Guardian true to its propaganda mission

I heard about it. You must have heard about it. Everyone heard about it. As the Times of Israel reported:

Intel to buy Mobileye for $15 billion in largest purchase of Israeli tech

By any sensible definition, that’s news. It’s the “largest ever purchase of an Israeli high-tech company” and it’s by one of the most famous companies, involving technology in an area everyone is talking about, interested in, and keenly watching developments there.

If you depend on the Guardian for your news, however, that deal is not there for you to read about. Some earlier activity of Mobileye, for example its Intel and BMW tie up, was reported (see here) and the report even included the dreaded (for the Guardian) “Israel” word.

But it appears this mega deal, this BDS ball-buster, this wonderful, wonderful confirmation of all that’s good in the world of Israeli high-tech – all of that was too bitter a pill for the Guardian to swallow and publicize.

What bitter, twisted, propaganda obsessed thinking.

Share:

Peres

More loss, this time for the whole country, with the passing of Shimon Peres earlier this morning. I see the Guardian took the opportunity to mark the occasion by attacking the Israeli government.

As recently as last year Peres strongly criticised the direction of the government of Israel’s rightwing prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, although he did not name Netanyahu directly.

Peres said he believed the values he and Rabin, who was assassinated in 1995, had inherited from Israel’s founding father, David Ben-Gurion, were in jeopardy as he defended a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“Israel should implement the two-state solution for her own sake, because if we should lose our majority, and today we are almost equal, we cannot remain a Jewish state or a democratic state.

“That’s the main issue, and to my regret they [the government] do the opposite.”

For something that’s not trying to make a political point, and actually deliver a decent obituary, see the Times of Israel piece here.

Share:

Don’t mention the hatred

The terrible suicide bombing in Istanbul was jumped on by one Israel hater, as reported by the BBC:

Soon after the Istanbul blast, a tweet from a woman claiming to be a junior official of Turkey’s governing AKP party caused consternation on social media.

Irem Aktas, described as head of public relations for the women’s branch of a local AKP bureau in Istanbul, tweeted that she wished “all Israeli citizens in the area had died.”

The Twitter account now seems to have been taken down.

Another official from the same AKP party branch later confirmed Ms Aktas was a party member, but said her tweet did not reflect the party’s position and that the process of expelling her had started.

The Guardian report omits this. Presumably they would say that it doesn’t fit their definition of news. However, to me it seems more likely that they wouldn’t mention the hatred because it does not fit their world view. They do not see any hatred. And for sure, the Guardian cannot see that they are responsible for stoking the fires of hatred. Oh no, they are far too liberal to be doing that…

Share:

Another Nelsonian eye from the BBC and the Guardian (updated)

In the light of this story not being deemed fit for proper coverage by the Guardian or BBC, here’s another rough and ready calculator I created for the benefit of their less experienced staff and future recruits:

bbc-guardian-poster-2

The first calculator poster is here.

[Update: the Guardian finally stepped up to the plate. See here. And the BBc has now covered the story, as local news. Wow. I think the Media Coverage Calculator still stands.]

Share:

Some people can see better than others

Ynet has a decent story that offers a huge chunk of hope about the current security situation, and the future:

Why Jenin is staying out of current wave of terrorism

Jenin, once the home of suicide bombers, is now the quietest city in the West Bank. After 4 attempted attacks at the Jalamah checkpoint, the residents realized their economic prosperity could stop, and rushed to restore calm; ‘an attack at the checkpoint is an attack against us,’ says local businessman.

Continue reading

Share:

Guardian guarding its old guard

UK Media Watch has an on target post about the Guardian‘s latest media manipulation. Adam Levick does a great job of sorting through the rubbish to clearly portray what is going on.

This sets the background:

To sum up: Palestinians violated two fundamental principles of political freedom:

<> They denied access to a journalist due to her nationality and/or religious background.

<> They responded to Johnson’s contrary political views not by engaging in an argument with him, but by dis-inviting him and creating an atmosphere whereby his physical safety couldn’t be guaranteed.

What happened?

…how did the Guardian’s Peter Beaumont – who presumably supports absolute freedom of the press and free speech more broadly – cover the row?

First, he completely ignored the Palestinian discrimination against a Jewish-Israeli reporter.

Think about that for a moment. This reporter ignored a blatant case of discrimination. He pretended it did not exist. Why? There are several potential reasons, but none of them do Mr Beaumont or the Guardian any credit. By their behavior they are taking sides, and not with the good guys.

Additionally, he framed the dis-invitation and threats of violence against Johnson not as an offense against the principles of free speech and a free press, but as a faux pas by mayor known for his “flippancy” and “hyperbolic enthusiasm for Israel”.

On this part, the criticism is valid, but the Guardian’s perspective is at least defensible. However, only if they hadn’t ignored the free speech issues. In other words, they should have mentioned both, and let the reader decide.

Beaumont also conveniently omitted the part of Johnson’s statement to the media where he noted one other fact inconsistent with the Guardian narrative on boycotting the Jewish state. As The Independent, Daily Mail, and other papers noted, Johnson reminded Palestinians that Mahmoud Abbas himself “said very clearly and several times that he was opposed to a boycott of Israel.”

Beaumont would likely be familiar with Abbas’s opposition to BDS, as the Guardian reported the news when the story broke in late 2013.

Now that is funny. Beaumont had to engage in cherry picking what Johnson said, so as to guard the Guardian’s world view. That is not journalism. Adam Levick makes this point very well:

But, of course, this is more than simply one example of a biased journalist covering for Palestinians based on his personal sympathy for their political cause. Rather, it’s a small part of a larger pattern, prevalent in within the opinion elite, of denying Palestinians moral agency and failing to hold them to the same political standards Israelis are held to – a view which demands that Palestinians only exist as passive victims of Israeli oppression and Western arrogance.

Whatever you say about Boris Johnson, his rejection of such a patronizing view of Palestinians almost guaranteed such coverage by the Guardian’s Jerusalem correspondent.

If Beaumont and other reporters based in the region want to be a political activists that’s of course their right. However, those who read such reports from Israel and the Palestinian territories must understand that what they’re reading is advocacy, not professional journalism as it’s normally understood.

Read the whole post, here. And do what you can to spread the word. This material deserves a much higher circulation. Just like the Guardian deserves a much lower circulation, given its abominable non adherence to standards, and its activism based campaigning, or whatever you want to call it. It’s not journalism. It’s guarding their world view, just for the sake of it.

Share:

Suddenly, the Guardian takes notice

Source: Wikimedia

Source: Wikimedia

So far as I can tell, Gerard Kaufman’s outburst of anti-Semitism at a recent pro Palestinian meeting, had gone unreported by the Guardian and the BBC, until now.

This is on the Guardian site, as I type:

guardian031115

The article starts off:

Jeremy Corbyn has condemned one of his Labour MPs, Sir Gerald Kaufman, for making “completely unacceptable” remarks about the Jewish community.

Kaufman, the longest-serving MP in the Commons, was hauled into a meeting with the Labour whips after he talked last week about how “Jewish money” was influencing the Tories.

“It’s Jewish money, Jewish donations to the Conservative party – as in the general election in May – support from the Jewish Chronicle, all of those things, bias the Conservatives,” Kaufman said. “There is now a big group of Conservative members of parliament who are pro-Israel whatever government does and they are not interested in what Israel, in what the Israeli government does.

“They’re not interested in the fact that Palestinians are living a repressed life, and are liable to be shot at any time. In the last few days alone the Israelis have murdered 52 Palestinians and nobody pays attention and this government doesn’t care.”

Nice guy. You can read the whole thing here.

The interesting thing is that the Guardian is now reporting on the hate speech, but only after the passage of time and the (grudging?) public denouncement by Jeremy Corbyn.

Questions, questions, questions

One question is why didn’t the Guardian report the matter before now?

Isn’t it reasonable to assume that a paper with a stated liberal, anti-racist ethos, would want to report anti-Semitism? It surely wouldn’t want to sweep it under the carpet, would it?

So why did the Guardian wait until now? Did Corbyn’s intervention mean they felt there was no alternative? Is anti-Semitism not news worthy? Is anti-Semitism by “the longest-serving MP in the House of Commons” not news worthy? Did the Guardian need help to identify what Kaufman said as being hate speech? Are they that culturally blinded?

It simply beggars belief that the oldest hate reared its ugly, smelly head, and the Guardian neither noted (apparently) nor cared.

It’s unlikely we will get a clear answer (if any) but their behavior regarding this dreadful episode has been a disgrace.

The other question is why is the BBC still ignoring this?

Share:

Dershowitz defeats BDS at Oxford Union

Source: Wikimedia

Source: Wikimedia

As you may read at these websites – Jewish ChronicleJerusalem Post, Haaretz, Arutz Sheva – on Sunday, Professor Alan Dershowitz won a debate on BDS at the Oxford Union. The motion Is the BDS movement against Israel wrong? was carried by 137 votes to 101.

While the result has no practical impact at Oxford, or anywhere else, it was somewhat unexpected given the generally vicious anti-Israel climate in UK universities, and the UK generally. That Guardian advert promoting BDS by 343 UK scholars is only one recent example. (Did the Oxford Union react against that, I wonder? People do not like to be told how to think, in my experience.)

Funnily enough, despite plenty of previous mentions of the Oxford Union for past debates, you will struggle in vain to find any coverage of Dershowitz’s victory against BDS in the Guardian, or the BBC. Why?

Share: