Moreover, the apparent credulity of the journalist and his editor in the face of Samara’s wild claim that soldiers considered shooting him for no particular reason – or that the army would have blown up his family’s house if he complained – is staggering, and provides another example of how the caricature of Israeli malevolence is ingrained in the Guardian imagination.
Much like the maps recently being paraded by Palestinian leaders purporting to show how much of “Palestine” their leaders have been willing to compromise, Private Eye has peddled a historical fiction, obfuscating the simple fact that there has never been – at any time in history – a sovereign Palestinian state.
The political premise of the recent UN blacklist of companies doing business in the West Bank, which represents conventional wisdom in the mainstream media, is that Israeli ‘settlements’ represent the biggest obstacle to peace. Yet, this conclusion regarding the ‘root cause’ of the conflict simply doesn’t hold up to critical scrutiny.
Whilst such footage should never be used to vilify Muslims as a whole, the Guardian’s suggestion that Palestinians never in fact celebrated the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people by al-Qaeda terrorists is clearly a lie.
As journalists cover Holocaust commemoration events today in Jerusalem, the lofty rhetoric by world leaders, diplomats and intellectuals evoking the idea ‘never again’ – the moral imperative to never again allow Jew hatred to go unchallenged because we know now where this leads – will ring hollow if the principle of anti-antisemitism is not applied universally.
Guardian readers should – but, of course, won’t – take note: For Saeb Erekat, words and lofty, progressive rhetoric don’t have objective meanings. They mean ‘just what he chooses them to mean, neither more nor less’.
A Guardian article on a new Human Rights Watch report vilifying Israel didn’t even feign objectivity or professionalism. In the 475 word piece by their Middle-East correspondent Michael Safim there isn’t even one sentence quoting someone critical of the report – neither an Israeli official nor NGO Monitor.
Written by Petra Marquardt-Bigman From my home on the southern outskirts of Tel Aviv, I hear the Muslim call to prayer every day as it issues from a mosque half a mile […]
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
Regardless of journalists’ individual views on the logic behind the economics-first approach of the new US peace plan, their insistence on treating Palestinians and their leaders like children by robbing them of agency serves, as much as any other single factor, to grossly distort their readers’ understanding of the conflict.
Contrary to Sky News Arabia’s claim, the actual number of Palestinians UNRWA was mandated in 1949 to provide aid is around 750,000
What do Tibetans, Kurds & Uighurs have in common? All are marginalised by media’s Palestine fixation
A recent op-ed by The Independent’s Mid-East correspondent has the air of an expose on the tragic plight of an obscure tribe in some under-covered part of the globe. But, in fact, quite the opposite is true. As we’ve documented continually, the Palestinians are the source a grossly disproportionate coverage by foreign journalists.
We of course are not optimistic that the Guardian will head our advice and begin viewing Palestinian choices as an important factor in analysing the conflict, in part because the ideology they’re institutionally wedded to demands a narrative in which Palestinians exist solely as passive victims of Israel, the only party that matters.
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.
It was perhaps inevitable that The Guardian would provide a platform to amplify an antisemitic campaign against the ADL. The piece that criticized Starbucks for its “misguided racism workshops” garnered more than 10 000 Facebook shares and was written by Hina Tai, an Associate Director of Research at The Islamic Monthly and, naturally, an ardent supporter of BDS.
Why do you hate Israel more than any other nation? Why does Israel anger you more than any other nation does? Why do Israel’s military activities aggravate you and disturb your conscience and provoke you to outbursts of street protesting or Twitter-fury in a way that no other state’s military activities do? These are the questions that hang darkly over today’s so-called progressives. Which eat away at their self-professed moral authority, at their claims to be practitioners of fairness and equality. They are the questions to which no satisfactory answer has ever been given. So they niggle and fester, expertly avoided, or unconvincingly batted away, a black question mark over much of the modern left: why Israel?
In a mere one minute and twenty seconds, the Sky News clip accurately capsulizes the media’s continuous credulity when faced with Palestinian soundbites that echo the narrative of proscribed terror groups – representative of a broader institutional failure to contextualise coverage of events in the region by reminding news consumers of the malevolent aims of the Hamas tyrants who rule Gaza.
Contrary to Robert Fisk’s claim, Yasser Arafat was offered was a contiguous state encompassing Gaza, east Jerusalem and considerably more than 90 percent of the West Bank. And, it’s not the “American media” making this “claim”. It’s three of the principle players during negotiations – Bill Clinton, his chief peace negotiator Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk, then the US Ambassador to Israel.
Despite the fact that Burke acknowledges that “the emergence of terrorism as we know it today” begun “in the second half of the 19th century”, his historical overview of modern terror somehow manages to avoid any mention of Palestinian attacks against Jews in Israeli cities, or Palestinian attacks on Jewish targets in Western cities.