You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Obsession’ tag.
Artist's abstract rendering of Guardian's Israel coverage over the last few days
So, you’re a Guardian reader and you wan’t to know what’s going on in Israel. Hmmm….let’s go to their Israel page and find out.
Surely there’s something of interest in the Holy Land: Jerusalem, politics, culture, the religious-secular divide, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Israel’s bilateral relations? Nope. It’s Sheikh Raed Salah, everyday, all the time!
I guess the only good news relating to the Guardian’s obsession with the tragically misunderstood extremist preacher is that they haven’t had time to demonize Israel over their efforts to prevent the pro-Hamas flotillas from breaking their blockade.
Related articles
- On anti-Semites and their enablers: Guardian editorial defends radical anti-Semitic preacher, Raed Salah (cifwatch.com)
- The Guardian’s bias in covering Sheikh Raed Salah (cifwatch.com)
- The Guardian, Haneen Zoabi and Raed Salah – a Case Study of the Red-Green Alliance (cifwatch.com)
- Haneen Zoabi defends anti-Semitic Islamist preacher: Accuses UK Zionist lobby of controlling British politics (cifwatch.com)
- What the Guardian won’t report: Raed Salah’s not so liberal views on women, gays, and Jihad (cifwatch.com)
Like this:
The following quantitative analysis, of Middle East reporting by the UK media in 2010, by Just Journalism demonstrates, among other findings, the egregiously disproportionate coverage devoted to Israel, in comparison with other nations in the region, by the Guardian.
Key findings
- Israel was by far the most reported of the four countries in The Guardian in 2010. In fact, coverage of Egypt, Libya and Tunisia combined and doubled still fell far short of the total coverage of Israel.
- News reporting about Israel was nearly six times the volume of the next most reported Arab country, Egypt.
- Comment pieces on Egypt, Libya and Tunisia combined to less than half those published about Israel.
- Sixteen editorials were published on Israel, whereas none were published on Egypt, Libya or Tunisia.
Just Journalism noted that:
“what distinguishes The Guardian’s journalism on Israel from that on the Arab countries is the presence of a permanent reporter in Jerusalem, who produces highly regular content for the print and online editions.”
In the first five months of 2010, then-Jerusalem correspondent Rory McCarthy filed 70 news reports on Israel, equivalent to almost one report every other day. When Harriet Sherwood replaced him, she filed 139 reports in the remaining seven months of the year, an increase of more than 40 per cent.
No comparable set up was in place in Egypt, Libya or Tunisia, as only Israel has a devoted correspondent to filestories on a near-daily basis.
Two hundred and fourteen Content pieces were published on Egypt, ten of which were triggered by December’s shark attacks in the Red Sea resort, Sharm el Sheikh. Only four more pieces addressed the rigged Egyptian presidential elections, also in December, which extended the reign of the recently ousted Hosni Mubarak.
Coverage of Libya, about which 110 Content pieces appeared in 2010, was dominated by the release from UK prison in 2009 of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al Megrahi, with 48 articles on this story.
Tunisia was barely covered by The Guardian in 2010, with only 22 Content pieces about the country.
These trends were reflected in coverage by Middle East editor Ian Black, who covered Israel in 87 Content pieces, compared with only 12 on Libya, nine on Egypt and three on Tunisia.
The number of Comment pieces published on The Guardian’s ‘Comment is free’ website follows the pattern of concentration on Israel, with articles on Israel far outstripping the number published about Egypt, Libya and Tunisia.”
Figure 5 illustrates the gulf between volume of Comment pieces on Israel and that on the three Arab countries
Read the entire report, here.
Related articles
- The Guardian’s Malice (cifwatch.com)
- Willful malice in the Guardian letter section (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian deems all rocket fire equal; but some more equal than others (cifwatch.com)
There is something very chilling and even sinister about the Guardian editorial of April 27th on the subject of the UN report into the conflict two years ago in Sri Lanka.
Firstly, as ‘Just Journalism‘ has already pointed out, there’s the apparently uncontrollable obsession with Israel which caused whoever wrote this editorial to open it with two paragraphs on the subject of the Goldstone Report. As we know, the Guardian is very heavily invested in the defence of that particular document, having been one of its main advocates and the platform of choice for the other three members of the commission who do not share Judge Goldstone’s second thoughts about its content. But even so; why the need to drag the Goldstone Report into a piece about events half a world away?
The clue comes in the second paragraph:
“A UN panel has just produced such a report about the carnage of civilians which took place two years ago when government forces crushed the Tamil Tigers. It is as hard-hitting as anything Goldstone produced, and therefore is just as likely to be shelved. The point is that truth and accountability, let alone international justice, are not divisible. One country’s ability to bury the evidence of war crimes endangers how civilians are treated in all other conflicts. A single failure of international justice is also a collective one.”
What is the Guardian trying to tell us here?
First it suggests that the questioning of the Goldstone Report’s findings is an attempt to create a special and different standard for Israel. Secondly, it tries to turn ‘evidence of war crimes’ into an indisputable fact and accuses Israel of an already executed cover-up of those supposed crimes. Then it goes on to assert that Israel is or will be responsible for the deaths of civilians thousands of miles away in totally unrelated conflicts.
In other words, what the Guardian is saying here is that Israel is responsible for the corruption of collective standards; that it has somehow managed to undermine the ability of the peace-loving, human rights and international law-respecting world (of which the Guardian appears to consider itself a part) to pursue its laudable aims. And why did Israel do this, according to the Guardian editor? For its own selfish and perfidious ends, of course.
I must admit that when some commentators refer to the Guardian as some sort of modern-day Der Sturmer I usually feel very uncomfortable with the comparison. However, in this case the similarity between the accusation of Israeli corruption of the moral standards of the international judiciary (the pinnacle of the community of human rights advocates) and the old Nazi trope of Jews corrupting ‘pure’ German culture is just too obvious to ignore.
Of course the ironic thing about the Guardian’s zealous defence of the Goldstone Report and its commissioning body the U. N. Human Rights Council is that some of the world’s worst human rights offenders and nose-thumbers at international law are to be found sitting on that body. Despite the Guardian’s apparent bizarre belief to the contrary, even UN officials themselves have expressed concern over the blatantly disproportionate focus on Israel at the UNHRC. In 2006 Kofi Annan said:
“But, I am worried by its disproportionate focus on violations by Israel. Not that Israel should be given a free pass. Absolutely not. But the Council should give the same attention to grave violations committed by other States as well.”
A year later, Ban Ki-moon stated that:
“The Secretary-General is disappointed at the Council’s decision to single out only one specific regional item, (Israel) given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world.”
But significantly, the Guardian has not a bad word to say about the collection of human rights-abusing despots at the UNHRC. Not even the growing possibility that Syria will soon replace Libya on that council even whilst Assad guns down hundreds in the streets and tries to starve rebellious towns into submission shakes the Guardian’s blind faith in that organization.
And that, I’m afraid, is what happens when obsession and malice take over from logic as they apparently have among Rusbridger and his merry men. Defending an organization dominated by undemocratic and brutal regimes and flirting with Nazi-style propaganda becomes par for the course when the focus of a once respected publication becomes to delegitimise Israel at every opportunity.
The latest Guardian editorial (“Sri Lanka: No-inquiry zone“, April 27) is ostensibly about war crimes committed by the Sri Lanka regime against the Tamil Tigers but, in another example of their editors’ inability to hide their single obsession with the Jewish state, also implies that the attacks on the credibility of the UN Human Rights Commission – and the Goldstone Report which the UNHRC commissioned – has had an injurious effect on the way civilians are treated in other countries. Specifically, the editorial notes:
“A UN panel has just produced [a report] about the carnage of civilians which took place two years ago when government forces crushed the Tamil Tigers…but will likely be shelved…as hard-hitting as anything Goldstone produced, and therefore is just as likely to be shelved”
The editorial continues:
“One country’s ability to bury the evidence of war crimes endangers how civilians are treated in all other conflicts.”
The malicious implication is clear: Efforts by Israel and her defenders to refute and undermine the credibility of The Goldstone Report has emboldened other nations who are inclined to commit acts of violence against its civilians. The editorial then notes:
That there is credible evidence that government soldiers targeted civilians, shelled hospitals and attacked aid workers in the final months of the war against the Tamil Tigers is indisputable. That the Tigers used civilians as human shields and shot those attempting to flee the carnage at point-blank range is equally true. Tens of thousands died as a result of these twin brutalities.
Even by Guardian standards this is an especially vicious narrative – as if Sri Lankan troops, and rebel Tamil Tigers, would have behaved more morally if the Goldstone Report hadn’t been refuted. Further, the implication that there is any parallel at all between the conflict in Sri Lanka, which has claimed a total of more than 100,000 lives according to Freedom House, and Israel’s war in Gaza is simply ahistorical.
As with the Guardian’s equally bizarre contention, regarding the uprisings in the Arab world against despotic regimes, last month that, whatever the issues in each particular Arab country, Palestine was the “cockpit of the crisis“, the paper again shows itself singularly obsessed with the actions of the democratic Israeli state and her supporters.
Paraphrasing, and slightly tweaking, an old adage: there are some ideas so crazy, and so implausible, that only Guardian editors could believe them.
The essay by Daniel Machover, chair of Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights, titled “Arrest warrant plans make a mockery of universal jurisdiction” March 30, about changes to the UK’s laws regarding the issuing of arrest warrants for world leaders guilty of crimes against humanity, elicited Guardian reader comments reflecting upon the consequences of this law on the most notorious human rights violators, right? (Libya? The Congo? North Korea? China? Sudan? Iran?) Nope.
While Machover’s narrative did certainly lead his readers in a very clear direction by citing the arrest warrant against Israel’s former FM, Tzipi Livni, early in the essay, he also noted other nations whose leaders would be protected, such as Israel, America, China, and Saudi Arabia.
The beauty of the website Wordle, when reviewing comments following a piece at CiF, is that it allows you to quantify the degree to which such comments beneath the line stray off topic, or slant in one particular egregiously skewed direction.
It allows you to engage in a mass political Rorschach Test of sorts for Guardian readers.
Wordle was fed every word in each of the reader comments posted after Machover’s piece and, excluding commonly used words like “the”, churned out the following graphic of the most used words – represented in a size proportional to the frequency of their usage:
Artists rendering of Georgina Henry as a child
In a previous CW post, Confronting the Guardian Ideology, the Guardian’s obsession with Israel was identified in their recent editorial about the crisis in Libya – and similar upheavals throughout the Middle East – in this passage:
“the Libyan leader may still be considered too valuable to lose, as US influence in the region decreases. Nowhere is that truer than in the cockpit of the crisis, Palestine.
While claims that Arab rebellions against their despotic leaders are invariably related to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is evidence of an appalling myopia, and a simply incoherent causality, its important to note that such an obsession seems to run through much of the Guardian hierarchy.
Indeed, it came as little surprise that Georgina Henry, former editor of CiF, during an interview with Jonathan Freedland on a Guardian Podcast, defended CiF from criticism that the site was obsessed with Israel – and subsequent criticism that the current political upheavals in the region prove that this obsession with Israel’s role in the region was misplaced – by saying:
I robustly [still] believe that the fault line running through much of the politics of the region remains that dispute over land in Israel and Palestine.
It is simply inconceivable how anyone observing the political eruptions in the region today – attempts by citizens in Cairo, Tunis, Tripoli and elsewhere to throw off the yoke of despotism – can still insist on viewing Israel as the common denominator and prime mover of the conflict.
The former CiF Editor again demonstrates just how rigid, and impervious to new information – the Guardian Left truly is.
This is perhaps the first time I’ve posted an essay from the Guardian without critical comment, but Nick Cohen’s post on the hypocrisy of the Israel-obsessed Guardian Left is a masterpiece. So, here it is:
The Arab revolution is consigning skip-loads of articles, books and speeches about the Middle East to the dustbin of history. In a few months, readers will go through libraries or newspaper archives and wonder how so many who claimed expert knowledge could have turned their eyes from tyranny and its consequences.
To a generation of politically active if not morally consistent campaigners, the Middle East has meant Israel and only Israel. In theory, they should have been able to stick by universal principles and support a just settlement for the Palestinians while opposing the dictators who kept Arabs subjugated. Few, however, have been able to oppose oppression in all its forms consistently. The right has been no better than the liberal-left in its Jew obsessions. The briefest reading of Conservative newspapers shows that at all times their first concern about political changes in the Middle East is how they affect Israel. For both sides, the lives of hundreds of millions of Arabs, Berbers and Kurds who were not involved in the conflict could be forgotten.
If you doubt me, consider the stories that the Middle Eastern bureau chiefs missed until revolutions that had nothing to do with Palestine forced them to take notice.
• Gaddafi was so frightened of a coup that he kept the Libyan army small and ill-equipped and hired mercenaries and paramilitary “special forces” he could count on to slaughter the civilian population when required.
• Lieila Ben Ali, the wife of the Tunisian president, was a preposterously extravagant figure, who all but begged foreign correspondents to write about her rapacious pursuit of wealth. Only when Tunisians rose up did journalists stir themselves to tell their readers how she had pushed the populace to revolt by combining the least appealing traits of Imelda Marcos and Marie-Antoinette.
• Hearteningly, for those of us who retain a nostalgia for the best traditions of the old left, Tunisia and Egypt had independent trade unionists, who could play “a leading role”, as we used to say, in organising and executing uprisings.
Far from being a cause of the revolution, antagonism to Israel everywhere served the interests of oppressors. Europeans have no right to be surprised. Of all people, we ought to know from our experience of Nazism that antisemitism is a conspiracy theory about power, rather than a standard racist hatred of poor immigrants. Fascistic regimes reached for it when they sought to deny their own people liberty. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the forgery the far-right wing of the decaying tsarist regime issued in 1903 to convince Russians they should continue to obey the tsar’s every command, denounces human rights and democracy as facades behind which the secret Jewish rulers of the world manipulated gullible gentiles.
Read the rest of the essay here.
Like this:
“It’s the economy, stupid” is a phrase in American politics made famous during the 1992 U.S. Presidential Election campaign. Bill Clinton’s campaign manager had a sign with this phrase at their headquarters to stress to the candidate that, regardless of the issue being discussed, success in the election depended on making the conversation about the economy – which was in bad shape at the time, and represented former President Bush’s greatest political liability.
I sometimes wonder if Guardian editorial offices has something akin to Clinton’s campaign mantra – a note, not based on political calculations but, rather, maintaining an ideological edifice, reminding them where any conversation about the Middle East must preferably lead: “It’s about Israel, stupid.”
While such a scenario is, of course, meant in jest, I am at a loss to account for how, in the course of a new Guardian editorial (“The Middle East: People, Power, Politics“) on Muammar Gaddafi’s brutal and deadly crackdown against Libyan protesters, and the broader political upheavals in the region, they somehow managed to throw in this line:
“the Libyan leader may still be considered too valuable to lose, as US influence in the region decreases. Nowhere is that truer than in the cockpit of the crisis, Palestine.
“Israel Derangement Syndrome” may adequately, albeit cheekily, describe the dynamic whereby otherwise reasonable people can attribute the cause of nearly any political crisis in the world to the behavior of the Jewish state, but doesn’t seem nearly strong enough of a term to characterize the Guardian’s obsession with Israel.
Arab citizens throughout the Middle East are rebelling and (for various reasons, some noble, and others, it should be noted, decidedly illiberal) attempting to throw off the yoke of despotism that has ruled the region, and the Guardian is convinced that the one state in the region which has, since its birth, proven itself impervious to this totalitarian impulse, is indeed the prime mover of the political malady.
Our previous post, cross posted by Divest This!, described anti-Semitism as more than a “simple” hatred of Jews as such but, more accurately, as a broader ideology – one which continually sees the nefarious effects of world Jewry in seemingly unrelated political phenomena.
Similarly, it seems, the Guardian’s continuous framing of events in the Middle East – which attributes most political maladies to Israel’s injurious effects on the region – is more than “mere” political hostility to Israel. It needs to also be seen as part of a broader ideological framework, one which continuously shows itself impervious to facts, logic, and new information – the self-correcting empirical mechanisms found in those not held hostage to such a rigid political orientation.
While engaging the Guardian in a battle over facts and logic certainly has its time and place, the Jewish community’s fight with the Guardian must proceed without illusions – free of the assumption of reasonableness which typically informs civil debate between two rational political actors.
The Guardian’s myopic and increasingly extreme political orientation can not be coaxed or persuaded but, rather, must be aggressively confronted and fought – free of puerile optimism in what will assuredly be a long and grueling battle.
We just came across this little nugget of information from a site called Views of the World.
To understand how British people perceive the events on the globe, one can look at how frequently a country has been mentioned in major news stories. The following maps do exactly this by visualising the number of news items on the website of the British Newspaper The Guardian (data derived from their Data store).
One region of the world certainly seems bit, well, enlarged doesn’t it? Just for the sake of comparison:
Quite interestingly, the Guardian helps us out quite a bit, by noting that stories tagged “Israel” represented the 5th highest of any country specific tag (outside of the UK).
Israel, it should be noted, is a nation of 7.6 million citizens, representing a little over 1/10 of 1% of the world population, situated on roughly 21,00 square kilometers of land, representing a bit over 1/100 of 1% of the world’s total.
The Guardian’s obsession in simple map form…gotta love it!
(This story was also noted by Ha’aretz, CAMERA, The JC, and Yaacov Lozowick’s Ruminations)
A guest post by AKUS
The Wikileaks “sensation” has flopped. Few really care. Most of what was “revealed” was known. Grinding away day after day, the Guardian must finally have noticed the yawning mouths of the dozing multitudes and decided it was time to get the punters going again. Roll out the anti-Israeli attack dogs!!
There have been – count ‘em – at least 14 articles that reference or are specifically about Israel in a 5 day period (Dec. 6th through the 10th) – almost thee a day. The obsession continues:
1.US embassy cables: Clinton asks Sudan to block Iranian arms supplies to Hamas
2. US embassy cables: Israel warns of reprisals against Lebanon in case of rocket attacks (really?! I’m shocked)
3. US embassy cables: Israel urges US to halt Scud missiles for Hezbollah (really?! I’m shocked)
4. US Middle East peace plan flounders (no! Surely not!)
5. Ehud Netzer obituary (A good Israeli – a dead one)
6. Dozens of Israeli rabbis back call to forbid sale of property to Arabs (the week’s big story)
7. Israel to allow exports from Gaza Strip to boost local businesses (The one bit of “good news” had to accompanied by a Guardian fauxtograph depicting the suffering Gazans)
(Note to the ChickenLady: I doubt these are the exports Israeli s permitting)
Finally – a couple of articles that allow comments – and did the authors ever get rubbished by the commenters, which is why the Guardian is now allowing so few to publish on CiF:
8. Israeli rabbis’ racist decree strikes at the soul of Judaism (poor Mya – thrashed again – better her than the ChickenLady, I guess the editors feel)
9. The returning issue of Palestine’s refugees (poor Saeb – ridiculed over 300 comments)
So … back to articles that do not appear on CiF! Much safer than letting the hordes of Zionist zealots tear the authors to pieces!!
10. Documentary follows 15 boys from Gaza on trip to US (Please watch it. lt tells a very different story than the Guardian intended).
11. Coming to America: Gaza boys take trip of a lifetime (same story, plagiarized by the ChickenLady)
12. Yad Vashem: orthodox rabbis’ extreme views are a ‘blow to values of Jews’ (the ChickenLady tries to save her pal, Mya and clucks to her defence with a nice tie-in to the Holocaust … ).
13. Israel offers compensation for Gaza flotilla deaths
Finally .. saving the best for last – arch enemies of Israel, McGreal and the ChickenLady report that former EU poohbahs want to do something about Israel – put a “price tag” on its activities (a term plagiarized from the settler movement, by the way):
14. Israel faces tougher line from EU after former heads call for Palestinian state
Yes when all else fails – blame the bicycle riders. Sorry – I meant … blame the Jews.
With the international Marine Biology community still abuzz over Harriet Sherwood’s groundbreaking reports on shark attacks in waters off the Egyptian resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh, the Guardian’s premier reporter returned to Jerusalem to conquer more familiar territory: racism in Israel.
Sherwood, who was uncharacteristically silent about events in Israel for three days, in which the worst fire in Israel’s history (which killed 42 people, and destroyed 12,000 acres of land) raged across Mt. Carmel, managed to bookend two stories (on Dec 2nd, and 6th) about a number of bigoted Israeli rabbis who signed a (non-binding) petition calling on Jews not to sell land to non-Jews. (Sherwood’s only reports on the fire were filed after the blaze was contained on Dec. 5)
The ruling, which has no weight under Israeli civil law, and which was emphatically condemned by Israel’s Prime Minister, President, Minority Affairs and Education Ministers, has now garnered four stories at the Guardian.
In yesterday’s piece, Mya Guarnieri not only hyperbolically warned that the ruling represented nothing short of a “wave in a rising tide of religious fascism”, but managed to try and convict not only Israel – but the very “soul of Judaism” itself – all in a remarkably thrifty 614 words!
Sherwood, without a an hour to rest after her grueling Egyptian excursion, published a third piece today, on the rabbinical edict, which evoked the memory of the Holocaust in highlighting the fact that officials at Yad Vashem (Israel’s Holocaust Museum) issued a statement condemning the racist decree.
Time will only tell how long the Guardian will play this story – but the manner in which events in Israel over the past week have been covered by Sherwood and Guarnieri serve as a perfect illustration of how the world’s leading liberal voice views the Jewish state – a window into (what Ms. Guarnieri might characterize as) “the Guardian’s very soul.”
James Denselow’s CiF piece on Nov. 20, “Lebanon: justice at what cost?“, pertained to the possible indictments against Hezbollah members for the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minster, Rafik Hariri.
Refreshingly, Denselow, unlike so many other CiF writers, didn’t reveal an obsession with Israel – never once mentioning the Jewish state in his 769 word essay. Indeed, anyone paying attention knows that the case against Hezbollah is extremely strong.
However, I put the reader comments, beneath the column, in a software program that creates an image with each word sized according to the frequency in which its used. Here’s what was produced.
Apparently, CiF moderators’ efforts to prevent the comment threads from veering off-topic still aren’t very effective, to say the least.
Hawkeye
Omar2
WellofSense
Medusa
The Alchemist
Louise
Tosca
Maimon
Telling the Truth
Israelinurse
Adam Levick
Margie in Tel Aviv
Guest/Cross Post
Hadar Sela
The Guardian’s obsession with Israel and the conflicts not covered
July 14, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Guardian, Israel, Just Journalism, Libya, Middle East, Obsession | by Adam Levick | 13 comments
H/T Margie
A recent report by Just Journalism on the UK media’s coverage of the Middle East demonstrated that, at the Guardian, coverage of Egypt, Libya and Tunisia combined doubled in 2010 (due to the upheavals inspired by the “Arab Spring”) but still fell far short of the total coverage of Israel; News reporting about Israel was nearly six times the volume of the next most reported Arab country, Egypt; Comment pieces on Egypt, Libya and Tunisia combined to less than half those published about Israel; Sixteen editorials were published on Israel, whereas none were published on Egypt, Libya or Tunisia.
Of course, it’s possible that the Guardian’s disproportionate coverage of Israel merely reflects the broader obsession in the world with anything Jewish or Israeli, in which case the Guardian may be cynically exploiting this sentiment to drive up web traffic.
Indeed, if you visit CiF ‘s Middle East section today, you’ll find three pieces highlighted (under “Editor’s Picks”): One about the war in Libya, one about Syria’s continuing bloody crackdown against civilians protesting the regime, and one about Israel’s recent anti-BDS legislation.
As you can see in the snapshot of the page below, the commentary on Israel has generated over three times the number of reader comments than the two other pieces (about Libya and Syria, two nations currently at war) combined, despite the fact that British troops (under NATO) are directly involved in the Libyan conflict.
More broadly, I recently corresponded with the Guardian readers’ editor, Chris Elliot, to inquire about the Guardian’s disproportionate coverage of Israel, in the context of the Just Journalism report, and his answer was, I think, quite revealing. He said:
As I responded to Mr. Elliot, however, no matter how “intractable” the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, it actually pales in comparison to other “intractable” conflicts throughout the world in terms of number of people killed.
While I don’t realistically expect the Guardian to cover the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (over 5 million killed since 1991) with the same level of intensity they devote to the I-P Conflict (far less than 10,000 casualties), it’s quite curious that, within their main CiF page, there isn’t even a link to Africa related commentaries.
There’s a very interesting site, called Stealth Conflicts, for those interested in holding the Guardian, and the rest of the mainstream media, accountable to standards of coverage based on evidence, and not merely the arbitrary (or ideologically and/or financially driven) desires of the sites’ editors, and becoming familiar with the information contained in the table below (on conflict death tolls throughout the world since the end of The Cold War) from the site, is a great place to start.
Conflict
Death Toll
Democratic Republic of Congo
5,400,000
Southern Sudan
1,200,000
Angola
800,000
Rwanda
800,000
Afghanistan
500,000
Somalia
400,000
Iraq
400,000
Burundi
300,000
Darfur
300,000
Zaire
300,000
Liberia
200,000
Algeria
150,000
Ethiopia-Eritrea
100,000
Chechnya
100,000
Uganda
100,000
Sierra Leone
50,000
Kashmir
50,000
Colombia
50,000
Sri Lanka
50,000
Bosnia-Herzegovina
50,000
Philippines
20,000
Turkey
20,000
Nigeria
20,000
Gulf War
20,000
Azerbaijan
20,000
Bougainville
20,000
Cote d’Ivoire
10,000
Congo, Republic of
10,000
Peru
10,000
Aceh
10,000
Myanmar
10,000
Nepal
10,000
Croatia
10,000
Kosovo
10,000
Kurdish Iraq
10,000
Southern Iraq
10,000
Senegal
< 10,000
Guinea
< 10,000
Chad
< 10,000
Mali
< 10,000
Niger
< 10,000
Central African Republic
< 10,000
Haiti
< 10,000
Mexico
< 10,000
Israel-Palestine
< 10,000
Israel-Lebanon
< 10,000
Yemen
< 10,000
Andrha Pradesh
< 10,000
Gujurat
< 10,000
Northeast India
< 10,000
East Timor
< 10,000
Irian Jaya
< 10,000
Kalimantan
< 10,000
Molucca Islands
< 10,000
Sulawesi
< 10,000
Georgia
< 10,000
Moldova
< 10,000
Northern Ireland
< 10,000
Spain
< 10,000
Share this:
Like this: