Guardian readers’ editor claims that Hamas ‘denies’ using human shields

Guardian readers’ editor Chris Elliott, in an Aug. 18th column on the Hamas ‘child sacrifice’ advert featuring Elie Wiesel, wrote the following in the context of suggesting that his paper’s decision to publish the ad was not a wise one.

whatever the intention, the biblical language, the references to child sacrifice, all evoke images of that most ancient of antisemitic tropes: the blood libel. The authors may believe that they have steered a careful course by aiming these matters at an organisation, Hamas, rather than all Palestinians, but the association is there. If an advertisement was couched in similar terms but the organisation named was the IDF rather than Hamas, I can’t imagine the Guardian would run it – I certainly hope it wouldn’t. I think that’s the issue.

Of course, the difference between charging soldiers of the Jewish State with a blood libel (the historic allegation that Jews murder non-Jews, especially children, and use their blood for religious rituals, part of a broader narrative regarding Jewish “murder-lust”) vs leveling such charges at Hamas is that there is no history of racist anti-Palestinian blood libel tropes.

However, there’s another claim in Elliott’s critique of the ad which is even more dubious:

Each advertisement has clearly got to be decided on a case-by-case basis, bearing in mind not just specific criteria but the context of the times as well. I entirely support the argument that freedom of expression means the freedom to offend. On that basis I don’t think it was wrong to run an advertisement that expressed a viewpoint, with which the Guardian has no sympathy, about the alleged use of human shields by Hamas, which the organisation has strenuously denied. But there are always limits. 

So, Hamas has “strenuously denied” the charge? Really?

Evidently, Elliott didn’t see this widely circulated MEMRI clip of Hamas Spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri (from Al-Aqsa TV on July 8th) commenting on one of the many well-documented ‘human shield’ incidents.

Contrary to Elliott’s claim, the official Hamas spokesman couldn’t possibly have been clearer about the use of human shields: “We in Hamas call upon our people to adopt this policy“.  

Independent posts reflections of witty Brit who likens Israel to ‘child murdering community’

Since the start of Israel’s war with Hamas, the Independent has been competing with the Guardian to see who can most effectively demonize the Jewish state while excusing or ignoring the reactionary Islamist group running Gaza.  And, though today’s commentary in the Indy may not represent the defining contribution in this race to the moral bottom, it should at least be noted in the category of great achievements in modern manifestations of ancient anti-Jewish calumnies.

Leave it to Mark Steel, a commentator and comedian, to even outdo fellow British comedian cum anti-Israel activist Alexei Sayle – who had compared Israel to a child rapist, in a video highlighted by both the Indy and Guardian – in an op-ed titled ‘How silly of me to assume it was Israeli bombs causing all the damage in Gaza.

Here’s Steel’s attempt at mockery, likening Israelis to a community of child murderers.

In recent years most of humanity has become more tolerant of groups who once seemed to be on the margins of society. But until now it’s still been acceptable to be offensive about one minority: the child murdering community.

At last it seems the mood is changing, and finally we’re beginning to hear the child murderers’ point of view.

Steel, again evoking the Israeli child murderer theme, mocks Israeli ‘claims’ that Hamas uses Palestinian non-combatants, including children, as human shields to protect their fighters and to score PR victories by the resulting civilian casualties – a strategy that Hamas spokesmen (and some  journalists in Gaza) have openly acknowledged.

Benjamin Netanyahu spoke out for child murderers’ civil rights by informing us the Palestinians deliberately arrange the “telegenically dead” to be filmed, to attract sympathy. So it seems Hamas stroll round bomb sites, placing the prettiest corpses on view for film crews, otherwise we’d all think “it doesn’t matter that the Israelis killed that kid, he was an ugly little bastard anyway”.

Steele then alludes to Israeli ‘ethnic cleansing’.

As the bombing continues I expect we’ll hear more reasons why the Palestinians are to blame for being bombed. An Israeli minister will say, “These people in Gaza are always complaining that they live in a densely populated area, so we’re trying to help them out by reducing the population as much as we can to give them more space. But they’re still not happy. Some people are never satisfied.”

In this passage, Steele actually seems to suggest that there is a dearth of inflammatory headlines about Palestinian suffering in the media.

In less enlightened times, those responsible for such murder would be snarled at in the street and their pictures displayed on newspapers under inflammatory headlines. But thankfully we’re growing more liberal, and can only regret that more thought wasn’t given to treating murderers kindly in the past.

Steele then evokes the crimes of Fred West, the British serial killer who, over a span of twenty or so  years, tortured and raped scores of young women and girls.

Poor Fred West, for example, instead of barely being given a chance to make his case, could have sat in television studios saying, “Of course I regret the deaths of civilians. But you have to understand these people I murdered could be a bloody nuisance. I was lured into killing them, and I’m not even sure I did kill them until I’ve carried out my own investigation. Some of them kill themselves to get sympathy by booby-trapping their ironing boards, you know

Steele finishes with the following flourish, evidently incredulous in the face of widespread evidence that Hamas uses mosques, schools and clinics to hide rockets and other military hardware.

As times change, maybe Netanyahu and his spokesmen will become more forthright, and organise “Child Murderer Pride” in which child murderers can get together for a procession and carnival, where they can at last feel safe, and no longer feel looked down on for carrying out their basic human right to bomb a school to bits.

Though I must admit to at times being tone-deaf to British humour, I have enough experience deciphering the musings of the pseudo ‘sophisticated’ liberal left in the UK to deduce that the witty Brit who penned the Indy column honestly believes that political and military leaders of the Jewish State – perhaps just for kicks, or maybe motivated by some sadistic homicidal fantasy – intentionally murders innocent children.

No doubt it was lost on Steel – who evidently sees nothing to remotely offensive, yet alone mockable, in calls by Hamas’s religious and political leaders to literally exterminate the Jews  – that his meme regarding ‘Jewish blood lust’ comports perfectly with a decidedly medieval element of the Palestinian Islamist group’s historically familiar propaganda campaign.

How many Jews must die for Israel to claim the moral high ground?

Here’s the latest Peter Brooks cartoon published at The Times (of London) 

times moral calculus

First, note that the pile of dead Israeli bodies shows a mix of soldiers and civilians, while the Palestinian pile seems to depict only civilians.  Evidently, Brooks is uncritically accepting figures provided by the Hamas run Gaza Health Ministry (cited uncritically by the media) claiming that up to 80% of those killed in Gaza have been civilians, rather alternative figures suggesting that the number may end up being closer to 50% civilians.

However, more interesting than his statistical assumption is his specious moral calculus, one which seems to rest upon the argument that the disparity in casualties between Gaza and Israel demolishes Israel’s claim to the moral high ground. This faulty assumption is refuted by examining the disparity in casualties in other just wars, such as the Kosovo Campaign, in which NATO forces suffered no casualties during their 77 days of bombings, while over 500 Yugoslav civilians and another 500 or so combatants were killed.  

Would anyone argue that the NATO campaign (to stop the ethnic cleansing of Albanians), was morally compromised by virtue of this huge disparity pf roughly 1,000 to 0?

Of course, similar disparities in casualties were evident in the NATO operation in Afghanistan and the ongoing US drone campaign on al-Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan. Yet, very few would suggest that NATO lost the moral high ground by virtue of this imbalance in deaths. 

The real moral disparity in this war relates to the fact that the IDF diligently protects its own citizens while taking precautions few if any other armies would take to minimize Palestinian civilian casualties. While Hamas, on the other hand – whose leaders just repeated their mantra that they love death while Israelis love life – launches rockets almost exclusively at Israeli civilians, while intentionally placing their own civilians in harm’s way (the documented use of human shields) to protect their fighters and gain PR points when civilians are killed.  

Since the start of the war, Hamas has fired 2,830 rockets and mortars at Israeli communities, while the IDF has struck over 4200 Hamas targets.  Though of course there have been Israeli misfires, and Palestinian civilians have tragically been killed as the result of Hamas forces firing from civilian buildings, drawing IDF return fire.  Yet, despite the sensational media reports suggesting otherwise, Israeli forces don’t intentionally target Palestinian civilians. 

If the Times cartoonist is suggesting that more Israeli deaths would allow the state to lay claim to the moral high ground, he should remember that the primary duty of any country is to protect its citizens from harm, that there is neither nobility nor virtue in victim-hood, and Israelis certainty need not apologize for their effectiveness at protecting their citizens from attacks launched, let’s remember, by an antisemitic extremist group which seeks its destruction.   

 

Guardian publishes letters legitimizing terrorism & evoking Israel-Nazi analogy

Before posting two of the letters that Guardian editors decided to publish, on July 30, first let’s look at the headline.

headline

Again, remember that these are not simply comments below the line, but letters to the editor that Guardian editors believed had merit, and provided “historical context” to help understand the conflict.

Moral justification of Palestinian terrorism / Genocide charge.

letter 1

A few observations: First, the letter is comparing Israel’s war against Hamas (and, presumably their conflict with the Palestinians more broadly) with genocides in the Balkans, Rwanda and Sudan.  However, what particularly stands out is the implicit justification of Palestinian terrorism. Of course, we should remember that the Guardian has, on several occasions, amplified and legitimized voices which justified, on moral grounds, the Palestinians’ right to murder Israelis.

  • In 2011, the Guardian published a letter by a British philosophy professor which explicitly defended the right of Palestinians to murder Israeli civilians in terror attacks – an editorial decision which was actually defended by their readers’ editor following the uproar which ensued.
  • Also in 2011, the Guardian editorialized about the ‘Arab Spring’, and actually praised the Palestinians for launching intifadas.
  • In 2012, during the war in Gaza, Associate Editor Seumas Milne wrote an op-ed  of Hamas terrorists to launch terror attacks against Israelis, and argued that Israel has no such moral right to defend itself.
  • On July 16, 2014, Seumas Milne again revisited the same topic in a column about the current war in Gaza, and reiterated his belief that Palestinians have the right to engage in deadly acts of terrorism, while Israelis have no such right to defend themselves against Hamas.
  • On July 25th, a Guardian journalist and British priest named Giles Fraser published a column which defended, on moral grounds, ‘just’ acts of Palestinian terrorism.

We should point out that there is absolutely no international law which legally codifies the right to commit terrorism.

Israel-Nazi analogy

There was one more letter worth examining, one which evoked Nazi Germany in contextualizing Israeli crimes.

second letter

We have deconstructed such comparisons in the past, but let’s suggest to Mr. McCulloch that the only relevant analogy to Nazi Germany in the current conflict is that the world is once again silent in the face of expressions of openly genocidal Jew-hatred by Islamist extremists such as Hamas.  And, if anyone out there believes our characterization of Hamas is over-the-top, here’s a speech delivered by Mahmoud al-Zahar, senior leader and co-founder of the group, on Al-Aqsa TV in 2010:

If you’d like a more recent example, here’s Hamas’s Friday Sermon which aired on Al Aqsa TV on July 25th.

Of course, as anyone who has taken the time to look at sites such as Palestinian Media Watch and MEMRI would surely know, homicidal (and often genocidal) antisemitism is not the exception within Palestinian society.

Those in the Western media who legitimize narratives suggesting that Israelis are engaged in a project akin to genocide against Palestinians, thus justifying acts of violent resistance, are engaging in a profound historical inversion – blinded perhaps by a far-left ideology which can’t morally distinguish between antisemitic extremists and the Jews they’re trying to kill. 

 

UK media fail to report evidence contradicting presumption of IDF guilt in UN school deaths

On July 25th we posted about the UK media’s rush to judgement after 15 Palestinian civilians were reportedly killed at a UNWRA school in the Gaza city of Beit Hanoun last Thursday. The Guardian, Independent, The Times, The Telegraph, Daily Mail, and Daily Mirror were among the publications which immediately blamed Israel hours after the incident, despite the dearth of evidence at the time.

However, as we noted in our most recent post last night (July 27), an Israeli army inquiry into the fighting at the UN facility in Beit Hanoun found that IDF mortars did NOT play a role in the killing of 16 people in the school courtyard. The army admitted that an errant IDF-fired shell did hit the UN-run school’s yard, but at a time when there were evidently no people in the area – as the video further in this post shows.

More details were provided by IDF spokesman Peter Lerner, who told reporters yesterday that the IDF had returned fired at Hamas targets (which were stationed near the school) on the day in question, and that one of the errant tank mortars landed in the school courtyard, “injuring no one“. Lerner said it was “extremely unlikely” that anyone had been killed by the mortar round that fell in the empty yard. Lerner also noted that it was quite “out of the ordinary” that Palestinian health officials in Gaza did not share the nature of the wounds of the casualties, which may have shed light on the causes of death.

Here’s the IDF video we posted yesterday, which shows the errant tank shell landing in what appears to be a vacant school yard:

Now, let’s look back at the UK news organizations which immediately blamed Israel for the attack on the UN school.

The Guardian, July 25 (One of the lead stories)

guardian

The Guardian, July 25 (Additional story on the attack)

guardian 3

The Guardian, July 24 (Their initial video report on the attack)

guardian 2

(Additional live blog updates on the incident on July 24 at the Guardian similarly judged Israel guilty in the attack, and downplayed evidence of Hamas culpability.)

The Independent, July 24 (One of the lead stories)

indy

The Times

times

The Times, July 24 (An updated article by Catherine Philp of the one seen above included a headline charging Israel with committing a “massacre”)

massacre

Telegraph, July 24

telegraph 1

Telegraph, July 24

telegraph 2

 Daily Mail, July 24

daily mail

Daily Mirror, July 24

mirror

Not one of these UK news sites, at the time of this post, have revised their original articles or published a new story which includes the IDF’s new video evidence. 

Since the new information at the very least calls into question the accuracy of the initial reports, editors should take note of the clause in the Editor’s Code of Practice which demands the following:

A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and – where appropriate – an apology published. 

Official Guardian editorial blames Gaza war on….Ariel Sharon!

There’s apparently no limit to the capacity of Guardian editors to infantizile Palestinians, as an official editorial, July 25th, on the “causes of the fighting in Gaza” demonstrate.

sharon

Let’s jump to their main argument:

The chain of causation, as with so much else in Israel, leads back to Ariel Sharon

The Guardian explains:

He conceived of withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 as above all a tactic which would allow him to postpone wider negotiations on the future of the West Bank and weaken the Palestine Liberation Organisation. He would garner some peace laurels while inducing the Americans to give commitments on what Israel could keep when and if West Bank negotiations began again. It was a skillful and even a brave piece of political maneuvering both domestically and internationally; but it was also a cynical and ultimately a counter-productive one.

Israeli divide and rule policies had already had the effect of strengthening the PLO’s more militant rivals. Before disengagement, Israeli security forces attempted to decapitate the extremist leadership. Hamas might even so have opted for co-existence, but it did not. It went on to win the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, and then the Hamas coup of 2007 set the stage for the periodic confrontations of which this month’s fighting is the latest, but not necessarily the last.

It will only be the last if it is grasped that the way Israel left Gaza institutionalised violent conflict rather than made it less likely. Those Israelis who portray the disengagement as an act of generosity for which they have received no credit misunderstand what happened. Unilateral disengagement in Gaza weakened Palestinian moderates, enabled successive Israeli governments to drag their feet in peace negotiations and is even now being used by prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who opposed it at the time, to lay down Israeli security requirements for any future disengagement from the West Bank which would make a peace settlement almost impossible to achieve

So, Ariel Sharon, and not Palestinians, was the party responsible for electing, in 2006, an antisemitic extremist terror group  which rejected Israel’s right to exist within any borders, to run their affairs.

And, evidently, Ariel Sharon, and not Hamas, was the party responsible for subsequently firing thousands of rockets at Israeli towns, abducting Israeli soldiers and engaging in other acts of terror.

Further, apparently it was Ariel Sharon’s fault that the leaders of Hamas diverted billions of dollars in aid money to construct a labyrinth of terror tunnels in the hopes of launching even more deadly cross border attacks on Israeli civilians.

Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza was, you see, was apparently just a sinister, furtive plan by Ariel Sharon to further subjugate Palestinians and – in the Guardian’s words – “institutionalize” Palestinian violence.

We’ve often argued that the Guardian’s denial of Palestinian moral agency – the liberal racism of no expectations – informs much of their coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, and this editorial is, in many respects, exhibit A.

(Editor’s note: The strap line for the Guardian editorial, “The roots of the violence go back to the Israeli withdrawal in 2005″, was cropped out of the graphic above to allow readers to see how they reached their conclusion further in the text.)

UK news site actually publishes anti-Hamas cartoon

While The Times (of London) is one of the better British newspapers on issues relating to Israel, it’s surprising nonetheless that any major paper in the UK would publish the following cartoon (by Peter Brooks), as it represents an unequivocal condemnation of Hamas and calls out the Islamist group for their tactic of using human shields.  

times

Cartoon by Peter Brooks

Such open criticism of an antisemitic extremist group is, sadly, the rare exception within a UK media which, conversely, often posts graphic agitprop advancing the most toxic calumnies about the democratic Jewish State  – a sad commentary on the moral confusion which grips the opinion elite in that country.

Guardian brings back Jihad Misharawi photo to illustrate ‘Israeli attacks’

Hamas terrorists fired approximately 2270 rockets at Israeli civilians since the beginning of the current war. We know that a percentage of mortars and Grad rockets have fallen short and landed in Gazan territory – quite possibly (based on past experiences) injuring or killing Palestinian civilians. You may recall that most UK media outlets accused Israel of firing a missile, during the 2012 war in Gaza, which killed the 11 month old son of BBC Arabic cameraman Jihad Misharawi.

old

Elder of Ziyon and BBC Watch (and other blogs) were among those who examined the evidence and suggested that Omar Misharawi was actually more than likely killed by an errant Palestinian rocket.

Their skepticism was well-founded.

On March 6th 2013 the United Nations Human Rights Council issued an advance version of its report on the November war and noted the following about the death of Ahmad Misharawi.

“On 14 November, a woman, her 11-month-old infant, and an 18-year-old adult in Al-Zaitoun were killed by what appeared to be a Palestinian rocket that fell short of Israel.” [emphasis added]

Following communication with CiF Watch in the days following the release of the UNHRC report, quite a few UK media outlets corrected their original stories, and noted that a Palestinian rocket likely caused the death of Misharawi’s son. 

greenslade

So, we were somewhat surprised to say the least to see the following photo accompany a batch of Guardian letters published on July 23rd. (Note the caption below the photo.) 

masharawiThey decided to use a photo of an infant who was killed by an ‘errant’ Palestinian rocket to illustrate the view – expressed by one letter writer – that “Israel’s attacks are an extension of military rule and collective punishment by a brutal apartheid state”.

Evidently, old, disproven media smears against Israel never actually die.  

They simply get recycled at the Guardian. 

Did Jon Snow engage in Jon Donnison-style fauxtography? (UPDATED)

Channel 4 News presenter Jon Snow may have just made the same mistake that the BBC’s Jon Donnison made back in 2012, when, you likely recall, he tweeted a photo of a girl with the title “Pain in Gaza”, to which Donnison added his own commentary – “Heartbreaking”.

However, it turned out that the genuinely heartbreaking image was actually from Syria and not from Gaza – a mistake for which Donnison subsequently apologized. 

The following was Tweeted by Jon Snow at 12:24 AM, July 24, which included a link to his blog at Mashable, in a post tiled “Will I die tonight Daddy‘?

tweet by snow

Here’s the original post at Snow’s blog (at Mashable), which the tweet linked to:

cached

Then, a little more than an hour later, someone Tweeted the following in response:

syria

 

Later, we saw this:

first tweet

 

Snow then deleted the photo from blog, and it now includes the following:

UPDATE 4:02AM ET: Due to an editing error, an earlier version of this story featured an incorrect photo.

However, the damage was already done, as the Tweet (with the original erroneous photo) went somewhat viral, garnering over 4000 mentions in 24 hours.

Interestingly, we were able to trace the original photo (the one Snow deleted) back to Getty Images, and it contains the following caption:

Injured Palestinians at the Al Shifa Hospital

 So, is the boy from Syria, as Snow claimed in his apology Tweet, or from Gaza?  

At this stage it’s unclear exactly what kind of “editing error” the Channel 4 News presenter made.

UPDATE: It get’s stranger. Snow has deleted his apology tweet, and his blog post now includes the original photo that they had taken down, and they’ve noted the following:

update

One sentence by the Guardian’s Mid-East editor explains their coverage of the war

 To date, the Guardian’s coverage of the war has revealed the following:

  • A focus on claims of Israeli war crimes, and silence concerning Hamas’s widespread (and well-documented) illegal use of human shields.
  • The acceptance of Palestinians claims (about the number of civilians casualties, for instance) at face value.
  • A dearth of commentaries (at their blog, Comment is Free, political cartoons, etc.) that are critical of Hamas.

Indeed, one sentence in a July 23rd article (UN human rights body to investigate claims of Israeli violations in Gaza) written by the Guardian’s Middle East editor, Ian Black, arguably helps explains at least the last dynamic we cited.

While providing analysis on the predictable decision by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) “to launch an international inquiry into violations” against Israel, Black makes the following observation about demands to end Israel’s blockade.  

“Pillay [the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights] also called for an end to the blockade of Gaza, the underlying reason for the conflict and an issue that will have to be tackled if any ceasefire is to endure.”

So, Israel’s legal Naval blockade of weapons to Gaza, according to the Guardian’s senior Middle East editor, represents the “underlying reason for the conflict” between Israel and Hamas!  

Does it really need to be pointed out that the blockade is meant to curtail the terrorist group’s capacity to import deadly weapons into the strip and that, in lieu of such restrictions, Hamas would be free to acquire even more accurate and deadly weapons than they’re using in the current war?

Does Black honestly believe that Hamas leaders truly only desire an end to the blockade in order to provide a better standards of living for Gazans?

Does Black not know that Hamas has diverted tens of millions of dollars in imported cement and other construction materials (supposedly meant for “humanitarian projects” such as roads, schools and clinics) to construct terror tunnels and other weapons of war?

However, beyond the specifics of the blockade and Black’s absurd reduction of the conflict, it’s amazing that such putatively sophisticated journalists fail to understand the blockade is the result of Hamas’s aggression, not its cause.  

It all seems to come down to an intellectually crippling political correctness which insists upon imputing reasonableness to even the most malevolent political actors.

Such absurd moral equivalencies are what drive Guardian editors to continually fail to even note that the Sunni Islamist group (the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood) is an extremist organization, one which oppresses women and gays, shuns democratic values, rejects the very idea of peace with the Jewish State, and promotes the most virulent form of antisemitism, which includes explicit incitement to engage in the mass murder of Jews.

Hamas’s reactionary politics  – their contempt for modern notions of tolerance, freedom, individual rights and the sanctity of human life – is of course the underlying cause of the conflict, and it continually baffles us how such putatively anti-racists can’t morally distinguish between antisemitic extremists and the Jews they’re trying so desperately to kill. 

Guardian cartoon depicts Bibi with suicide vest of dead Palestinians

Like any good Guardian Left contributor, Cartoonist Steve Bell seems to share the philosophy of his colleague Martin Rowson, who believes his ‘progressive mission is to ‘afflict the powerful, and comfort the afflicted’.  Within this facile moral paradigm, Jews represent the former and Palestinians the latter.  

In addition to the fact that some of his cartoons have evoked antisemitic narratives (or mock the very idea of antisemitic tropes), as far as we can tell Bell has never used his skills as an artist to demonize Palestinian suicide bombers – as they, it seems, even as they are igniting their murderous device, represent the ‘afflicted’. Though in at least one cartoon he mocked – as hypocritical – Israeli condemnation of said bombers. 

He revisited the topic of suicide bombers in a cartoon published at the Guardian on July 21st. The cartoon was inspired by comments of the Israeli Prime Minister about Hamas’s exploitation of Palestinian casualties, in which he made the painfully obvious observation that the group puts civilians in harm’s way because they know that images of dead Palestinians in Western papers helps their cause. 

Here’s the full quote, from an interview Netanyahu gave to CNN:

“These people are the worst terrorists — genocidal terrorists,” he said. “They call for the destruction of Israel and they call for the killing of every Jew, wherever they can find them.”

“They want to pile up as many civilian dead as they can,” the prime minister continued. “They use telegenically dead Palestinians for their cause. They want the more dead, the better.”

Now, here’s the cartoon:

cartoon

It’s not entirely clear what Bell is trying to communicate, but the suicide belt (presumably made up coffins containing dead Palestinians) on Netanyahu strongly suggests that he – not, of course, Hamas – is the one responsible for killing innocent Palestinians in Gaza.

Such visual anti-Israel agitprop, which neatly serves the cause of Palestinian extremists, is par for the course at the Guardian.  

The Hamas propaganda strategy is of course dependent on Western media groups playing along, not only by highlighting every tragic Palestinian civilian death, but by also pretending that such casualties are not in fact the result of Hamas’s cynical strategy of using human shields and other tactics meant to maximize the number of casualties.

It’s difficult to understand how the Guardian can continually demonize the democratic Jewish state, while parroting the narrative of reactionary extremists, and yet, evidently, still fancy themselves a liberal institution.   

Independent posts op-ed about Gaza by extremist who supported Al Qaeda attacks on 9/11

Mads Gilbert is a Norwegian doctor, commentator and “radical Maoist politician” who openly supported the “moral right” of Al Qaeda to murder thousands of Americans on 9/11, and who,  argued that the world’s oppressed have an inherent “moral right to attack the USA with any weapon they can come up with”.

He visited Shifa Hospital in Gaza during the 2008-09 war in Gaza and, according to NGO monitor, “repeatedly and falsely accused Israel of deliberately targeting civilians” while making “no mention of evidence that Al-Shifa hospital has been used for military purposes”.

Well, Dr. Gilbert has returned to Shifa Hospital, and has published an open letter at the Independent about his experiences:

gilbert

In the opening passage, Gilbert declares that the injured and killed – including, presumably, Hamas fighters – are all civilians and all “innocent”.

The last night was extreme. The “ground invasion” of Gaza resulted in scores and carloads with maimed, torn apart, bleeding, shivering, dying… All sorts of injured Palestinians, all ages, all civilians, all innocent.

As with his previous visit to the hospital in 2009, Gilbert has failed to acknowledge that the hospital is reportedly being used for military purposes and has actually become “a de facto headquarters for Hamas leaders”. 

Concerning Israel’s treatment of innocent Palestinians, Gilbert adds:

Now, once more treated like animals by “the most moral army in the world” [sic!].

the heartless and merciless have done their calculations and planned another dahyia – onslaught on Gaza.

Of course, there’s no mention by the doctor of Hamas’s cruel, cynical and illegal policy of using the Palestinians he supports as human shields, nor the undeniable evidence that the group has placed.

The Indy’s decision to publish an extremist like Gilbert simply reinforces our view (which has been solidified while monitoring their coverage of the war) that, at least concerning the Israeli-Palestinian issue, the paper is slouching towards the Guardian.

Guardian cartoon mocks IDF efforts to avoid civilian casualties

The IDF routinely drops leaflets, sends recorded messages and places calls and text messages (and often sends ‘knock on the door’ warning shots) in advance of attacks in Gaza, warning civilians to distance themselves from Hamas weapons and operatives – and to take refuge in designated safe areas – as part of efforts to minimize civilian harm.  (The IDF also often delays or calls off attacks if civilians don’t heed such warnings.)

Hamas on the other hand has admitted to using Palestinians as human shields to prevent Israeli attacks on rocket launchers and terror tunnels (often hidden beneath civilian structures, such as homes and even mosques), often telling their civilian population to stay in their homes prior to an attack.  Such Hamas tactics represent a tacit acknowledgement that the IDF goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid harming civilians, and can be expected to proceed with much greater caution when engaging in an attack on Hamas terrorists if civilians are in the vicinity.  

Also, as Jeffrey Goldberg noted: Dead Palestinians also represent a crucial propaganda victory “for the nihilists of Hamas”.

In stark contrast to Hamas’s cruel indifference to the suffering of their own population, it’s unclear if any army in the world goes to such lengths to avoid civilian casualties as the IDF.

No matter. Much of the media – and other ‘commentators‘ – have been on a crusade to obfuscate this clear moral divide.

To boot, a ‘First Dog on the Moon cartoon which appeared in the Guardian on July 21st:

headline

dog on the moon

 

  • As we’ve noted, contrary to the suggestion in the frames, Palestinians called by the IDF are informed of designated safe zones where they should flee. 
  • Contrary to what the text in the cartoon implies, the homes in question are targeted because they’re used by Hamas to store weapons (such as rockets) or other instruments of war. Indeed, reading the cartoon, you’d be forgiven for believing that the IDF launches missiles at civilian homes for no particular reason.
  • Finally, note the second to the final frame, which really says it all: Israeli warnings to civilians are summed up as a threat that the IDF will kill Palestinian children if they (presumably Hamas fighters) choose “to fight back”.

The cartoon is a lie, graphic agitprop which represents yet another example of the foreign media running interference for the reactionary, antisemitic extremist group currently waging a war of their own choosing against the Jewish State.

 

The Guardian moves Modi’in to Palestine

The Guardian published a letter on July 18th by an Israeli from Modi’in, a city in the center of the country where this writer also lives.

west bank

However, Modi’in is fully within Israel, west of the Green Line. (Within the greater Modi’in-Maccabim-Reut municipality, Maccabim is located in what’s known as no-man’s land, but Mr. Youngerwood does not live in Maccabim, but in Modi’in proper.)

Interestingly, Modi’in was correctly placed in Israel by the BBC in a July 18th article in which Mr. Youngerwood was quoted in a story featuring Palestinian and Israeli views on the current IDF ground operation.

bbc

In fairness, the Guardian’s latest geographic “editing error” is of course small potatoes as, you may recall, they used to claim that Tel Aviv was Israel’s capital. 

CiF Watch prompts Indy correction to false claim by Mira Bar-Hillel

We recently posted about an op-ed by Mira Bar-Hillel (a Jewish commentator who has acknowledged being antisemitic) which erroneously suggested that the Israeli media demanded the IDF bomb Gaza “back to the Stone Age” (see here), and accused Israelis of believing that “Palestinians aren’t quite human”.  

As we pointed out, she also made a patently false claim concerning the 2012 Gaza War.

Here’s the relevant passage:

Over the past decade we have had “Operation Cast Lead” (2008/9) in which illegal white phosphorus was employed, 1,400 Gazan civilians were killed including one family whose children bled to death on the roof because Israeli aircraft prevented their evacuation. The Israelis lost 11 soldiers. In “Operation Pillar of Smoke”, (2012) hundreds more died, all Palestinian.

Of course, her claim that ALL of those who died during the war (Operation Pillar of Defense) were Palestinian is not true. Four Israeli civilians and two soldiers were killed in that war.

After contacting Indy editors, they agreed to revise the passage accordingly.

It now reads:

Over the past decade we have had “Operation Cast Lead” (2008/9) in which illegal white phosphorus was employed, 1,400 Gazan civilians were killed including one family whose children bled to death on the roof because Israeli aircraft prevented their evacuation. The Israelis lost 11 soldiers. In “Operation Pillar of Smoke”, (2012) hundreds more Palestinians died.

We commend Indy editors for promptly correcting Bar-Hillel’s false claim.