The Guardian: Jew Hatred? What Jew Hatred?

A guest post by Michael G.

I was not present at Saturday’s student rally in Manchester against the British Government’s plans to sharply raise university tuition fees, but here are the facts that the British media seem to agree on:

National Union of Students (NUS) president Aaron Porter was prevented by an abusive mob from speaking at the rally and had to be escorted to safety by police officers. About 150 fellow protesters, many pictured carrying Socialist Workers’ Party placards, broke away from the main, peaceful demonstration and barracked Porter over his leadership of the student movement. At least 16 demonstrators were arrested on the day.

The British media differed slightly in their reports of the type of abuse hurled at Porter.

The Daily Mail reported that Porter faced chants of “Tory Jew scum” in an article headlined, “Student union leader pulls out of speaking at fees rally after protesters hurl anti-Jewish abuse at him.”

The Daily Telegraph said that Porter was called a “f*cking Tory Jew” under the headline, “Student leader Aaron Porter barracked with anti-Semitic insults,” while Sky News reported that demonstrators surrounded Porter, “chanting anti-Semitic insults and calling for him to resign.”

The Guardian, though, saw it much differently.

Their story admits that student protesters targeted Porter before he was led to safety by police, but claims that he was merely called a “Tory too.” The word “Jew” doesn’t appear anywhere in their story, and there’s no mention whatsoever of the anti-Jewish abuse that other British media outlets detected. Why?

Porter himself, who apparently is NOT Jewish, said:

“Before I was able to speak to the rally of thousands a small group of people started to chant abuse to try to intimidate me, and there were audible antisemitic comments.

“Racism is something that student activists have been fighting to eliminate for decades and this was a sobering reminder that there is still work to do.”

Does The Guardian think Porter is lying? Or, rather, could it simply be that a story about racism by British Far Left “activists” simply isn’t a narrative that is particularly helpful to their cause?

I’ll put my money on the latter.

CiF Watch Managing Editor to be interviewed tonight

CiF Watch’s Managing Editor, Adam Levick, will be interviewed on an internet radio show – which focuses on the Middle East – called The Bibi Report.

Adam will answer questions from the hosts (and callers) on a range of topics regarding CiF Watch’s work exposing and combating anti-Semitism, and the assault on Israel legitimacy, at the Guardian.

The show begins at 9:00 PM U.S. Eastern Standard Time, and Adam’s segment will begin at 9:25.


January 2011- the new Palestinian “Nakba”?

A guest post by AKUS

That old axiom of Abba Eban’s – “The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity” – may once again be the best description of the latest misfortune to befall the Palestinians. Obsessed with the new idea of demanding recognition of a Palestinian state they missed the chance to reach a negotiated settlement with Israel in 2008 with Olmert and 2010 under US pressure with Netanyahu and have been swept aside by a tidal wave of events in January.

While far away in Latin America countries are rushing to recognize a non-existent Palestinian state on the non-existent 1967 “borders” (the 1949 armistice lines), closer to home all attention has shifted to greater issues. Had the Palestinians seized their opportunity to engage in negotiations with Israel as Obama requested during the 9 month building freeze, and better yet, signed an agreement, they would be looking at a real state rather than one that exists only in the blogosphere. Better yet, had they accepted Olmert’s map and offers, they would be two years down the road to developing whatever that little patch of land on the West Bank would look like as the Palestinian state (Gaza, of course, would still be under Hamas control and no-one knows what its future will be). Now they can only sit on the sidelines and watch greater events capture the world’s attention.

In January, the roof caved in on the Palestinian Authority – a second “nakba” again of their own making, once again, as internal quarrels opened the lid on an ugly reality so reminiscent of the Arab politics of 1948. The Pallypapers destroyed what little credibility the leadership had. The Arabs and the rest of the world saw the leadership saying one thing in public in English, another in Arabic to their people, and a third to Israel and the US in negotiations – the last being, by and large, acceptance of many of the positions that Israel and the US had presented for years of not decades since there really are no logical alternatives if one wishes to create a Palestinian state in the West Bank.

Even worse from the Palestinian perspective, the EU countries’ obsession with “Palestine” was marginalized as the revolt in Tunisia occurred, followed by the huge demonstrations in Egypt which may yet bring the Mubarak regime to an end. Suddenly, it was clear that the Palestinian issue is not the most important issue in the Middle East, nor would settling it lead to a new reality in the Middle East. Far from it – the issues in the Arab world are internal sociopolitical issues that play on the Palestinian issue as a distraction from real and serious problems the dinosaurs leading their father–son dynasties face.

Less noted are similar events in Yemen, and, most importantly for the West Bank Arabs, Jordan. The global stock markets took a serious hit on Friday 28th as traders wondered what the effect on oil supplies from the Middle East would be – a matter of far greater concern than the Palestinian issue. The fact that Egypt controls the Suez Canal, through which a huge proportion of Europe’s oil supplies and commerce with the Far East pass, with Yemen in turmoil at the entrance to the Red Sea leading to Suez, only adds to the anxiety. Will Europe consider a repeat of the 1956 effort, perhaps this time with American support, to take over the Suez Canal by force?

News from Jordan has not been prominently displayed – perhaps because there is not enough blood in the streets yet to satisfy the ghouls running the international news organizations – but clips showing the demonstrations for food and jobs indicate that all is far from well in the Kingdom. What is particularly interesting is that the demonstrators were waving large green flags – the flag of Hamas. Approximately seventy percent of Jordan’s population is generally described as “Palestinian” and King Abdullah holds on to power by virtue of an iron Bedouin fist in a velvet glove. The glove came off during “Black September” in 1970.

Should the demonstrations gather force and Abdullah react as his father did to preserve himself, the issues of the West Bank Palestinians will once again be made trivial by comparison. If, on the other hand, the Jordanian Hamas supporters manage to topple Abdullah, where then will the PA go, trapped between Hamas in Gaza and Hamas in Jordan? Will Jordan then become a Hamas-controlled Palestinian state, and, if so, what will the future of the West Bank be? Israel will not agree to a second Gaza right next to the Green Line. Better the current situation than kassams flying into Tel Aviv, Netanya, and Jerusalem.

Continue reading

Guardian readers’ editor defends decision to publish letter justifying suicide bombing

Chris Elliott, the Guardian’s Readers’ Editor, responded today to criticism that his paper chose to publish a letter from “eminent” philosopher Ted Honderich defending Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians.  As we noted, here, Honderich’s apologia for suicide bombing was quite explicit.  He said:

Palestinians have a moral right to their terrorism within historic Palestine [presumably the West Bank and sections of Jerusalem]…Terrorism as in this case can as exactly be self-defence, a freedom struggle, martyrdom, the conclusion of an argument based on true humanity, etc.” [emphasis mine]

Elliot notes that he received a complaint – echoing our argument – that “this letter the Guardian [published] is inciting antisemitism, violence against civilians … endorses terror and calls for the murder of Jews.”

Then, Elliott says:

“It is the policy of the Guardian not to publish letters advocating violence against others…”

Now watch this transition:

[However] It seems to me legitimate to debate…he is not advocating suicide bombing, he is questioning how it is regarded by most people in the west, and how it might be seen as something other than terrorism by people in other places and circumstances.  It is a legitimate area of discussion.

But, no matter how Elliott parses it, Honderich’s commentary wasn’t some abstract philosophical meditation published in a scholarly journal, it was a specific reply asserting the moral significance of the Palestine Papers.  Indeed, let’s look at how he begins his letter:

The revelations in detail [Guardian’s Jan. 25 piece on the Palestine Papers] of the intransigent greed, the escape from decency, of Israeli governments…serve one purpose….They provide an overwhelming argument for a certain proposition [the Palestinian moral right to terrorism]. [emphasis mine]

In other words, what Honderich has learned from the Guardian’s Palestine Papers is that Israel is such a morally indecent country that Palestinians now clearly have the moral right to murder Israeli men, women, and children.

No matter how much sophistry or rhetorical acuity Elliott attempts to employ, there’s simply no denying the obvious.

Seven years after Israel finally succeeded in ending a bloody intifada which claimed the lives of over 1100 Israelis – and left thousands more injured and permanently disabled – the Guardian published a letter morally sanctioning its return.

It needs to be remembered that evil acts throughout history have never occurred in a political vacuum.  The most violent and reactionary movements have always been nurtured by intellectual justifications for their extremism.

It is in this context that Ted Honderich’s apologia for the murder of innocent Israelis – published by the Guardian – must be seen.

If Mr. Elliott and his colleagues at the Guardian have a hard time understanding the real-world consequences of terrorist attacks in Israel, here are the names of those Israelis killed since 2000.  If he chooses to, Elliott can open the link below to see a photo and a brief bio of these very real citizens whose lives were extinguished by the extremism which intellectuals like Honderich nurtures.

Victims of Palestinian Terrorism in Israel Since 2000

Musings on how the Guardian defines “Disproportionate” and “Fair and Balanced”

After a week of watching the Guardian gorging itself on the ‘Palestine papers’ like an out of control bulimic, a few thoughts and observations came to mind.

It was interesting to see how the Guardian transferred its long-held policies regarding ‘fair and balanced’ coverage of Israeli affairs to the Palestinian stage.  As veteran CiF readers know, the column space given to (‘good’) anti-Zionist or Israel-chastising Jews such as Seth Freedman, Antony Lerman, Rachel Shabi, Avi Shlaim, Abe Haim or Mya Guarnieri was always consistently ‘disproportionate’ (to use a word much-loved by the Guardian) when compared to the amount of space allocated to pro-Israel Zionist Jews or Israelis.

The ‘Palestine papers’ week saw a similar tactic being employed with regard to Palestinians. A deluge of fairly uniformly outraged commentary came from ‘good’ Palestinians such as Ghada Karmi, Karma Nablusi, Osama Hamdan and Laila el Haddad – their common denominator being that they either belong to Hamas or are sympathetic to its ideology and political views.  None of these people, incidentally, actually live in areas ruled by either the PA or Israel.

The only attempt to inject ‘balance’ into the commentary by allowing a Palestinian voice which opposes Hamas to be heard was an article by Saeb Erekat four days into the outrage fest. The voice of ordinary Palestinians in the streets who are opposed to Hamas and may actually support the kind of compromises reflected in the leaked papers as a way forward to securing a much-needed peace agreement was nowhere to be heard on the pages of CiF. And therefore any reader of the Guardian over the past few days who is unfamiliar with the Middle East might well assume that political opinion on the Palestinian street is remarkably monotone and that those supporting a Hamas-style continuation of the conflict with Israel are the overwhelming majority.

That would of course be because the Guardian has yet again ditched its commitment to being ‘fair and balanced’.

Another interesting observation was the way in which Guardian coverage of a story it instigated itself was allowed (some might even say ‘designed’) to partially eclipse the real stories coming out of Lebanon during the same week. Since the political crisis in Lebanon began on January 12th CiF has published a mere 14 articles on the subject (at the time of writing) – five of which appeared on the first day. Could that be considered ‘disproportionate’?

All the Guardian’s resident Middle East ‘expert’ Brian Whitaker could muster on the subject in his ‘This week in the Middle East’ round up was a terse one-liner.

“There have been disturbances, too, in Lebanon but they are a continuation of old sectarian/political rivalries rather than anything strikingly new.”

On January 29th we were treated to an article by ‘Al Hayat’ correspondent  Mohanad Hage Ali which informed us that “[m]edia reports are wrong: Syria, not Hezbollah, is in control” in Lebanon.

Ah; so it’s not the Iranian-backed theocratic Islamist terrorist group, but the Iranian-backed autocratic secular dictatorship which has taken over a sovereign country. What a relief.

How fortunate that we have the Guardian to inform us that there’s nothing to see here and we really should move along.

False Guardian Headline in Context (of False Guardian Headlines)

This is cross posted at the blog of CAMERA, Snapshots.

As we point out in our recent article about the leaked Palestinian Authority documents, the Guardian — one of the two media organizations that publicized the documents — falsely claims that the documents “reveal” Palestinian acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state. A Guardian headline reads: “Palestinian negotiators accept Jewish state, papers reveal.”

But the article itself says no such thing. Rather, it quotes a Palestinian negotiator telling his Israeli counterpart, “If you want to call your state the Jewish state of Israel you can call it what you want.”

Far from being a revelation, this echoes a formula that has been publicly and repeatedly invoked by Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. (For example, Abbas has said: “You can call yourselves as you like, but I don’t accept it and I say so publicly.”) And the very document cited by the Guardian actually shows the Palestinians repeatedly refusing to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state, rejecting “two states for two peoples,” and even seeming to reject the very idea of a Jewish people. Lest there be any doubt, in the following meeting between the negotiators the argument about recognition of Israel as the Jewish state continued, with the Palestinians continuing to adamantly insist they will not offer such recognition.

Plus ça change…. The newspaper, in fact, has a history of falsifying Palestinian positions regarding Israel.

On June 21, 2006, the Guardian headline “Hamas performs about-turn on Israeli state” was followed by the subhead “Document recognises Israel’s right to exist.” A version of the article published the next day was even more egregiously wrong: “Climbdown as Hamas agrees to Israeli state: Negotiator says group recognises right to exist”

And a few days later, the same author, Chris McGreal, penned a piece entitled “Hamas takes step to recognise Israel.”

Hamas, of course, never accepted any document that recognized Israel’s right to exist, and its vocal rejection of Israel’s right to exist has continued unabated.

It was no surprise to those who follow the organization, then, when a Hamas leader, in language typical of the organization, described Israel in October 2006 as a “cancer that must be pulled out by its roots.” But what a surprise it must have been to Guardian readers when the newspaper acknowledged in a December 2006 headline, “Hamas: we will never recognise Israel.”

Guardian “letters section” ongoing debate about which Israelis it’s moral to kill

The most interesting aspect of a letter written by Kashif Sheikh, and published by the Guardian on Friday, was that it was couched in language suggesting the opposite.

He begins:

“I have been a supporter of the Palestinian cause for many years, but I do not believe terrorism is justified.”

Ok, it starts off well, but then executes a rather interesting pivot.

“[However] If suicide bombing is the only avenue available, then that is tolerable against military forces.”

Before ending:

“Blowing yourself up outside falafel stands is most definitely not.”

Sheikh’s Solomonic parsing of the ethics of killing others by self-detonation represents the second letter they published in support of suicide bombing in three days.  Recall the Jan. 26 letter by Ted Honderich, which read as follows:

As Sheik’s commentary on Friday was published beneath another one which unequivocally condemned the use of terrorism, that makes the moral tally of letters written in response the Palestine Papers as follows:

Against Palestinian suicide bombing: 1

In favor of Palestinian suicide bombing “within historic Palestine (which presumably means Jewish men, women, and children anywhere in the West Bank and sections of Jerusalem)”: 1

In favor of Palestinian suicide bombing, but only if targeting Israeli military personnel: 1

It has been noted on these pages that the commentary which has accompanied Guardian’s “Palestine Papers” has crossed an extremely dangerous line.  From referring to Palestinian leaders who show flexibility during negotiations as “craven” and publishing a piece by a Hamas member (who issues a thinly veiled threat of violence), to posting a political cartoon from a notorious anti-Semitic extremist, and publishing multiple letters justifying the use of suicide bombing as a legitimate political tool, the Guardian is no longer merely a vehicle for anti-Israel activism.

Guardian editors have shown themselves shamefully tempted by the most lethal (not to mention juvenile) political orientations – those which, throughout history (whether in the service of left-wing or right-wing ideologies), contain a couple common denominators: They fetishize  radicalism and political extremism, and, most dangerously, sanitize – even romanticize – the use of violence to achieve political ends.

However, the Guardian, I’m certain, will rest easy and won’t be burdened by the real-world effects of the dangerous ideologies they’re legitimizing.

As Jonathan Freedland said – pertaining to the release “Palestine Papers”, but representing, it seems, a much broader Guardian view regarding the political fire they carelessly ignite:

“The consequences are for others to manage.”

Sherwood Sweeping Turkel under the Carpet

Turkel Report Commission

There is much to speculate about concerning the timing of the Guardian and Al Jazeera’s leaking of the ‘Palestine papers’, but whatever their reasons for apparently hanging on to them for six months before deciding to publish, one of the effects of that timing was the partial eclipse of the Turkel Commission Report into the incidents aboard the Mavi Marmara – part one of which was released on January 23rd.

The long awaited report, which makes for very interesting reading indeed, was covered in an article by Harriet Sherwood on January 24th .  Already in her second and third paragraphs, and before properly addressing the report’s findings, Sherwood began casting doubts upon its veracity and legitimacy by quoting some rather partisan sources to say the least.

“Witnesses on board the lead ship, the Mavi Marmara, on which nine Turkish activists were killed, vigorously contested the Israeli accounts.”

“Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the prime minister of Turkey whose relations with Israel reached breaking point after the raid, today rejected the conclusions of the commission, saying it had “no value or credibility”.”

By paragraph four Sherwood was whitewashing the IHH which instigated the violence aboard the ship, defining it only as “a Turkish organisation that Israel accuses of having links to Hamas”. The next three paragraphs contain information from the report, but by the eighth Sherwood is back to presenting ‘alternative versions’.

“Activists on board the vessels said the Israeli military initiated the violence and used disproportionate force in the ensuing battle.”

Paragraphs nine and ten give more details of the report, but paragraphs eleven to fourteen are once more dedicated to the presentation of conflicting viewpoints.

Continue reading

Barry Rubin’s recent quote about the Guardian

Professor Barry Rubin, who blogs at Rubin Reports, has done a spectacular job covering the Guardian’s “Palestine Papers.”

Indeed, Rubin is truly in a class by himself in the blogosphere: An eminent scholar on the Middle East who also consistently writes posts which are well-informed, concise, pithy and, often, quite witty.

So, while you should read his recent post, criticizing the New York Times’ coverage of the Middle East, in its entirety, I just couldn’t resist posting his conclusion, in a piece titled, “Today in the New York Times: A new low and a new role model.”


And now for the surprise conclusion. Ladies and gentlemen, while there are honorable exceptions, the New York Times has now reached the level of…the Guardian.

Rubin’s last sentence is a (completely warranted) attack on the Grey Lady, but also represents, perhaps, the only good thing to come out of PaliLeaks: The increasing recognition, by commentators across the political spectrum, that when it comes to the vicious assault on Israel’s legitimacy in the mainstream media, the Guardian is truly in a class by itself.

Guardian’s shame

This editorial appeared in the Jan. 27 edition of The Jewish Chronicle.

As a general rule, it ill behoves one newspaper to attack another. But there are exceptions to every rule. The Guardian’s behaviour this week, even by its own often disreputable standards over Israel, has been simply shocking.

In collaboration with Al Jazeera, it has presented a series of leaked memos written by Palestinian Authority negotiators with Israel. Not presented them so much as lobbed them, doused with petrol, into a tinderbox – and hoped for a result. There is nothing, of itself, wrong with the Guardian publishing its scoop; all serious newspapers relish scoops.

What is very wrong is the way the paper chose to present its story: the distortions, the bias, the agenda, the spin and the breathtaking arrogance of its handing down instructions to the Palestinians of how they should behave. Make no mistake: the Guardian’s presentation was, as David Landau puts it, “intended to poison the Palestinians against their leaders”. And to poison the world against Israel. Take the quote from Saeb Erekat, in which he was reported to have made an offer to Israel of “the biggest Yerushalayim in Jewish history”. This was used to attack the Israelis for their intransigence.

Read the rest of the editorial, here.

When even the French criticize the Guardian’s coverage of Israel…

This is cross posted from our friends at Philosemitism, and reminds me of one of my favorite Seinfeld episodes (Bear with me).

In the show, George pretended to be someone he didn’t know, named O’Brien, so he and Jerry could get a ride in a limousine, only to learn, while in the limo, that O’Brien was a notorious right-wing extremist who was scheduled to give a talk at Madison Square Garden, in New York City.  When they arrived at the location a crowd of anti-O’Brien protesters, police and the media, met their vehicle as George (O’Brien) tried to exit. One of the final scenes was a local TV newscaster, reporting live at Madison Square Garden, describing the events of the day, who characterized O’Brien as someone whose ideology was so hateful that “even David Duke denounced him as a dangerous extremist” – a line that came to mind as I read, with much amusement, the following account, by the blog Philosemitism, of how the French view the Guardian.

Yes, when even the French characterize your negative coverage of Israel as extreme, your institution clearly represents the nadir of anti-Israel journalistic bias.

Palestinian ‘Authenticity’ overlooked by Seumas Milne

In his CiF article of January 26th, Seumas Milne lamented the passing of ‘authentic’ Palestinian leadership, much in the same spirit as his paper’s editorial of January 23rd which described the current PA as ‘craven’ and ‘weak’.  Milne’s primary complaint is that the spirit of an ‘authentic national liberation movement’ has evaporated from the PA and that dependency upon foreign funding – particularly that from the US and the EU – means that “the PA’s leaders are now far more accountable to their funders than to their own people”.

How strange then that the Guardian should choose to completely ignore this news item from the indispensable Palestinian Media Watch which indicates that the PA is still doing exactly what it always did with European and American taxpayers’ money.

Abbas gives terrorist’s family $2000

by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik

Earlier this month a Palestinian terrorist attempted to attack an Israeli checkpoint. Carrying two pipe bombs, he ran towards the Israeli soldiers, screaming “Allahu Akbar” – “Allah is Greater” – and was shot and killed before he could detonate the bombs.

Yesterday Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas granted “the relatives of the Shahid” $2000:

“The governor of the Jenin district, Kadura Musa, has awarded a presidential grant to the family of the Shahid (Martyr), Khaldoun Najib Samoudy, during a visit that took place yesterday in the village of Al-Yamoun. The governor noted that the grant is financial aid in the amount of $2000 that the President [Mahmoud Abbas] is awarding to the relatives of the Shahid, who was recently killed as a Martyr at the Hamra checkpoint by the Israeli occupation forces.”

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (Fatah) Jan. 25, 2011]

Over 60% of the PA’s GNP now comes from foreign donations – mostly from the US, the EU, the World Bank and the UN.  The percentage of foreign donations as part of the annual PA budget has steadily risen in recent years. In other words, the PA is becoming more –rather than less – dependent upon aid as time goes by.  In 2000 foreign aid comprised 10.5% of the annual income, in 2005 – 22.4% and in 2007 – 35.9%.  Some of this money finds its way to Gaza in the form of transfers from the PA – including funds to pay the salaries of Fatah employees who are paid to stay at home. The Hamas regime of course has its own donor network and an up to date insight into the entire economy of Gaza can be found here.

The ‘tradition’ of siphoning off funds from foreign donations in order to finance terror was initiated by Seumas Milne’s hero Yasser Arafat. With the creation of the PA – whose financial affairs were overseen by the international community from the very beginning – a special ‘Presidential budget’ was established.  A rather laconic description given in a 2003 International Monetary Fund report on the PA’s finances stated that:

“Presidential budgets (or for heads of State) are sensitive issues in all Middle East countries and most developing countries. In most cases, information is quite opaque if at all available.”

The report went on to state (chapter V, p. 107) that:

“In the case of the PA, actual expenditures of the President’s office are published on a monthly basis, broken down by wages, operating expenses and transfer. The 2003 budget appropriated US$74 million to the President’s office (8 percent of the total budget), of which US$34 million is dedicated to “transfers.” The President assumes the prerogative of providing aid to various organizations and individuals…

…However other claimants and organizations are part of politically favored networks who should not be getting such grants under any criterion.”

Despite the subsequent (mainly post-Arafat) reforms within the PA, the tradition of ‘Presidential transfers’ continues, albeit on a smaller scale as can be seen in the PMW report above.

I personally have considerable difficulty with the knowledge that EU and US taxpayers’ money has been  used to finance terror attacks upon Israeli citizens and reward the families of ‘martyrs’ and I think that it is high time that the World Bank, which supervises the Palestinian Reform and Development Plan, was called to give both past and present accountability on this subject, along with the donor countries themselves.

Seumas Milne, however, will most likely be delighted to learn that the spirit of the ‘authentic national liberation movement’ he finds so inspiring lives on.

Guardian’s glaring omission in PaliLeaks stories: Any mention of justice for Jewish refugees from Arab lands

This is cross posted by Bataween at Point of No Return, a site devoted to providing information on the Middle East’s forgotten Jewish refugees

I’m aghast. Incensed. Furious.

On Tuesday, The Guardian (international edition) devoted 80 percent of its front page and five inside pages to the Palestine Papers. No less than 14 pieces on the Palestine Papers appeared on The Guardian website, Comment is Free.

The editorial spin is that the Palestinian Authority’s purported ‘concessions’ ceding parts of Jerusalem to Israel and the ‘right of return’ for all but 100,000 Palestinian refugees would have been an outrageous betrayal of the Palestinian people’s aspirations.

The Palestinians are said to be making generous concessions on Jerusalem: yet the old city and East Jerusalem, whole districts of Baghdad (where Jews were 40 percent of the population), Tripoli, Alexandria, Cairo, Fez, Meknes, Tunis, Sana’a, Damascus, and dozens of other cities were brutally emptied of their Jews in the last 50 years. These Jews do not deserve justice in the eyes of The Guardian.

The Jews have more than paid any price – they have lost land equivalent to four times the entire surface area of Israel, they have had assets seized and stolen by Arab governments (worth twice as much as Palestinians have lost). On top of all that they have suffered ethnic cleansing.

Yet the Palestinians, who lost a war they started (to eradicate Israel), have the temerity to demand a ‘right of return’ to their homes after 60 years, whereas an exchange of population with a roughly equal number of Jews (who couldn’t go back to their homes in Arab lands, even if they wanted to) is what occurred. What The Guardian does, by encouraging the Palestinians to adhere to their maximalist demands, is to make a humanitarian solution for Palestinian refugees in their host countries more remote than ever, and give extremists every incentive to keep the conflict going.

Where is your sense of justice, Guardian? Where is your sense of perspective, CiF? Why are the Jews of the Middle East always absent from the debate on your pages? Why do Arab rights always trump Jewish rights in your warped and simplistic view?

Rant over.