This is a guest post by Margie in Tel Aviv. I do understand Sarah Helm’s desire to paint Hamas in a positive light in her May 19 article at the Guardian. I too wish […]
This is a guest post by AKUS. For some time I have sensed a gradual shift from articles that were in large part composed of or promoted outright lies on the former […]
In Beaumont’s universe, sympathy is evoked for Palestinian terrorists and their families; Israelis who express outrage about such crimes are dismissed as hyperbolic “right-wingers”; Israeli terror victims themselves are invisible, whilst the ongoing suffering of bereaved family members is ignored.
We finally received a response from the Guardian Readers’ Editor, informing us that the correction was made. Editors removed the sentence suggesting the existence of a wall surrounding the Israeli city of Haifa, and added an addendum noting the change.
This morning we noticed that the article was restored by editors. And, whilst the highly inflated PA unemployment stats were removed entirely and “summary killings” were changed to “killings”, they failed to correct the most bizarre claim, that a 8 metre high concrete wall surrounds Haifa!
If the Guardian wants to encourage a fact-based, reasoned debate about the merits of Australia’s refusal to allow Tamimi into the country, the least they could do is avoid misleading readers by obfuscating the Palestinian activist’s well-documented record of intolerance and anti-Zionist extremism.
Israelis are free go to bookshops anywhere in the country and purchase the book, Borderlife, by Dorit Rabinyan. The book made it to the Israeli best seller’s list. Israeli students can borrow the book from libraries. Israeli teachers in advanced literature classes across the country are free to assign the book to their students if they choose. Yet, the Guardian somehow claimed that the book was “censored” by Israel.
Those familiar with the Guardian’s decades-long history of institutional anti-Israel bias – which sometimes crosses the line into outright antisemitism – are understandably wary of suggestions that otherwise ideologically rigid far-left editors have changed course on matters of concern to British Jewry. But, it is our view that a modest editorial pivot concerning antisemitism is evident. Though it’s difficult to explain with any degree of certainty the reason for the slight shift, noting the radically different tones of two official Guardian editorials on the issue of antisemitism within five years of each other is instructive.
Whilst we disagree with those who suggest that hyper criticism of Israel at the Guardian reflects institutional antisemitism, these cartoons by Bell certainly indicate his own lack of seriousness about anti-Jewish racism by employing graphic depictions of Jews and Israel associated with antisemitism. It also raises serious questions about Guardian editors’ judgment in publishing cartoons clearly at odds with their anti-racist mission.
Whilst it won’t become clear for quite a while if the new guidelines will result in a continuation of this construction slow-down, it’s quite a commentary when far-left Haaretz frames the settlement policy of a ‘right wing’ Israeli government far more sympathetically than the Guardian.
o we have hardliners on both sides – on the side of Hamas, a convicted murderer, on the US State Department list as a Designated Terrorist, who has the blood of both Israelis and Palestinians on his hands. And within the Trump administration, a man who holds right wing positions and has used highly insulting and inflammatory language to describe his protagonists.
We emailed Financial Times editors, noting that, five paragraphs down in the article, we’re told that Israel was not included in the report which ranked Dubai first in Mid-East start-ups. Of course, Israel leads the Mid-East in start-ups, and in fact has the 5th highest number of startup companies than any other country in the world. So, the headline’s claim that “Dubai leads the Middle East in start-ups” is simply not accurate.
Here are recent corrections prompted by UKMW to articles at the Guardian, Daily Mail and Independent.
A tendentious and one-sided article published today at the Observer (sister site of the Guardian) doesn’t go as far as Sarsour, but does hyperbolically suggest the rights of women in Israel are being eroded to the point where democracy itself under threat.
Guardian journalists drive to work with the help of Israeli route-navigating technology (and soon in cars automated by Israeli technology), sit down to computers powered by Israeli designed chips, write articles they back up on Israeli invented flash drives and are increasingly protected by Israeli cybersecurity – but produce article after article about the “success” of BDS.
It’s important to stress that Walker’s accusation that many Jews were chief financiers of the slave trade is not true according to an examination by historian Eli Farber, documented in his book ‘Jews, Slaves and the Slave Trade: setting the record straight’. Jews’ role in the slave trade was actually minimal, according to Farber’s research
Whilst nobody familiar with Banksy would be surprised by his use of imagery associated with classic antisemitism, it’s troubling that journalists who pride themselves on critically scrutinising every Israeli claim didn’t challenge the pro-Palestinian artist when he floated the risible claim that his latest project was benignly designed to promote dialogue.
The Guardian decision to publish Greenstein’s complimentary reference to Kaufman’s grotesque Nazi accusation may not itself be an act of antisemitism, but certainly represents another example of editorial decisions which have the effect of normalising such expressions of anti-Jewish racism.
In other, simpler words, Jonathan (are you listening? I guess not) the so called “anti-Zionists”, whose legitimacy you so warmly confirm, are these same guys we all used to call “Jew-haters” or “anti-Semites”, to be historically authentic. These guys who desire to disperse and/or kill us all here again.
No amount of sophistry or obfuscation can change the fact that the claim by the Guardian journalist was egregiously and substantively misleading to readers, and thus in violation of the accuracy clause of the Editors’ Code.