The Guardian site has an article in its Business section reminiscing about 1973 and trying to relate it to today.
Note the picture is of Israeli troops. Remember, this is supposed to be an article about “the collapse of the postwar golden age”, not the 1973 war. By itself, that picture choice may not be significant. But take a look at the opening text and see how the Yom Kippur War is described:
How did the war start? Did it spontaneously combust without rhyme or reason? Who started it? Context?
You might argue that it’s a short piece, so there was no space to mention such detail. Really? What would you think of a description of World War 2 which went like this:
“The war began on 1 September 1939 when Poland was celebrating the start of the weekend and was over inside 6 years, with initial gains by the Axis powers eventually reversed.”
Oh, now that you mention it…
Having seen the text, does the choice of picture take on a different meaning? It sure does. It toes the Guardian line about Israel being a militarily dominated state. The causal – ignorant? – reader gets an impression that is misleading and, demonizing.
It’s a part of a consistent approach by the Guardian. It’s almost as if the writer took up the challenge to see how an article about today’s economic situation could include an anti-Israel slant. Or worse, that the challenge was to subtly blame Israel for the world’s woes.
I read it and I smell something rotten.
Take a look at the whole thing, here, and if you see something different, tell me.