Whilst we’re glad that Jonathan Freedland at least partially gets why Israelis vote as they do, the chance that the Guardian as a whole will undergo some sort of transformation and begin to take Palestinians seriously as agents of their own fate, thus modifying their myopic framing which views Israel as the only party in the conflict that matters, is pretty close to zero.
The Guardian’s secular dogma, which rests on a confidence in the the inherent superiority of their own virtue and the assumption that anyone who disagrees with them on how to create a more just Mid-East is not just wrong but evil, has inevitably led to the simply delusional belief that they, and they alone, posses insight into Israel’s security needs that has managed to elude millions of actual Israelis.
The cruel and inhumane treatment of Palestinians by Palestinian leaders, and the misery they impose upon the population by their strict adherence to an extremist ideology which prioritises the hatred of Jews and Israel over all else, isn’t the story the Guardian wants to tell. To tell such a story would require viewing Palestinians as not just victims, but as moral agents whose decisions impact their society’s economic and political outcomes, a story that those in thrall to the facile and reductive victimological explanations for complex problems are loath to tell.
Once again, we see how the Guardian’s malign obsession with Israel manifests itself in the decisions made each day by their editors.
BBC audiences are told that Hamas is ‘cash-strapped’ – but not why.
An op-ed by the Independent’s Mid-East correspondent on the electoral hopes of Benny Gantz expresses skepticism that the former IDF Chief-of-Staff truly holds a more centrist view on the Palestinian issue – and, in so doing, falsely accuses him of “glorifying” the deaths of Palestinian civilians.
Contrary to Guardian claims, 85% of those killed on May 14th along the Gaza border were combatants – numbers consistent with an examination by Meir Amit Terrorism and Information Center revealing that most of the rioters killed between March 30th and Jan. 14th were similarly operatives of terror groups.
Our survey of photos highlighted in their ‘Photos of the Week’ series since March 31st (when the Hamas-led ‘Great March of Return’ began) included no less than 31 photos depicting scenes from the weekly Gaza border riots. In contrast, the Guardian published a mere 21 photos depicting the Syrian Civil War over the same 10 month period.
We’ve been monitoring the Guardian and commenting on the media group’s institutional hostility to Israel for nearly 10 years, and nothing much shocks us at this point. Yet, an official editorial published yesterday reaches a new low in malice and plain out dishonesty.
Palestinians, it seems, are not quite the peace and social justice warriors of media lore. They are arguably ‘far-right’, and certainly far from ‘woke’.
This isn’t merely one poorly written headline. It represent an institutional pattern of reporting informed by a pro-Palestinian sympathy so pronounced that it often erases the most intuitive moral distinction between victim and perpetrator.
Fisk falsely suggests that Israel intentionally murders Palestinian journalists to prevent them from reporting the truth about Gaza. In fact, the IDF operates with the knowledge that Palestinian terrorists have, at times, posed as journalists in order to attack Israelis, and that this tactic was used frequently by Hamas during Operation Protective Edge – an intentional blurring of civilians with combatants that Israeli soldiers protecting the border must carefully navigate during the weekly riots.
Marc Lamont Hill is not merely a pro-Palestinian ‘activist’ who criticises Israel and calls for a ‘free Palestine’. He’s a radical anti-Israel propagandist who’s repeatedly justified Palestinian terror, rejected Israel’s continued existence of a Jewish state and expressed admiration for one of the more infamous disseminators of antisemitic hate.
Regardless of whether Netanyahu’s comparison between Hamas and ISIS is accurate, the point is that Hamas – like other Islamist extremist movements – can not be placated in the long-term by Western political concessions. The antisemitic extremist group’s fundamental grievance isn’t an economic one, but, rather, the continued existence of a Jewish state – and no journalist covering the region can possibly report accurately on the conflict if they fail to comprehend this most basic truth.
Sarah Helm is not a journalist. She’s more akin to a pro-Palestinian activist whose visceral contempt for Israel at times bleeds off the page, and has included tweets expressing support for Hamas violence and even justifying antisemitism.
These counterintuitive findings offer a rare honest glimpse into what Palestinians living under Hamas’s despotic rule in Gaza actually believe, providing a “compelling corrective” to an entrenched media echo-chamber which continues to mislead readers about the dynamics which represent the true root causes of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
If Lara Alqasem led a radical-right group, instead of radical-left SJP, would the media have covered her detention?
If Lara Alqasaem had been in a leadership position with a right-wing extremist group, instead of a pro-Palestinian extremist group, the media wouldn’t have batted an eye, and Alqasaem wouldn’t represent a political cause among ‘human rights’ activists.
Indy ignores deadly Palestinian terror, but rushes to pronounce settlers guilty in lethal rock-attack
The Independent was one of three British media outlets that failed to cover two recent Palestinian terror attacks that claimed the lives of three Israelis, but was quick to publish a story about a rock-throwing attack in the West Bank over the weekend that claimed the life of a Palestinian woman – an attack, relatives claim, was carried out by settlers. However, not only did the Indy jump on the story, but immediately pronounced the settlers guilty, despite the fact that the incident is still under investigation and there aren’t currently any suspects.
For 2nd time in 3 weeks, Times of London, Telegraph and Indy ignore deadly Palestinian terror attack
The journalistic axiom ‘if it bleeds it leads’ isn’t entirely true when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where selective concern for the suffering of one side is the norm – indicative of a broader pattern of double standards which continues to compromise British media coverage of the region.
You don’t need to be a journalist, Mid-East analyst or expert of any kind to come up with a list of practical steps ‘protesters’ participating in the Hamas organised Great March of Return can take to save Palestinian lives. Here are just a few:
1. Stop firing at soldiers on the border.
2. Stop throwing grenades and other explosive devices at soldiers on the border.
3. Stop attempting to damage the security fence and infiltrate into Israel in order to kill Jews.