Tag Archives: The CST

Apr 24 2012

CST secures amendments on the ‘Comment is Free’ website.

Readers may remember that back in February of this year, CiF Watch ran a cross post from the blog of the Community Security Trust regarding an article by Rachel Shabi posted on the Guardian’s ‘Comment is Free’ website, the title of which suggested that “Israel’s rightwing defenders” make “false accusations of antisemitism”. 

The Guardian has now amended that headline but, as the CST blog observes:

“So, after contact from CST, this particular false accusation has been removed. It is very little and it is very late.

The damage is done: to Guardian readers’ perceptions of antisemitism and to many Jews’ perceptions of the Guardian (yet again).”

The full CST blog post on the subject can be read here.

More recently, also on the ‘Comment is Free’ website, the Guardian ran an article by Raed Salah in which he claimed to be the victim of a “smear campaign” run by “Israel’s cheerleaders in Britain” and that a poem written by him “had been doctored”. 

No reference was made in the article itself to the CST, but in a comment posted under the article in Raed Salah’s name, it was falsely suggested that the “doctored” version of the poem had been provided to the British Home Secretary by the Community Security Trust. 

That comment has now been removed from the website. Details can be read on the CST blog here. 

Mar 9 2012

Economist blog accuses Israelis of fearing Iran due to “Auschwitz Complex”

Cross posted by Mark Gardner at the blog of the CST

According to an article by “M.S.” on the Economist blog, Israel and its Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu fear Iran because they suffer from “Auschwitz complex”. Furthermore, this “Auschwitz complex” supposedly links with the Jewish festivals of Purim and Passover. At its end, we are told that Netanyahu’s fears over Iran, reveal his “ghetto mentality”.    

The Holocaust, Jewish history and religion are crucial to the Israeli national psyche and the decisions of its leaders: but this is not a serious article on that multifaceted subject. Instead, this article’s lack of accuracy and sensitivity make it little more than an abuse of the Holocaust and Jewish religion in order to stick two fingers up at Netanyahu. (The Economist is perfectly entitled to criticise Netanyahu: but to do so on the premise of supposed Jewish psychological, religious and historical traits takes us into altogether different territory.)      

To begin, the article’s title, “Auschwitz complex”, belongs more on the websites of Gilad Atzmon (eg “Swindler’s List”) and David Irving (eg “Auschwitz: the End of the Line”) than it does on that of the Economist. It is a cold joke, poking fun at the Holocaust to evoke a wry grin and not a little coldness in the heart of the reader.

The article opens with an attack upon Netanyahu for telling President Obama (in the context of Iran’s nuclear ambitions) that Israel seeks to remain “master of its fate”. The author ridicules the notion that any individual country, especially one in conflict with its neighbours, can be master of its own fate in an inter-dependent world. This is a facile straw man argument that sets the tone for what follows.

Next, Israel and Netanyahu are blamed for every failure of the Oslo Peace Accords and for the ongoing conflict situation. There is nothing unusual about such condemnation, but in this context it is required by the author to justify the notion of an “Auschwitz complex”, whereby Israel’s and Netanyahu’s actions are presented as a mix of premeditated ideological malice and unwarranted paranoia. (It is possible that the title, “Auschwitz complex” was written by the Economist, not the author. Nevertheless, the article is woeful; and if the Economist chose the headline, then that is, in a sense, even more depressing.)

Having built the platform, we get the crux of the article:

Having trapped themselves in a death struggle with Palestinians that they cannot acknowledge or untangle, Israelis have psychologically displaced the source of their anxiety onto a more distant target: Iran…the notion that it represents a new Holocaust is overstated…But Iran makes an appealing enemy for Israelis because, unlike the Palestinians, it can be fitted into a familiar ideological trope from the Jewish national playbook: the eliminationist anti-Semite.

Where to begin with this? For the sake of brevity, two points:

Firstly, it is plain wrong to say that Palestinians cannot be “fitted into a familiar ideological trope from the Jewish playbook: the eliminationist anti-Semite”. Palestinian and Arab threats to destroy Israel have consistently formed an “ideological trope” in the Israeli psyche, just like today’s Iranian threat. Prior to the state’s creation, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was (and still is) reviled in this manner, just as Egypt’s President Nasser was in the 1950 and 60s. Then, Menachem Begin’s leadership of Israel (1977-1983) was marked by his characterisation of Yasser Arafat and the PLO as Nazi inheritors. Similarly, the Hamas charter bears comparison with any“eliminationist” text. 

Secondly, as the ever-excellent Professor Alan Johnson points out, “let us note that far from the concept of eliminationist antisemitism – being part of some ‘Jewish national playbook,’ it was the absence of such an orientating concept among the Jews of Europe that made the nature of the Nazi assault so difficult to understand and respond to.”

The author, “M.S.”, then draws upon Netanyahu’s presentation to Obama of the Book of Esther, which tells how a Persian king was persuaded by (the Jewish) Queen Esther to prevent the massacre of his country’s Jews. The story is read at the festival of Purim, which coincided with the Netanyahu-Obama meeting. We are then told how Passover includes the “Ve-hi she-amdah” prayer, “Because in every generation they rise up to destroy us, but the Holy One, Blessed be He, delivers us from their hands”.

The article says that Netanyahu “seems to be wooing Mr Obama and the American public just as effectively” and that this “resembles” a “doomed marriage” in which

the more stubborn and unstable partner drags the other into increasingly delusional and dangerous projects whose disastrous results seem only to legitimate their paranoid outlook.

No consideration is given to Iran’s past and present actions. No mention is made of its nuclear programme, its goal of regional domination, its leader’s apocalyptic outbursts, its denial of the Holocaust, its terrorism against Jews and Israelis. It is simply all down to Israeli delusions, which rest upon paranoid Jewish religious and Holocaust foundations. This is superior to Gilad Atzmon’s work, such as “Trauma Queen [Esther]…Pre-Traumatic Gas Syndrome…From Purim to AIPAC”, but it is still reminiscent of it. Surely the Economist ought to have far higher standards than the dross psychology and selective facts that comprise and compromise this article.

Finally, the author signs off with a couple more digs at Netanyahu, claiming his concerns over Iran (and Palestinians), and his Book of Esther gift to Obama reveal the failure to fulfil “the Zionist mission…to give the Jewish people control over its destiny”, and his being “still in” “the ‘Ghetto mentality’”.

By comparison, the Jerusalem Post (traditionally a somewhat more pro-Israel publication than the Economist), noted that against American advice, Israel had very successfuly declared independence (1948), launched the Six Day War (1967) and destroyed the Iraqi nuclear programme (1981). The editorial also had this to say about Netanyahu, the Book of Esther, Zionism and Iran:

That message from the Megila [Book of Esther] that encourages Jews to proactively take their fate into their own hands is also the story of the Zionist movement and the State of Israel. Refusing any longer to reconcile themselves to traditional passivity vis-à-vis the creation of a sovereign state, Jews who adhered to Zionism called to take hold of their own destiny.

…Unfortunately, they failed to achieve their goal before the Holocaust, which proved beyond a doubt Zionism’s premise that the Jewish people could not rely on the compassion of others.

…The message of the Megila is not one of militarism.

The lesson that Netanyahu wanted to impart to Obama was not that Israel must launch an attack against Iran to stop its mullahs from developing nuclear weapons.

However, the Megila does value Jewish action over Jewish passivity and recognizes that whether through ingenuity, good luck, divine intervention or a combination of them all the Jewish people, when given the chance, have managed to foil the plans of their many enemies. Let’s hope we have the same success in facing the Iranian challenge.

Related articles
Feb 25 2012

Guardian’s false accusation of “false accusations of antisemitism”

This essay is cross posted by Mark Gardner at the blog of the CST

The Jewish community has probably had more run-ins with the Guardian than every other British newspaper combined. This matters on two levels: emotionally, because the Guardian exemplifies the kind of liberalism that many Jews instinctively feel; and, politically, because of the moral tone that the Guardian sets within British life.

In recent years, Jewish upset has been exacerbated by the Guardian’s Comment is Free (CiF) website, which carries many more articles than the print edition; and is fundamental to the paper’s future.

CiF’s initial growth was tarnished by failures to adequately moderate readers’ comments underneath the actual articles. After much effort, this was largely remedied. Nevertheless, from a Jewish perspective at least, problems persist with the actual CiF articles themselves.

It was refreshing to see CiF recently feature a particularly spiky anti-antisemitism piece by Tanya Gold, but last week it reverted to type with a particularly poor and offensive article by Rachel Shabi. Its title claimed to reveal how “Israel’s rightwing defenders” make “false accusations of antisemitism”.

Shabi is welcome to her opinion, but after all the grief between the Jewish community and the Guardian, you might hope that they would hesitate before publishing such a shabby piece of work. Its extremely ugly headline and sub-headline (see below) are plain insensible; it has utterly inadequate levels of proof; it has utterly partial summaries of the sources that it links to; and it refuses to acknowledge that opposition to the phrase “Israel firsters” might be something other than an evil deception to defend Israel.

Shabi’s article can be read here. The title and subtitle:

False accusations of antisemitism desensitise us to the real thing.

Attacks on the New York Times’s new Jerusalem correspondent undermine the credibility of Israel’s rightwing defenders.

So, surely the article is about how the NY Time’s new Jerusalem correspondent has been falsely accused of “antisemitism” by “Israel’s rightwing defenders”?

Well, no actually. The article’s first three paragraphs deal with the new correspondent, Jodi Rudoren. Shabi claims Rudoren has been called an “anti-Zionist”, but there is no mention here by Shabi of antisemitism, none whatsoever. The word doesn’t feature, nor in any of the three articles linked to by Shabi’s article (here and here and here). It isn’t even hinted at in any of them. The headline and sub-headline are simply wrong and insensible. This, despite their being so provocative and insulting.

Less importantly, the word “anti-Zionist” appears in quotation marks, as if this is what Rudoren has been called. No source is given for this claim. Click on the links provided by Shabi’s article, and you still won’t find it: you’ll find criticism of Rudoren, strong criticism of whom she has tweeted with, people saying she gives the impression of being partial, but you won’t find the simple “anti-Zionist” accusation –  and, I repeat, far less anything mentioning antisemitism.

The closest you’ll find to a plain “anti-Zionist” accusation is this quote taken from Tablet online magazine: but Tablet is a centre-left US Jewish publication, so what does it have to do with the “rightwing defenders” of Shabi’s article? (And, again, nothing here remotely connected with ”false accusations of antisemitism“.)

Next, Shabi moves from Rudoren to an argument in America over the use of the phrase “Israel firsters”. This is a phrase that denotes those who put Israel’s interests above those of their own country. (Former American Ku Klux Klan leader, David Duke, is an especially notorious user of the term.)

Given the centrality of the ‘dual loyalty’ motif and attendant Jewish conspiracy and treason charges to antisemitism through the centuries, the antisemitic resonance and potential of “Israel firsters” is starkly obvious: as is the right of Jews (and others) to complain about its use. Not here, according to Shabi. Her take on it, as published by Guardian CiF:

“Witness the recent storm over the phrase “Israel firsters”: used to accuse people of putting policy on Israel above US interests, it sparked a row among liberal commentators on whether it carries connotations of dual loyalty that feed into antisemitic tropes. This was just another attempt to smear liberal American critics of Israel, and fed into the frustration over such blockading – best expressed in the title of one recent post: “Dear Israel lobby, we give up – please give us an acceptable way of insulting you.”

Yet the real danger in all this is that the rush to throw charges of antisemitism at people who criticise Israel will desensitise vigilance over the real thing. Such tactics are meant to intimidate and paralyse, choke and divert the discussion over Israel’s occupation and policies in the Middle East.”

And there you have it, CiF is happy to publish that concerns raised about the expression “Israel firsters” were “just another attempt to smear…intimidate and paralyse, choke and divert” liberal criticism and discussion of Israel. No question about it and seemingly no requirement from CiF that Shabi should explicitly explain the rationale behind her “smear” claims, which derive from this at Salon.com, linked to via Shabi’s above link at “liberal commentators“. Incredibly, the former AIPAC spokesman quoted in it didn’t even directly call anyone an antisemite, he merely says of US Democrats using the expression “Israel firsters”: “these are the words of anti-Semites, not Democratic political players.”

And that is the “false accusations of antisemitism” as stated in the title.

All of this, brought to you by Guardian Comment is Free: which is why it matters.

Postscript

When the AIPAC spokesman was asked to explain himself by Salon.com, he gave the following answer – and it is as strikingly appropriate for the Guardian, as it is for the Democratic Party (especially the final sentence):

Those who accuse pro-Israel advocates and American Jews of having “dual loyalties” and being “Israel Firsters” are engaged in anti-Semetic hate speech. Period. These are age-old canards and anti-Semetic smears that go back centuries, suggesting that Jews are disloyal, alien and cannot be trusted. This kind of rhetoric has no place in civil dialogue and anyone’s politics, but especially among progressives.

The organizations who pay the salaries of those using such hate speech, (see below for specific examples), and who have clearly had it brought to their attention, must either confront it and end it, or take full responsibility for it. In this case, that choice belongs to both CAP and Media Matters. This is a free country and people can say what they want, but the question for those organizations is whether they are an appropriate home for such discourse.

Related articles
Feb 24 2011

Guardian letter and an unbecoming headline

This is cross posted by the blog of The CST

The Guardian (24 February 2011) carries a lengthy letter jointly signed by CST, Board of Deputies and Union of Jewish Students. The paper was under no obligation to carry the letter, especially given its length, but regrettably it has been framed on the letters page in a disconcerting manner.

Put simply, the letter was riskily headlined and lumped in with a wholly unrelated letter from the Israeli Embassy. (The entire letter and the Israeli Embassy letter are in full at the foot of this post.)

The CST / BoD / UJS letter was prompted by the Guardian having carried a pathetic quote from an unnamed source relating to Jewish concerns about campus extremism. Our letter began:

Your coverage of the report by Universities UK (Universities must engage and debate with extremists, report says, 19 February) quotes an unnamed“source familiar with the report” as saying: “If someone is saying all Jews should perish, that’s inciting hatred; if someone is fundamentally opposed to Israeli foreign policy, that’s a view.” This seriously misrepresents Jewish concerns. Most cases occur in the huge space that lies between genocidal calls against Jews and opposition to Israeli policy.

Our letter then went on to give recent examples from “the huge space that lies between genocidal calls against Jews and opposition to Israeli policy”.

Nevertheless, the Guardian headlined the letter as:

The space where anti-Zionism becomes anti-Semitism

The Guardian could easily have headlined it as “The space between anti-Zionism and antisemitism”. This would have been more consistent with the letter and no problem whatsoever (although it still would not have validated inclusion with the separate Israeli Embassy letter). However, they chose not to do so, opting for“becomes” rather than “between”.

The alteration is not huge, but it carries an unnecessary risk of misleading Guardian readers into thinking that this carefuly worded letter from us was a case of ill-motivated Jews playing the antisemitism card: which it explicitly is not. Indeed, the whole point of the letter is to show the complexity, porous nature and elasticity of the problem: all of which risks being lost when the letter is headlined in this way.

In this, there is another nagging concern, which is namely that the alteration is not simply accidental (or semantic, or pedantic, or however else you would put it) but that it also indicates institutional attitudes at the newspaper.

The question is made yet more appropriate by reference to an article three days previously, by Guardian Readers’ Editor Chris Elliott on the subject of “Misleading pullquotes”. (i.e. those juicy bits from larger articles that are plucked out from the body of the text to indicate the article’s content and entice the reader.) Chris Elliott explained that the Guardian had run a pullquote from senior Israeli politician, Tzipi Livni, “seemingly proving the case against Israel”, when actually the full quote (run in the Guardian) “is very different from that implied”. He concluded

To suggest that the pullquote represented an example of some institutional animosity towards Israel on the Guardian’s part is nonsense, but in this case it’s a pity that we gave, so unnecessarily, an opportunity for such views to be expressed once again. A salutary lesson for writers of both pullquotes and clarifications.

There will, of course, be those who take this “becomes…between” case as further proof of “institutional animosity” at the Guardian. In the opposite direction, there will be those who take it as further proof that the Guardian’s critics are both paranoid and impossible to ever satisfy. Personally, I feel that this particular instance is firmly in that Scottish legal no-mans land known as “unproven”: but I am struck by the fact that Chris Elliott and I have both used the expression “unnecessary” in describing how easy it would have been for the Guardian to avoid risking offence.

What, however, of the Israeli Embassy letter, that was carried under the CST / BoD / UJS letter, sharing its headline and sharing the same text box on the letters page? (Other batches of letters sharing text boxes on the letters page included those under general headlines such as “We need an election on the cuts” and “Cameron’s message of war and peace”.)

Is it just really straightforward: that the two letters basically belong together, because they are about Jewish and Israeli things – and that’s all there is to it? Nothing more, nothing less. Or, ought more, i.e. something deep and negative, be read into it? Again, it strikes me that both attitudes could easily be taken, but I wish that the question did not even arise; and that it had just been avoided by not sticking the letters together in the first place.

It is impossible in this not to actually cite the Israeli Embassy letter, which criticised a Guardian editorial (ironically from 21 February, the same day as the above “pullquotes” article) on Middle East turmoil that had included the claim

the cockpit of the crisis is Palestine

The Israeli letter replied (in part)

It [crisis in Palestine] is certainly the cockpit for those in Israel, but to extend this flight of fancy acros the world is simply pie in the sky…problems in Libya will certainly not be solved in Jerusalem

Perhaps at a stretch, an extremely long stretch, you could argue that the Guardian headline writer perceived the Israeli Embassy letter to be a diplomatically coded claim that the Guardian’s editorial had been so anti-Zionist as to be antisemitic. (i.e. “Enough already with the Ziocentrism, please stop placing Zion at the centre of your universe, its gone so far as to now be antisemitic.”) But really, the Israeli letter says no such thing. It is careful and precise in its use of language, just as the CST / BoD / UJS letter was: and just as we intend to continue being.

The sooner that the Guardian’s headline and pullquote staff follow suit, the better for all concerned.

Meanwhile, the aforementioned headline and letters, in full:

The space where anti-Zionism becomes antisemitism

Your coverage of the report by Universities UK (Universities must engage and debate with extremists, report says, 19 February) quotes an unnamed “source familiar with the report” as saying: “If someone is saying all Jews should perish, that’s inciting hatred; if someone is fundamentally opposed to Israeli foreign policy, that’s a view.” This seriously misrepresents Jewish concerns. Most cases occur in the huge space that lies between genocidal calls against Jews and opposition to Israeli policy.

For example, a recent speaker was advertised as talking about the “Zionist lobby” in the US, but repeatedly referred to “the Jewish lobby”, affording it conspiratorial power and reach. Week after week, students are subjected to tirades from resident and visiting academics who equate Zionism with racism, apartheid and sometimes even Nazi Germany – this, when most Jewish students are indeed Zionists, in the only real sense of the word, believing in the Jewish right to a state. Sometimes, visiting speakers are permitted to advocate or excuse terrorism, including suicide bombings, so long as Israel and Israeli civilians are to be the target, doubtless leaving their audiences to contemplate as and when such terrorism might be permitted in Britain also.

Universities UK claim that this is about freedom of speech, but this is at best disingenuous. Put simply, if a speaker is in line with prevailing political orthodoxy, then they will be afforded the benefit of doubt and be permitted to speak. If a speaker contradicts that orthodoxy, then they will often be run off the campus. Ultimately, it is mob rule, as the Universities UK report itself demonstrates with its final sentence, “permission [for meetings] may be withdrawn if adequate arrangements cannot be made to ensure that good order is maintained”. It is to the credit of the National Union of Students that it deals with these issues respectfully and consistently. If only their elders could do likewise, then campus would be a more inviting place for all students, including those who have the courage to speak out against anti-semitism and anti-Zionism.

Jonathan Arkush Board of Deputies of British Jews, Mark Gardner Community Security Trust, Carly McKenzie Union of Jewish Students

• Nations containing 187 million people, who have been under autocratic rule for 177 years combined, angrily take to the streets in areas thousands of miles from Tel Aviv. Yet apparently, “the cockpit of the crisis is Palestine” (Editorial, 21 February). It is certainly the cockpit for those in Israel, but to extend this flight of fancy across the world is simply pie in the sky. The situation with our Palestinian neighbours can only be solved at the negotiating table – not on the streets of Tunisia, while the problems in Libya will certainly not be solved in Jerusalem.

Amir Ofek

Embassy of Israel

Jan 12 2011

The Guardian and America’s “slavish subservience” to Israel

This is cross posted from the blog of the CST.

The myth of Jewish power dominates antisemitism.

The myth finds its strongest mainstream resonance in grotesquely overblown claims about Zionists, or Israel, controlling America.

For example, the Guardian Comment is Free website saw fit to run an article on 29 December 2010 that stated America has

slavish subservience to Israel

Indeed, the article was sub-headed (presumably by Comment is Free staff, taking this as the salient part of the article)

Nations covering 80-90% of the world’s population recognise Palestine as a state. The US, subservient to Israel, stands out

The purpose of American enslavement to Israel?

Israeli-American global domination.

The shape of things to come?

One might hope that the United States could still pull back from the abyss and recover its own independence, but all signs are pointing in the opposite direction. It is a sad ending for a once admirable country.

I emailed the Guardian Readers Editor on 30 December to ask how they could publish such garbage about Israel controlling America. My email said

Can you please explain to me how this notion that the USA is subservient / slavishly subservient to Israel is any different in its rationale to the old antisemitic myth about Jews running the world through domination of politicians, finance and media?

I do not mean this as a joke, although it does read like a sick joke when it appears upon the website of a publication such as yours.

I received an automated reply, saying that the Readers Editor would return to work on 4 January 2011. I have received no further response. Instead, the original article and its sub-header remain under the Guardian banner.

Antisemitism reveals the mythical Jew of the antisemitic imagination, not actual Jews. Yes, you can point at real Jews to try and defend your claims, but that doesn’t prove a conspiracy theory. For example, Jewish Communists didn’t make Communism a Jewish conspiracy any more than Jewish bankers made capitalism a Jewish conspiracy. Today, the USA is the country (barring Israel) with the highest numbers of politically and economically active Jews; and today, the USA is the primary target for the acceptable modern variations of the old, nasty, Jewish conspiracy theory.

Continue reading →

Nov 5 2010

Guardian Slammed in the CST’s Report on Antisemitic Discourse in Britain in 2009

 

This graphic appeared on Islamist anti-Israel and antisemitic websites at the time of the Channel 4 Dispatches film "Inside Britain's Israel Lobby" (November 2009). It is a modern version of the same Jewish money power accusation shown in the 1962 British Nazi flyer, "Free Britain from Jewish Control." The 2009 graphic combines both anti-Israel and antisemitic imagery and shows an Israeli hand paying money to Parliament, which is held in the palm of a Jewish hand. The face of Conservative leader (and now Prime Minister) David Cameron MP smiles approvingly and the Israeli flag can also be seen.

 

The CST Antisemitic Discourse in Britain in 2009 Report is premised on the understanding that antisemitic discourse influences and reflects hostile attitudes to Jews.  It can fuel antisemitic incidents against Jews and Jewish institutions,and may leave Jews feeling isolated, vulnerable and hurt.  The purpose of the report is to help reduce antisemitism, by enabling readers to better understand antisemitic discourse, and its negative impacts against Jews and society as a whole.

Some of the key findings from the Executive Summary:

  • Rhetoric against “Zionism”, “Zionists”or “pro-Israelis” is fostering hostility against British Jews and their representative bodies.
  • In 2009, the Gaza conflict caused Israel to be compared to Nazi Germany and its supporters to be compared to Nazis. Previously a fringe phenomenon, the Nazi comparisons are now widespread and also appears in mainstream media. This causes significant upset to Jews and is antisemitic abuse of the memory of the Holocaust.
  • The play “Seven Jewish Children”typified the emerging trend to depict Israel and Zionism as a mass Jewish psychological reaction to the trauma of the Holocaust.
  • The ugliest medieval accusation,the Blood Libel, claiming that Jews steal children in order to use their blood, was strikingly revived in 2009.This feature of medieval village antisemitism now returned as a shocking example of antisemitic rumours in today’s global village.
  • Two senior journalists at The Independent newspaper wrote separately about the supposed power of America’s “Jewish” lobby. It is quite common for The Independent and Guardian newspapers, in particular, to depict a dominant US “Zionist”lobby in America: which risks reflecting and encouraging antisemitic Jewish conspiracy allegations.
  • The term “criticism of Israel” continued to be used as a catch-all defense against the raising of Jewish concerns about antisemitic manifestations, public speakers, groups, websites, agitprop and other phenomena.

More specifically, the report singled out the Guardian as one of the standard bearers of antisemitic discourse along with The Independent and Press TV together with individuals such as Guardian contributors, John Pilger and George Galloway. Examples of antisemitic discourse in the Guardian referenced in the report included:

  • The Guardian’s online production of the antisemitic play “Seven Jewish Children” by Caryl Churchill.
  • The favorable review of “Seven Jewish Children” by the Guardian’s theatre critic, Michael  Billington.
  • The Guardian’s promotion of Peter Oborne’s antisemitic documentary”Dispatches – Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby” positing the existence of a Jewish conspiracy (which even included CiF Watch among the list of conspirators!)
  • The Guardian’s allegations that a Zionist or pro-Israel lobby dominates American foreign policy and American media as exemplified by a Comment is Free article “Israel barks, the US media wags its tail“  by none other than Peter Preston, former editor of the Guardian from 1975 to 1995.

In a revealing glimpse into media bias at play, the CST report recounted how in a Comment is Free article, David Henshaw, Executive Producer of the Oborne documentary, attempted to deflect complaints of antisemitism by quoting Alan Rusbridger, Guardian editor, as saying “it would be astonishing if newspaper articles critical of Israel led directly to racist attacks. Where was the evidence?” Yet according to the report, Henshaw contacted the CST asking for the “CST’s analysis that criticism of Israel in the media leads to anti-Semitic hate crimes” and despite the CST’s reply explaining the relationship between the two issues, Henshaw made no mention of it leaving “Rusbridger’s claim to stand without balance”.

As the CST pointed out in their report

“Racist or political violence is influenced by extremist discourse; particularly the manner in which perpetrators of such violence may be emboldened by support (real or imagined) from opinion leaders and society for their actions”.

Should we be surprised therefore that antisemitic incidents during the first six months of 2009 were higher than in any entire year previously on record?

Read the full report here.