- Let’s be honest. There’s a clear link with Islam (£) by David Aaronovitch, The Times
- Intellectual property is an innovation killer by Joshua Lachkovic , KernalMag
- Dumb Idea Hall of Fame by Aaron David Miller, Foreign Policy
- Nadine Dorries threatens Cameron's Party Leadership by Nadine Dorries, Daily Mail
- Boris set for party leadership? by Traci Watson, USAToday
- Anti-Israel students deface Star of David at student conference by Jonny Paul, Jerusalem Post
- Jihadist Videos on University Facebook by Rupert Sutton, Huffington Post UK
- Skintland: Heads I Win, Tails You Lose by Alex Massie, Spectator UK
- Green tax on conservatories by James Slack and Tamara Cohen, Daily Mail
- Saudi princess: What I'd change about my country by Staff writers, BBC
The Guardian acknowledges a degree of anti-Semitism
The Guardian's critics are hitting home in their charges of anti-Semitism at the paper. But acknowledging the problem is not the same as eradicating it
The Guardian made an unusual admission this week. In a piece titled “On averting accusations of anti-Semitism,” the paper’s Readers’ Editor, Chris Elliott, acknowledged (or at least partly acknowledged) that The Guardian had a problem with anti-Semitism.
The paper likes to think of itself as a bastion of liberalism, fairness and anti-racism, and most Guardian staff would probably acknowledge that anti-Semitism is one of, if not the, most deadly forms of racism in history.
“Guardian reporters, writers and editors must be more vigilant about the language they use when writing about Jews or Israel,” wrote Elliott.
He added that Guardian writers should have avoided “references [this year] to Israel/US ‘global domination' and the term ‘slavish’ to describe the US relationship with Israel; and, in an article on a lost tribe of Mallorcan Jews, what I regarded as a gratuitous reference to ‘the island’s wealthier families’.”
However, Elliot added, “I don’t believe their appearance in The Guardian was the result of deliberate acts of anti-Semitism: they were inadvertent.”
I worked with Elliot in another context earlier this year and found him to be a fair-minded editor. But, being very much a “Guardian man,” he may not fully realise that the examples he cites in his piece are only the tip of the iceberg. The coverage of Israel in The Guardian and other British and European newspapers is all too often tinged with anti-Semitism.
Perhaps more damaging than the overt examples of The Guardian’s anti-Semitism that Elliot provides, is the paper’s long track record of being at or near the forefront of efforts to demonize the Jewish state: its decades’ long policy of greatly exaggerating any wrongdoing by Israel while ignoring, downplaying or even romanticizing attacks on her.
So, for example, while The Guardian has run highly provocative and unfair headlines such as “Netanyahu turns to Nazi language,” (July 10, 2009) or “Israel simply has no right to exist” (Jan. 3, 2001) and while its writers have used very insulting terms such as “proto-fascist” (Feb. 12, 2009) to describe the Israeli cabinet, the paper takes a very different approach to those who have murdered Israelis.
It ran a front page article, for instance, describing Yasser Arafat (known to many as the “father of international airline terrorism”) as “cuddly” and “erotic,” adding that “the stubble on his cheeks was silky not prickly. It smelt of Johnson's Baby Powder” (Nov. 12, 2004).
Hamas master terrorist Nizar Rayan, who directed suicide bombers (including his own son) to murder and injure dozens of Israeli civilians, and who described Jews as a "cursed people" whom Allah changed into “apes and pigs,” was portrayed in The Guardian as someone who was “highly regarded” and “considered a hero” (Jan. 3, 2009).
The paper’s deputy editor Katharine Viner (best-known for co-writing the propaganda play “My Name Is Rachel Corrie,” and twice named as British Newspaper Magazine Editor of the Year), wrote in The Guardian about Palestinian terrorist Leila Khaled, who hijacked and then blew up TWA Flight 840:
“The gun held in fragile hands, the shiny hair wrapped in a keffiah, the delicate Audrey Hepburn face refusing to meet your eye.”
I don’t think the families of Khaled’s many victims would have compared her to Audrey Hepburn.
When The Guardian does report on anti-Semitism, it often “balances” this with coverage that is highly insensitive to Jews. For example, when marking the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, The Guardian published a lead editorial, titled “Holocaust Memorial Day: Eternal memory” with an accompanying commentary by former Oxford University professor Terry Eagleton, in which he justified suicide bombing “in Israel” and likened suicide bombers to their victims. (Unsurprisingly, the piece was reprinted the following day in the Saudi paper Arab News and appeared on radical Moslem websites.)
Taken singly these examples may not denote anti-Semitism, but collectively they amount to a pattern that comes close to doing so.
Indeed it is not surprising that, with its skewered, often inflammatory reporting on Israel, The Guardian has become the paper of choice not just for liberals, but for anti-Semites to leave comments at the foot of articles on its website.
Israel should by all means be criticised. Indeed Israel as a democracy welcomes criticism.
The Israeli media is one of the most self-critical in the world. It scrutinizes Israeli society, including its security forces, to a much greater extent than any British paper has scrutinized the conduct of the British military in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere; or the New York Times has scrutinized the conduct of America’s armed forces in Afghanistan.
The Guardian should not hold Israel up to impossibly high standards. It is no good publishing blatantly untrue headlines replete with historic anti-Semitic motifs (such as “Israel admits harvesting Palestinian organs”) even when the paper later changed the headline online, citing “a serious editing error.” (“Corrections and Clarifications,” The Guardian, December 22, 2009.)
Such headlines and reporting should never have appeared in the first place.
Tom Gross is the former Middle East correspondent for the Sunday Telegraph. For more by him, please see www.tomgrossmedia.com
Print
Top class piece. Can you imagine the state of affairs at the Guardian where their own readers' editor confesses to the paper succumbing to one of the vilest bigotries in world history?
The problem goes even deeper than this. I have heard the Guardian and the BBC described as two cheeks of the same a*** and they certainly share the same attitudes to Jews/Israel. Unfortunately we can walk past a news stand selling the Guardian without buying its shoddy merchandise, but if we want to watch our televisions, we are forced to pay for BBCs disgusting antisemitism.
A twist on: "I am not a racist, but...": "I read the Guardian, but...". Same old Oswald Mosley Fabians.
Interesting to see the Grauniad's change from its very pro-zionist reporting and commentary in the late 40s, which so riled those sent, largely in National Service, to keep the peace in Palestine. I don't think most people know of its reporting about the innocent soldiers hanged by Irgun, the bombing of the King David Hotel etc. There doesn't appear to be any ethical thread.
Guardian's circulation is going down the toilet. No one cares about what they have to say.
Any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic because Israel is a Jewish state and, therefore, any criticism of Israel is a criticism of Jews as a whole. Any Jew who criticises Israel is a self-hating Jew and can therefore be disregarded. I have got that right, haven't I?
Being a historian I have the utmost respect for the Jewish people and the Israelis. Having read the guardian for at least the last 10 years, I have nothing but contempt for the guardian and their more 'vocal' readership. Funny that.
Among the more shocking things The Guardian has done in this respect has been to publish, in the print edition or on Comment is Free pieces by known terrorist leaders. I can't run off their names without checking, but I remember writing to the CiF editor to complain about it. It is one thing to report on the thoughts and actions of terrorists, but to give them a platform repeatedly while giving few opportunities to pro-Israel writers indicates a depth of bias that is inexcusable in a paper that claims to represent a liberal, human-rights-based approach to politics. I stopped reading The Guardian several years ago.
Herbert, If I were you I would start reading things properly. Presumably you completely missed the line in the article which said "Israel should by all means be criticised. Indeed Israel as a democracy welcomes criticism." otherwise one might draw the reasonable conclusion that you are a bit thick.
The Guardian stopped long ago being the voice of Manchester Free Trade and became the voice of those opposed to the Tory Party. It is the voice of the spoilt middle class teeenager complaining about being forced to keep their room clean by their parents and not having a larger allowance. Whatever the Tory Party proposes, the Guardian will oppose, much like the spoilt teenager opposing a parent.
Steve says, 'Herbert, If I were you I would start reading things properly.' Steve, if I were you I'd read the relentless comments of Israeli spokesman in the media, who interpret any criticism of Israeli government actions as motivated by anti-semitism. Otherwise people will suspect you're on the payroll.
The Guardian's virulent anti-semitism is well documented but this is a great piece. I hope it is true that at least some on the paper acknowledge their racism but I doubt it will have much of an impact editorially.
Left wing racism is far worse than right wing racism because it is doused in hypocrisy. And the journalists/opinion writers on the Guardian who write about Israel are the biggest, vilest hypocrites of them all.
Herbert, have you read Haarietz or the Jerusalem Post. Or the Jewish Chronicle for that matter? They often accuse the government or the IDF of wrong doings. But they use facts not opinion from terrorists or anti-Semitic writers as their information. The Guardian and most of European and US media is biased and naive. They go into Gaza with Hamas as their guide and then report what they are shown as facts. Tom Gross was the first to expose the lies of Gaza's situation. Even the Guardian had to retract
I agree with canadaniel. This piece by Tom Gross is an example of reasoned, restrained, moderate argument par excellence. What a contrast to the often unrestrained anti-Israel, anti-American and anti-British hysteria that The Guardian publishes and passes off as informed opinion.
"A shift in attitudes came after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war" The Guardian therefore admits it's bias against Israel/Zionism. This is the problem. Why can't they just be neutral. Why didn't the Guardian writer mention his travel writer Gail Simmons "tweeting" last week that "Hitler was a Zionist and that says a lot about Zionism"? It is happening over and over at the Guardian, so much so that every Jew I know refers to it as "Al Guardian" or "Der Guardian," that I question the paper's sincere commitment against anti-semitism. It seems more likely, given the evidence, that the paper is purposely responsible for spreading subtle Judeophobia and only backtracks when caught out with its more overt anti-semitic comments. The paper employs only Leftists, Muslims or Jewish-antizionists when reporting on Jews and Israel so is it any wonder it's one-sided? It champions terrorist organisations like Hamas. It is a disgusting hate-rag.
Herbert, True to form from an arab apologist; ignore the criticism levelled at you, change the subject to Israel as a whole rather than the specific article that you were challenging and make a broad statement which shows how hateful all thse Jews are. Really weak.
I have read the Jerusalem Post. I remember its apologist piece for the Norway bomber Anders Breivik. Classy.
Herbert: You might want to run a 'Google' search for a psychology paper entitled 'Modern Anti-semitism and Anti-Israel Attitudes' (F.Cohen et al, 2009). In three separate and rigourous studies the authors established links between the two. As in all psychology studies, statistical tests were applied to ensure validity. I think we're beginning to move beyond the anecdotal or the accusations of 'Jewish paranoia' into the realms of scientific exploration and analysis.
So much antisemitism arises from the actions or perceived actions of Israel or Israeli politicians and the knee-jerk defence of both by the Jewish community.People in the Western world are too ready to criticise ISrael, they forget that it is not a European country populated by sophisticated people with a long history of liberal democracy, culture and civilised discourse. It is just another middle eastern country. Its people are from Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Ethiopia, Morrocco and other backward countries mixed in with former refugees from the slums and prison camps of Poland, Russia and other parts of eastern Europe. When one wants to criticise Israel's treatment of Palestinian Arabs or threats to unlease nuclear war against Iran, just remember that it is no different from the actions of Syria or Libya in the face of reaction to oppression. The threats of war are just the same as the rants of a modern day Assad or the leaders of the old communist regimes.
'Windsurfer', one of those National Servicemen sent to Palestine shortly after the Second World War,was a relative of mine and one of those who didn't come back.However I wish Israel and the Jews all the best in their quest for a peaceful existence.The,so called,liberals who write for and to the Guardian are some of the worst type of racist.
@Herbert, in this particular case it appears the cap fits quite well.
'The Guardian should not hold Israel up to impossibly high standards.' But any state should be held to at least high ones. However, so should any credible medium. And in this too many in the West fail utterly, as outlined here. Last night I was watching a programme called 'Great Tank Battles' on the History Channel, this time covering that which took place in the Sinai in the 1973 Yom Yippur 'war'. It was factual on the strategy and tactics. It was also not the first of its type as there have been others describing land and air combat In watching these, what has struck me was how little the geo-political situation of Israel is ever explained, especially historically, these days. Not to excuse much that Israel has done which certainly can't help 'diplomacy', but that term pre-supposes there are compromises to negotiate around that the various protagonists can operate around. However, in matters of trust, good faith and actual committed actions, it may be helpful these days to recall that Israel is surrounding by hostile, vastly powerful forces dedicated to its obliteration (especially with a burning hatred borne of macho embarrassment at being not exactly competent before when 'fighting' a very much smaller opponent), if not slack a little understanding may be of value in explaining the situation responsibly. Acting as a propaganda outlet for those hostile forces does not seem to represent a professional level of impartiality any medium with pretensions of credibility would be wise to reflect upon. So when I see partisan 'journalists' and editors covering up or tittering at the French and US presidential pygmies accusing the leader of Israel of lying or being robust in defence of his country still, when all he is doing is fighting its corner, I know whose side I tend to err upon. Nothing to do with semitism or otherwise; simply a sense of what doesn't seem right or fair.
I stopped reading the guardian after their repeated vile articles against Israel. No wonder their circulation is down.
The Guardian's antipathy towards Jews is more than a matter of current affairs. Jewish culture itself grates on their nerves because Jews are (in general) 1. Judeo-Christian; 2. Successful; 3. Independent-minded people who do not go running to the state to satisfy their every whim.
Everything the Guardianista despises.
I witnessed a staggering and contemptous insouciance on the part of Alan Rusbridger when he appeared as chief guest at a Jewish book Week event a few years back. He appeared bored, kept closing his eyes, and appeared to be taking a nap half the time.
I agree with you Paul (Rubenstein) Der Guardian Uber Alles COMMENT MA+CH FREI
I mostly read the Telegraph. Unfortunately the comments on the blogs about Jews/Israel are now on a par with the Guardian. It has become a virulent plague moving to fever pitch. Ad hominy attacks are the norm as the slanders cannot be proven. I am a keyboard warrior. I suggest others take up the keyboard. Get educated with irrefutable evidence and don't lose your cool. Good Luck, keep smiling, they have not wiped the Jews out yet, as much as they try.
I haven't read the Guardian in a dogs age because of its anti Israel\Semitic ravings. If you don't buy it then it will die. A newspaper in bed with terrorists who murders civilians is a newspaper not fit to wrap dead fish in.
Brits always sucked when it comes to Jews. They messed up the "mandate" big time and set the stage for all these recent deaths and then some.
England: Awful culture, crap food.
I too stopped reading the Guardian (maybe 7 years ago) because of its overt anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, pro-terrorist propaganda. I wrote to several journalists explaining my reasons for leaving. Only Jonathan Friedland had the courtesy to reply. I hope the Guardian fails. Tom Gross has penned a measured piece here. His investigative reporting on Gaza et al is admirable.
Agree with Merlyn: I too am a keyboard warrior. History repeats itself. I am alarmed by media hatred of Jews and the plethora of ignorant, relativist exculpations of Islamic supremacist ambitions.
The Guardian doesn't have a "problem" with antiSemitism. It has a "problem" with Jews. Just like the British government. This is a long-standing poison that has become part of its DNA.
As a potential reader, I know this paper is bigoted and unreliable on anything to do with the ME, and has a definite 'view' of things.
So I AVOID this poison pen paper, that long ago gave up any pretence to journalism or serious reportage and became a fetishist kiss-a** to terrorists.
Judging by the vile headlines cited above, reflecting no doubt the vilenes of their composers, I am missing nothing but nausea by not reading this sludge.
Aronlip, it's unseemly to parade your bigoted know-nothing detritus so openly. Put it back in the graveyard where it belongs.
Interesting that all the posts here have been entirely positive. It always riles me that those who criticise the Israeli Government's discriminatory policies towards the Palestinians (rob their lands, water,prevent travel etc) are automatically considered to be anti-semitic. I have no problem with Israels right to exist or to declare itself a Jewish state but I will not condone ethnic cleansing in East Jerusalem or stealing land to build illegal settlements. Why does that make me anti-semitic?
There was no "Arab Palestinian" history before the Arabs manufactured one shortly after 1948, and then especially after the June 1967 Arab-Israeli War! In an interview with the Dutch newspaper "Trau" (March 31, 1977), PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein said, "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism. It is also been a "conceptual" war for ownership of the term "Palestinian" which has been transferred over to the Arabs whereas, before 1967, "Palestine" has always been synonymous with Eretz Israel and the Land of Israel.
Archeological sites to this very day continue to yield artifacts with Hebrew writing, not some fictitious "Palestinian" or Arabic text! The so-called "Palestinian" Arabs were simply then, as they are now, Arabs no different culturally, historically or ethnically from other Arabs living in any of the 24 Arab countries from which they emigrated. The suggestion that the "Palestinians" are some sub-group of Arabs with their own unique identity is pure fiction! Great propaganda... but still pure fiction! And had not the Arabs continued to brainwash generation upon generation into believing this HISTORICAL HOGWASH about some ancient "Arab Palestinian" ties to the Holy Land, most could have gotten themselves a real life by now with much less bloodshed and suffering for everyone concerned!
It's also very noticeable that not only is the Guardian content to host highly anti-semitic comments on its articles, but that articles and comment threads that run against Israel are usually allowed to run the full three days for commenting whilst threads that run against Islam and the Guardian's line on the Middle East are very often closed ear;y, in many cases after less than a day.
For anyone who attempts to comment in the CiF section of the Guardian it becomes apparently true that the moderators are trained to do two things:
Prevent any reasoned arguement against the Guardian line especially on Israel. The second is any critism of the Lady Toynbee of Tuscany. It operates a one deletion, twice removal of commenting allowed.
Obviously Comment is Free just as the Comment follows follows the Guardian's line. Truth certainly is not sacred.
Don't be too happy. The fact that al Guardian chooses to admit it's an antisemitic rage means that they believe they've reached critical mass where it no longer matters - that is, there are no consequences to their admission. al Guardian is telling us they are the house organ of Britain's Salafists and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Keep a weather eye out for articles now openly calling for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the Islamic caliphate of Britain.
Sign up to receive updates from
The Commentator website!
-
Instant View: Sarkozy’s Netanyahu insult shows he's the aspiring clown of Europe
-
Mahmoud Abbas, the freed prisoners, and the peace process.
-
Hamas values its terrorists: More than 1,000 of them for Gilad Shalit
-
Recognising Abbas
-
The trend to make Israel apologise for being attacked
-
Guardian Downplays Jewish Connection To Temple Mount
It is always hard to draw a precise line around what is or is not racist, but a common-sense test applied to a broad cross section of published comments and attitudes can provide a useful indicator that something is wrong. Indeed, such a test can identify unconscious or unintended racism, which require even more urgent attention from editors. Most writers are sensitive to potential latent prejudice in their work when it comes to other ethnic or religious groups, and will usually effectively regulate their own language to ensure they don't offend those they have no wish to upset. But when it comes to Jews, many seem wilfully unaware of the damage their words might cause, and instead use the sensitivity of the insulted as evidence that they are too ready to accuse others of antisemitism.