Last week’s round of hostilities between Israel and Islamic Jihad saw hundreds of rockets fired from Gaza at Israeli communities – the “Gaza envelope” villages and the town of Sderot, as well […]
An article at the Independent by their Mid-East correspondent Bel Trew yesterday shortly after hostilities between Islamic Jihad and Israel commenced yesterday morning was relatively balanced – at least by Indy standards. However, today’s piece on the conflict contains two significant errors.
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 […]
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
Sky News Arabia did not address the terror attack directly at all. However, after three days, in a report entitled “Israel avenges the ‘Dolev attack’ with 300 houses in the settlements”, it falsely described the innocent victim of the attack as “a settler”,
The BBC Jerusalem bureau correspondents repeatedly describe the missile arsenals of the Gaza Strip based terrorist organisations as “homemade rockets”.
In comparisons to other British media outlets, The Times is normally one of the more reasonable and thoughtful news outlets in their coverage of the Israel-Palestinian issue and antisemitism in the UK, a fact that makes their glorification of a pro-violence, antisemitic teen especially perplexing.
Even by British media standards, this represents an egregious example of anti-Israel bias, as not a word in the report even alludes to Israel’s motivation for erecting the security barrier – the 2nd Intifada’s campaign of Palestinian suicide bombing that claimed the lives of hundreds of Israeli civilians in the early 2000s.
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.
A terror plot by Hizballah in the UK, uncovered by MI5 and the Metropolitan Police in the autumn of 2015, just months after the UK signed up to the Iran nuclear deal, was not considered newsworthy by the BBC.
“Here, the rise of Jeremy Corbyn had an unforeseen side-effect – it galvanised and united British Jews, mobilising the community. We have come to understand that there is no point talking about settlements with someone who denies the Holocaust. Nor any reason to entertain discussion over a partial Israeli withdrawal with someone who seeks to destroy Israel. We have learnt that there is no point negotiating anything at all with antisemites and we recognise that often, when they say ‘Zionist’, they actually mean ‘Jew’.”
Providing a voice for: demonisation of Israel and ‘right wing’ Jews; defence of anti-Zionists; gaslighting of Jews who complain of antisemitism; and the legitimisation of even the most indefensible pro-Palestinian claims – all in a days work for Guardian editors.
Though, especially in recent years, Hanan Ashrawi has often expressed support for non-violence, at least during interviews with Western media outlets, her claim that she’s “always” supported only non-violence is clearly not accurate.
We complained to the Daily Mirror over an article in their print edition that provided an estimated number of Gaza civilians killed during recent violence, but omitted the fact that all four Israelis killed by Hamas and Islamic Jihad rockets were civilians.
Daily Mail editors responded to our complaint and amended an article which initially stated that a Gaza baby and her mother were killed by an IDF strike.
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.