Daniel Barenboim, in his Guardian op-ed, follows in the Guardian tradition of expressing contempt for the state by claiming that its policies betray the country’s founding principles, whilst distorting both the policies and founding principles. His piece attacking the Jewish nation-state law grossly mischaracterises both the bill and the founding Zionist ideals (articulated in Israel’s Declaration of Independence) it is said to betray.
Following out tweet to a Guardian journalist, criticising his claim that Israel has only treated injured Syrians “on occasion”, he amended the article to include statistics we provided on the thousands of Syrians treated since 2013.
The Guardian is not interested in articles that challenge their readers’ prejudices against Israel, especially such a counter-intuitive story which offers a glimpse at how Israeli humanitarian efforts has the potential to win some hearts and minds hearts in the hostile Arab world.
These headlines illustrate the failure of journalists and their editors to frame articles in a manner which focuses primarily on Hamas and Islamic Jihad violence and evokes sympathy for Israeli terror victims and the southern communities which are constantly on the receiving end of such attacks. The story they wish to tell demands that facts be molded to conform to the desired David vs Goliath narrative, operates from an assumption that Palestinians lack agency and that the only party in the conflict that matters is Israel. The facts may change, but the story remains the same.
Whatever the merits of Landsman’s arguments about antisemitism, the fact that he recycled such an insidious smear with no basis in fact is another good illustration of the rank ignorance which informs much of the anti-Israel bigotry shared by the leadership and activist base of the British Labour party.
Guardian cartoon of Abbas in an Israeli straitjacket illustrates the media’s failure to hold Palestinians responsible.
The failure of media outlets to recognize that Palestinians are more than just victims and, even within the real limits imposed by the occupation, have the capacity to resist violence, hatred, scapegoating and self-pity, and embark on a path of real political and cultural reform, continues to deny news consumers an accurate understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
When, in May, the Board of Deputies’ outgoing president Jonathan Arkush met with Jeremy Corbyn, he asked the Labour Party leader: “Why is there nothing good you can say about Israel? According to Arkush, Corbyn didn’t respond, but remained silent – a silence likely driven by the same “mythical Israel” that continues to haunt the political imagination of Guardian editors.
Jeremy Ben-Ami, the founder and president of J Street, the far-left and self-proclaimed ‘pro-Israel’ US lobbying group, penned an attack piece in the Guardian on the US Ambassador to Israel which includes some of the favorite tropes of the pro-Palestinian commentariat.
Most British outlets which covered the death eight-month-old Layla al-Ghandour have failed to publish allegations that Hamas paid the girl’s family to tell the media that Israeli tear gas caused her death though the real culprit was a pre-existing blood condition.
Contrary to the views of the Guardian Readers’ Editor, the ideological similarity between tropes concluding that “Zionists are our misfortune” and tropes concluding “Jews are our misfortune” is simply impossible to deny.
We tweeted the Guardian’s head of photography, Fiona Shields, alerting her to the inappropriate photo accompanying an article on increased UK arms sales to Israel. Shields promptly replaced the photo with one more appropriate.
COGAT, the Israeli authority tasked with processing such travel requests, flatly denied the Guardian claim that a young Palestinian suicide victim had been denied a travel permit to study at Hebrew University. In fact, they said he had never applied for permission in the first place.
If you defend Israel’s actions in Gaza, your ethical impulses are, according to the Guardian columnist, not those of an ordinary human being. It would be difficult to find a better illustration of why so many Jews believe that media coverage of Israel incites antisemitism than a column suggesting that they, by virtue of their pro-Israeli political views, are morally deranged, even sub-human.
Contrary to the Guardian Jerusalem correspondent’s claim, Hamas has not “softened” its founding charter’s rejection of Israel’s existence, nor has it abandoned its promotion of violence to achieve this end.
Guardian accuses Israel of “war crimes” in shooting “protesters” who “posed no credible threat”.
However, in what world do thousands of rioters attempting the breach the border of a sovereign democratic state, at the behest of a proscribed terror group, not represent a “credible threat”?
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?
In February, following our communication with Guardian editors, an article focusing on a row between Israel and church leaders was corrected. The article originally claimed that proposed Israeli legislation (currently on hold) would allow the state to confiscate church land in Jerusalem, when the bill actually targeted land which the church had already sold to private (Jewish) developers. However, on May 1st, the Guardian made the same error, which, after we lodged a new complaint, was corrected.
The Guardian once again has demonised Israel, smearing the state as one defined primarily by racism and violence – an ugly caricature which has little resemblance to reality. The notion that Jerusalem should take security advice from the Corbyn-sympathising London intelligentsia is as risible as their suggestion that its citizens should take seriously the moralizing tales of Israeli darkness by the Hollywood left.
Guardian suggests equivalence between President Rivlin’s ‘greater Israel’ and Gaza protest leader’s ‘No Israel’
The Guardian’s comparison between the views of Israeli President Reuven Rivilin and those of chief Gaza protest organiser Ahmad Abu Artema is highly misleading. Unlike Abu Artema, who believes in a one-state scenario which ends Israeli sovereignty, Rivlin champions the idea of an Israeli annexation of the West Bank with Israelis and Palestinians living side by side under Israeli sovereignty and Palestinians being granted full Israeli citizenship. Abu Artema wants to end Israeli sovereignty. Rivlin wants to expand Israeli sovereignty.
The argument by the Guardian contributor that Yom Haatzmaut doesn’t leave room for nuance is simply wrong. One can be right-wing or left-wing, secular or religious, Jewish or non-Jewish, pro-Netanyahu or anti, and basically subscribe to any political ideology under the sun, and celebrate Yom Haatzmaut. This isn’t just theoretical – this is the reality in Israel! Celebrating Yom Haatzmaut simply means you celebrate the existence of a Jewish state of Israel in some form.