A Baaaad Man! The Guardian’s scary Bibi


Harriet Sherwood’s latest report, Israeli PM: illegal African immigrants threaten identity of state, May 20, is notable not for the story, concerning Israel’s efforts to stem illegal immigration, nor for the narrative, which suggests racist motives, but due to the photo of PM Netanyahu.

In fact, the photo (of an angry “right wing” Bibi) was used in a July, 2011, Guardian story.

A November 2011 Sherwood report used another angry photo of Bibi…

…which was recycled from a  report in August, 2011.

As a point of comparison, here’s a photo of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in a ‘Comment is Free’ commentary from March, 2012.

Finally, here is a photo from a Guardian report, of a gentle, kindly and loving soul (aka, Raed Salah) who, in his spare time, recites poems advancing the ancient antisemitic blood libel.

22 comments on “A Baaaad Man! The Guardian’s scary Bibi

  1. This is reminiscent of the file photo that was used throughout Bibi’s first term as Prime Minister (as he was mercilessly attacked by the press) by, I believe, the AP which consisted of a scowling Bibi with a yarmulke. This is one of many subtle propaganda techniques used by the media against Israel that everyone should be made aware of.

    • I have just searched on the Guardian’s website for stories about Netanyahu. To be fair, they have used a number of photos to support their stories about him, and in some he is scowling, in others blank-faced and in others still, notably, with Barak Obama, he is smiling.

      I think you are being a little unfair on the Guardian on this occasion, Adam.

      • I agree. A Google image search immediately threw up this:
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/02/hamas-osama-bin-laden

        Haniyeh not looking too happy there, is he? In fact, you could interpret his expression as “angry” – in the same way that you could interpret Nettie’s face above as “angry”.

        And what if the G. had posted a smiling Nettie for the article about immigration? Then the G. might stand accused of deliberately selecting the image to suggest he finds the issue laughable.

      • Gooner, he is smiling with Obama because it is common knowledge they don’t get on. It is the insincere smile of a scheming, untrustworthy Jew. That’s why the editors chose it. The Guardian is institutionally anti-Semitic.

        • Wow. Posted at the same time as my comment!
          he is smiling with Obama because … It is the insincere smile of a scheming, untrustworthy Jew. That’s why the editors chose it.

          Thanks for proving my point, GT!

  2. And I thought this will touch Bibi’s words which reminds us of the way the falashmouras were treated by MPs back in 89.

  3. Love the caption on Salah….”an outspoken critic of Israeli policies”.

    Just a wee note to the Guardian journos:

    Criticism: “That’s a fucking ridiculous policy!! What does the bloody government think it’s doing!!!”

    Not Criticism: “Dirty Joos knead baby-blood into their celebratory nibbles. Let’s annihalate the Dirty Joos.”

    It’s not actually that complicated a distinction.

  4. Netanyahu is a Jew with power. The personifacation of everything the Guardian hates; because a) Jews with power are bad or b) The Guardian is an anti-Semitic rag.

    • So if the G. posts a pic of Netanyahu grimmacing, it’s because the paper is anti-Semitic.
      If he’s shown smiling, it’s anti-Semitic.
      Presumably, then, you would demand the G. post no images of Nettie at all – but then no doubt conclude that was likewise anti-Semitic.

      • So. You don’t believe that The Guardian will hardly miss a ‘punch’ at mis-representing the one Western Liberal Democracy in the Middle East as a rogue country ruled by religious extremists wearing kipas and generally scowling.

        • NS – I am quite convinced that the Guardian is institutionally biased against Israel, and I need no education on the power of imagery. I just don’t think that the photos Adam has published make the point he is trying to make, given the range of images recently used for Netanyahu in the Guardian.

          In the Court of Public Opinion, you lose credibility when you dilute your justified and strong arguments with thin, stretched allegations like this.

        • The G. is not “mis-representing” Israel as “a rogue country ruled by religious extremists wearing kipas and generally scowling.”
          That is a simply laughable thing to say.

          Why don’t you respond to what I actually wrote (which was inadvertendly backed up by Groovy Times)??

      • Pretzel, no, I would choose an appropriate image that reflected neutral, rather than bad intentions. Anyway, don’t we always hear of Hasbara from the anti-Israel luvies? Another projection from the anti-semitic mindset, obsessively conspiring and lying to libel the Jews with the accusation that they….continually conspire and lie for their own nefarious ends. And that sums up the institutional anti-semitism of the Guardian and the way it manipulates all narratives on Israel to comply with its racist worldview.

        • I would choose an appropriate image that reflected neutral, rather than bad intentions

          But you also took offence to the picture of Netanyahu smiling!

          Anyway, don’t we always hear of Hasbara from the anti-Israel luvies? Another projection from the anti-semitic mindset, obsessively conspiring and lying to libel the Jews with the accusation that they….continually conspire and lie for their own nefarious ends.

          I think you’re reading just a little bit too much into such comments. Calm down, luv.

          And talking about the “institutional anti-semitism” of the Guardian is just ridiculous. Why would such a publication e.g. have a Jewish podcast? Why would it employ Jewish staff?

          Bias against Israel? Yes – but that is something different.

          • Pretzel, this is definately a matter of interpretation. We judge the act by the motivation behind it. You like to give thg Grud the benefit of the doubt, but I see nothing but malice in the way it reports on Israel, and where does that bias against Israel come from. Is it a coincidence that the tiny sliver of land that Rusbridger chooses to look down upon with such contempt happens to be full of Jews?

            • Some might accuse the G. of being “anti-American.” Would you say that’s likewise because of the Jews?

              • Yes, don’t they control American foreign policy? Along with the media and finance. ‘Beware of the mindbenders’ ie Jewish power, used to be confined to the BNP, now its common currency on CiF as well.

                • now its common currency on CiF as well.

                  Nonsense.

                  And you have yet to credibly back up your accusation of “institutional anti-semitism” at the Guardian.

                  Frankly I’m surprised you still show your face here after your ridiculous comments about the smiling-Netanyahu pic – made all the more laughable by my simultaneous post.

                • Delusions of grandeur Pretz. Arrogant to think that I could care less about what surprises you about me.

  5. Pingback: Médias : La photo comme moyen pour dénigrer Israël et glorifier ses ennemis | Europe Israel - analyses, informations sur Israel, l'Europe et le Moyen-Orient

  6. Pingback: Che uomo cattivoooo! Ce lo mostra The Guardian « Bugie dalle gambe lunghe

Comments are closed.