One of the leading factors behind the Guardian’s institutional pro-Palestinian bias is their refusal to take Palestinians seriously as agents of their own fate – a failure to grant Palestinians agency which invariably leads to a mono-causal, Israeli focused explanation which is fundamentally ahistorical, thus grossly misleading readers on the root cause of the conflict
Once again, we see that a Guardian op-ed accusing Israel of systematic racism does not hold up to critical scrutiny.
it’s interesting that on the same day the Indy published Barghouti’s pro-BDS op-ed, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief published a report linking BDS to antisemitism, noting, for instance, the frequent use of antisemitic tropes by BDS activists – an unprecedented report contradicting Barghouti’s narrative that the Indy naturally failed to cover.
The Guardian are obsessed with Israel, that much was already clear. But the Guardian’s reporting on Israel also contains a vindictive hostility. An endless stream of negative articles, all carefully worded to present Israel as the most vile, oppressive, Muslim hating, Christian hating, gay hating, Palestinian hating, murderous nation on earth
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.
Our analysis showed that, based on our review of other news outlets that published a version of that same AP article, the Guardian was the only one that omitted AP’s paragraph noting the Palestinian violence which caused the clashes.
Other than the Guardian, every news outlet we surveyed that published a version of the same AP report included that original paragraph noting the Palestinian violence which caused the clashes on Sunday – providing another example of how the Guardian routinely omits important facts in order to obfuscate Palestinian culpability.
Though we never heard back from Guardian editors, the journalist, to her credit, did eventually respond to apologise, and informed us that the sentence would be corrected.
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.
The truncated quote significantly alters the true meaning and significance of the prime minister’s words, and thus fails to adhere to the Editors’ Code, which demands that newspapers avoid publishing inaccurate, misleading or distorted information.
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”.
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’.
In a classic case of burying the lede, the Guardian obfuscated the fact that the only baby among the triplets born in the Jerusalem hospital to have survived did so because she received intensive state-of-the-art medical care for six months – the same exact level of care that a Jewish baby would have received.
Though economic problems facing Gaza and the West Bank are different, the editorial’s reflexive dismissal of the US plan and myopic diagnosis of the territories’ challenges have one common – and characteristically Guardian – thread: the failure to hold Palestinians even minimally responsible for their fate.
Earlier today, we tweeted a Guardian contributor, alerting her to an error in an otherwise unproblematic June 25th article about the increasing acceptance of film by ultra-orthodox communities: the false claim that the Israeli community of Yad Binyamin is a “settlement”.
Once again, the Guardian has done what it does best: deceive readers by whitewashing the extremism and terror ties of pro-Palestinian “activists” in omitting widely available open-source information that definitively contradicts their desired narrative.