The Guardian takes note of a Middle Eastern country not involved in “rendition”


A guest post by AKUS

Controversy over the practice of “rendition” has been intense. In a recent article in the Washington Post, the Post described it as a CIA program “to detain and interrogate foreign suspects without bringing them to the United States or charging them with any crimes”

The Washington Post illustrated how widely the practice was implemented with a map in an article headlined: A staggering map of the 54 countries that reportedly participated in the CIA’s rendition program, drawn from a report by the Open Society Justice Initiative  that lists each country by name and describes that country’s participation in the program.

1

In case you cannot make out one little country that did not participate in the program, here’s an extract from that map of a certain area of the world:

1

See it now?

On the other hand, it does not take much effort to see other countries, frequent critics of Israel, with well-organized, well-funded groups constantly threatening it with boycotts, decrying its policies and so forth, and even supporting its enemies with weapons and money.

There was a February 5th, 2013 column in the Guardian about this, too: CIA rendition: more than a quarter of countries ‘offered covert support’ . To my surprise, the Guardian managed to take note of Israel’s absence from the list of 54 countries:

Other countries are conspicuous by their absence from the rendition list: Sweden and Finland are present, but there is no evidence of Norwegian involvement. Similarly, while many Middle Eastern countries did become involved in the rendition programme, Israel did not, according to the OSJI research.

I, on the other hand, took note of South Africa’s name on the list. After all, one of the calumnies thrown at Israel, and found on a daily basis in the Guardian CiF section in the threads to the endless articles decrying Israel for this or that,  is that it resembles an apartheid state.  South Africa’s government, influenced in some measure by its Muslim Indian constituency, is one of the few outside the Middle East that has made it government policy to support boycotts of Israeli product, academics, and cultural groups.  South Africa is often held up as an example of what the imaginary “one state” would look like after the Jewish state vanishes and “Palestine” exists “between the sea and the river”.

But never fear that Guardianistas could possibly leave Israel out of the issue.  After one post that noted that Israel did not participate in the program, there was this comment:

 1.jpg

The thread quickly filled up with comment after comment claiming that even though the report did not name Israel, and the Guardian specifically took note of that, Israel was just as bad or even worse.

Even when a report does not mention Israel, the appetite for condemnation of Israel among Guardian readers is so developed that rather than discussing, for example, South Africa’s involvement, even the absence of Israel quickly becomes the topic de jour. Or, as the following poster noted in response to a comment no longer visible:

one

The Washington Post:

The 54 governments identified in this report span the continents of Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America, and include: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Libya, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.

 

12 comments on “The Guardian takes note of a Middle Eastern country not involved in “rendition”

  1. the appetite for condemnation of Israel among Guardian readers is so developed that rather than discussing, for example, South Africa’s involvement, even the absence of Israel quickly becomes the topic de jour

    “Guardian readers”?

    Hardly. You’re talking about a relative handful of individuals – who are obviously full of shit – among hundreds of thousands.

    At the same time, however: good retorts from the poster “bending” to the Israel critics.

    • In Bigelow’s “Zero Dark Thirty” movie, the CIA tells a suspect that if he refuses to talk, the’ll send him to Israel as part of the “rendition” process.

      When will Mr Levick attack Hollywood then?

  2. AKUS neatly exposes Cif’s obsession with Israel, and the determination of many commenters to demonize Israel no matter what. They simply can’t bear to admit that Israel can ever do anything good. Even the evidence is staring them in the face, they have to either ignore it, or twist it to show Israel in as bad a light as possible.

    It’s why they call Israel-hatred the new anti-Semitism. It’s a Cif speciality/

    • Andy neatly exposes CIF Watch’s obsession with Palestinians, and the determination of many commentators on this blog to demonize the Palestinians no matter what. They simply can’t bear to admit that the Palestinians are human beings, who can ever do anything good. Even the evidence is staring them in the face, they have to either ignore it, or twist it to show the neighboring state of Palestine in as bad a light as possible.

  3. With Israel, it is damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Also, look at the map, almost the entire “Muslim world” is involved with Satan Amreeka in rendition programme yet the lefty progressives are making Israel as the evil one. In short, the very existence of the Jewish state is the issue with the Guardian/BBC, not what it does or doesn’t do.

    BTW, I was listening to a snippet on the Today programme about the effort to “save” some ancient Jewish documents and you could hear the bitterness in the presenters’ voices how this is upsetting them to report.

    • In short, the very existence of the Jewish state is the issue with the Guardian/BBC

      Do you genuinely believe this nonsense?

      you could hear the bitterness in the presenters’ voices how this is upsetting them to report.

      That’s just mad. I pity you. I really do.

      • “That’s just mad…”

        Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
        So is the sound of bitterness.

        A perfect example was what happened in my house hold yesterday.

        When I came home my secondry school daughter was doing her homework.
        I asked her if she read something i earlier emailed her (a historical piece).

        She then uttered “What, the thing about the Jews?”
        It sounded to me that she said the word Jews with such contempt so I asked her why she spoeaks in such a tone?

        She answered: “Dad, it’s late and I have tonnes of homework and little time. Please don’t distruct me now!”
        So, does she hate her own culture, or is my hearing sensitive to things I care more about on a subconscience level?

        • “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So is the sound of bitterness.”
          Absolutely.

          But could it be that June was listening to the Today show with anti-BBC-biased ears?

    • “In short, the very existence of the Jewish state is the issue with the Guardian/BBC, not what it does or doesn’t do.”

      Are you sure this is their official stand? Or are you reffering to some of the posters?

      “…you could hear the bitterness in the presenters’ voices how this is upsetting them to report.”

      Some people argue that people hear what they want to hear.
      How do you know the reporter simply didn’t have a bad day that day or maybe he just found the whole subject boring and that had an effect on his voice?
      I have listened to many BBC’s documents concerning both Judaism and Israel which didn’t had bitterness in it at all and i heard similar reports that seemed to me similar to what you describe but which other people didn’t notice.

    • Israel’s collaboration presumably took place under a separate program, which probably remains classified to this day. This would have helped not to alienate Arab governments who agreed to take part in the programme, and may not have been willing to, had Israel been part of it nominally.

      • “Israel’s collaboration presumably took place…”
        How the hell would you know, you trolling moron?
        Here you have a Guardian article, specifically denying Israel’s participation at all.
        Not a good Trolling move on your part. I see a pay deduction coming up.

Comments are closed.