photo of Netanyahu, they were not engaging in journalism, but were involved in polemic and slander.
Yesterday we posted about an article at The Independent on Donald Trump’s scheduled visit to Israel – Trump to visit controversial Jerusalem site, Israel PM Netanyahu, reports say, Dec. 11. (Trump, who’s been […]
Most troubling of course is the decision – presumably by sub-editors – to evoke such historically toxic imagery evoking the stereotypical wealthy Jew stealthily controlling the levers of political fortunes.