Guardian Letters Page – just another outlet for attacking Israel

Guardian Mideast bias

Guardian Mideast bias

This post was cross-posted at CiFWatch.

Yesterday’s letters page in the Guardian exposes yet another of the editors’ underhanded ways of slamming Israel and simultaneously being able to claim uninvolvement. The page contains four letters accusing Israel of everything from illegal settlements to annexation to assassination of suspects, and has not one letter in defence of Israel.

The first letter is from Lord Andrew Phillips.  Before reading the letter you should know that Lord Phillips has previous “form” on Israel. He has claimed that “America is in the grip of the well-organized Jewish Lobby“; he chaired an event organized by MEMO, a Hamas-supporting Islamist group, etc.

The basis for today’s letter was a Comment is Free column objecting to the proposed boycott by the TUC and other UK unions.

Phillips writes:

Israel‘s ambassador, Daniel Taub, is right to say the Unison boycott is discriminatory (From boycott to bigotry, 9 May). That is the unavoidable crudity of all boycotts, which are usually last-resort expedients when governments do nothing. For many there is no other practical means of expressing, with any sniff of effectiveness, abhorrence at the relentless colonisation by Israel of the West Bank and East Jerusalem (appropriating so far well over 40% of their land mass by recent Foreign Office calculations).

This figure is so outrageous that it actually made me splutter with laughter. I suppose if you’re going to lie, you might as well make it as huge a lie as possible. According to these maps produced by the BBC (whom one could hardly accuse of being biased towards Israel) the conclusion drawn is:

Israel has pursued a policy of building settlements on the West Bank. These cover about 2% of the area of the West Bank

According to this AIJAC report the number is probably less:

B’tselem is highly critical of Israeli settlement policy in the West Bank, and commissioned a detailed survey of the West Bank to determine the degree of settlement control and published a highly critical report last year. The group choose to focus their publicity for the report on the fact that municipal and regional councils associated with the settlements had theoretical legal jurisdiction over 42% of the West Bank, but they also conceded that their survey showed that the “built-up area” of settlements constituted a mere .99% of West Bank land. (As for the 42% number, one often quoted by Palestinian advocates, it is pretty irrelevant. This is municipal jurisdiction – ie zoning, planning, responsibility for local road maintenance – over mostly empty land. This land can become part of a future Palestinian state essentially at the stroke of a pen.)

There is much more in that article which is a huge eye-opener.

But back to Phillips’ letter:

The fact that a significant minority of Israelis, and many Jews here, vehemently oppose both that colonisation and Gaza’s slow strangulation, with the oppression and humiliation that attends them, only underlines the complete failure of western (particularly US and UK) diplomacy, replete as it is with double standards.

Again, lots of emotive words with no facts to back any of them.  He does not even explain what double standards he is talking about.

If the Israeli government were remotely interested in accommodation with Palestine, as opposed to its subjugation, they would long ago have ceased their annexation programme, as President Obama once rightly demanded they should – only to be ignominiously overridden by Mr Netanyahu with complete impunity.

Annexation program? What program would that be Lord Phillips? The only area captured in 1967 that has been annexed is “East” Jerusalem, i.e. the part of Jerusalem that was originally home to thousands of Jews until they were ethnically cleansed through murder and expulsion by the Jordanians in 1948.

Furthermore, if the Palestinians are so avid to avoid being “humiliated” and “subjugated” – in themselves extremely harsh and false descriptions of their situation today – why did their unelected  President Abbas reject any talks with Israel just this week?

The next letter on the page is from a Sylvia Cohen who supports the boycott of Habima (a bit late now that the boycott has been rejected). Again, Ms. Cohen has “form” on Israel with at least two previous letters in the Guardian, one rejecting any celebration of Israel’s birth, and one falsely accusing Israel of dreadful human rights violations.

The third letter in this onslaught masquerading as letters to the editor is by Ernest Rodker. Again, Mr. Rodker is no ordinary outraged citizen. He is the UK spokesman for the Israeli nuclear traitor Mordechai Vanunu.  He has even been interviewed by the Iranian funded Press TV.

His letter is a farrago of lies, exaggerations and outright propaganda. He writes:

It is strange to read Daniel Taub, defending what he calls the voices speaking for peace against being boycotted, when he is representing and defending one of the most vindictive and oppressive governments in the Middle East.

The suggestion that the Jewish state is among the most oppressive in the region is simply risible. (See this report by Freedom House for a definitive analysis of Israel’s human rights record.) . I wonder if Rodker has ever had a word with any Syrians fleeing Assad’s regime, any Egyptians imprisoned over the Arab Spring, the families of those murdered and tortured by those regimes, the Bahrainis, the Tunisians, the Yemenites…  No. Of course not. Israel is the one and only “most vindictive and oppressive”.

Faced with thousands of Palestinians imprisoned for long periods without trial, many in their teens, assassinations of suspects not proven guilty, and appropriation of hundreds of acres of land through illegal evictions alongside the building of many illegal settlements, and all in the name of defending Israel, Taub’s comments are hardly credible.

Take out the name Taub and insert Rodker and there you have it. Thousands of Palestinians imprisoned? Wrong. Even B’Tselem has the number at 308. Assassinations of suspects? By “suspects” perhaps he’s referring to the targeted killing of terrorists in neighboring Gaza involved in the planning or execution of attacks against Israelis, a practice the U.S. has been using quite liberally to kill terrorists thousands of miles away from its shores, in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  As for the legality of the settlements, this has been addressed time and time again. One cannot change the mind of one so closed-minded.

…As I understand it, Habima has chosen, in the past, to perform at illegal settlements, thereby giving support to their land-grabbing presence. That, for me, at this moment, is reason enough to boycott its performances here in England.

Again, the status of the settlements combined with guilty by association is enough for an anti-Israel radical.

The fourth and last letter is by Karl Sabbagh, a Palestinian-British writer, who comments:

[…] if Taub thinks that the boycotts of Israel have done “nothing at all”, why is he so exercised about them?

Because boycotts have a publicity appeal which have everything to do with delegitimization and nothing to do with practicalities.

Sabbagh goes on to list some companies who have withdrawn from collaboration with Israel under pressure from BDS groups, but the immediate victims of these boycotts and economic blackmail are the Palestinians themselves. If Sabbagh would ever come to Israel he would see that the trains (from which Deutsche Bahn were pressured to withdraw) are running (not on time, this is Israel after all), the electricity(from which Veolia was pressurized to withdraw) is humming and Israel’s economy is one of the fastest-growing and safest in the world, despite all their efforts.The BDS-ers are certainly not having it all their way, as Divest This explains.

Sabbagh concludes:

Taub may say he is concerned on behalf of the Palestinians, but there are plenty of Palestinians – I am one of them – who cheer every victory of the boycott movement as a sign that there are limits to Israel’s power to have things its own way.

He may claim proudly to be a Palestinian, but he lives in Britain and will not feel the effect of boycotts on himself or his family. He is ready to sacrifice his co-nationals on the altar of his radical-chic “right-on” mentality.

These four letters illustrate more clearly than any textual analysis the Guardian’s World View – always show Israel in the worst light possible, exaggerating every microscopic wrong-doing, belittling Israel’s positive actions, and promoting BDS.

This entry was posted in Boycotts and BDS, Media and journalism and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Guardian Letters Page – just another outlet for attacking Israel

  1. cba says:

    Didn’t Israel also annex the Golan?

    • R. Thompson, aka Aridog says:

      Pardon me, in rush just now so I may not understand your comments, BUT … Israel did not “annex” the Golan, they recovered it from previous invader/occupiers, just as they did Judea and Samaria. Here’s tired old map once again!

  2. anneinpt says:

    You could be right, but that still does not detract from our argument.

  3. DavidinPT says:

    I read that the UK Press Council has rejected a complaint against the Grauniad (as it was once known due to its plethora of typos) brought by Honest Reporting, where they stated that Tel Aviv is Israel’s capital. The caim was rejected because the UK government does not recognise Jerusalem as the capital, even though they never said that Tel Aviv was. Wonderful Newspeak. may I suggest that in every country that does not recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Israeli leaders INSIST that all diplomatic meetings take place outside their capitals. For example, visiting Israeli VIP’s will only agree to meet their British hosts in, say, Manchester, or Bristol, their French ones in Marseilles, etc, etc. Worth a try to make the point, isn’t it? The foreign press will have to report on this strange behaviour, which will cause a debate on who has right to define their own capital.

  4. Pingback: Douglas Murray demolishes claims of Iranian “moderation” | Anne's Opinions

Comments are closed.