Thursday 27 August 2009
Guardian's Extreme Anti-Israel Bias
Two weeks ago, I blogged about an example of the Guardian's hypocrisy in it's news reporting, and I speculated (naively, but I'm still learning!) that perhaps it wasn't the reporter's bias, but the Guardian's editors'.
Then I saw an anti-Israel comment piece by someone whose name rang a bell - Peter Beaumont, and it turned out that it was his bias that really stood out to me in that article I looked at.
So I browsed through his history of articles to see just how biased the Guardian's 'foreign affairs editor' is. Working backwards, his last Israel-Palestinian article praised the ex-Jewish Fatah member whose aim is to "save Palestine". Then comes Human Rights Watch' 'white flag deaths' report (the one I blogged about); then a comment piece criticising Netanyahu (well, he's not likely to praise him, is he?).
After that is an article, picture gallery, and audio slideshow on "Life in Gaza after the Israeli invasion", where of course the only people affected are innocent civilians, because Hamas = terrorists is probably just a myth according to Beaumont. Before that is an article on how the Gaza tunnels are needed for economical reasons, as though weapons are never smuggled through them. Then another on how one man makes his living "from the devastation of Gaza".
The one before that is about how the sea gives Gazans a place to breathe (ignoring the fact that many of the (many) open spaces in Gaza are used as terrorist training camps), describing the restricted sense of freedom by the sea that is of course only caused by Israel, because in the fantasy Gaza where Beaumont visits, there is no Hamas beating people up on the beaches for frivolity. He also somehow manages to make it sound as though the "segments of polystyrene, tan globes of pungent horse dung, bags and plastic bottles" on the beach are Israel's fault, when actually Hamas are a bit too preoccupied with plotting the destruction of the Zionists to worry about litter in Gaza.
Before that are numerous articles on accusations against Israel of war crimes, including Breaking the Silence's "testimonies" but not the IDF's own investigations or Soldiers Speak Out testimonies.
And it goes on and on, and gets even worse as he reported on the Israeli election and on Cast Lead.
There were some "neutral" articles I skipped, because I was only looking for ones that specifically showed Israel or the Palestinians in either a positive or negative light. The articles I mention above are from a period of six months, and of all the articles written by Beaumont, the Guardian's foreign affairs editor, in that time, there is not one that is sympathetic to Israelis, shows them in a positive light, or gives Israel's point of view. (Unless it's self-haters', it goes without saying)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
you're overreacting. Criticizing israel doesn't automatically make someone anti-israel.
ReplyDeleteHaha! (That was a joke, right?)
ReplyDeleteCriticising Israel ONLY does make one anti-Israel.
why? Is it not permitted to criticize her? Most objective and unbiased media sources are not afraid to criticize anyone, be it Russia, U.S., Arab world or Israel. Does it make them anti-everybody source?
ReplyDeletealso, can someone criticize israel without being accused of being anti-israel or anti-semite?
Like I said, in the articles I looked at over 6 months, Israel was ONLY criticised. If you only look at the bad, never report the good, then, yes, not only are you anti-Israel, you're close to being antisemitic as well, because you're singling out Israel for that criticism, because it's the Jewish state.
ReplyDeleteOf course you can criticise Israel without being antisemitic, or even anti-Israel, even Zionists know Israel isn't perfect. But you have to do it in a fair and honest way. Acknowledge, for example, that yes the IDF killed Palestinian civilians in Cast Lead, but no it was not intentional, and they used many methods to prevent civilian deaths. Yes, the IDF killed civilians, but they were used as human shields. Yes, they bombed mosques and schools but only because there were weapons inside. You can't just take everything out of context.
While i don't share the very same opinion on Guardian (from time to time i read some of its articles and i don't see them anti-israel; although i do admit they really are not pro-israel), i do agree with the second part of your last reply. Well, except for those "methods to prevent civilian deaths". Not after all i've heard from those few idf soldiers who fought in Gaza and who later confessed that the army did some ugly things there (like using human shields, shooting at unarmed civilians etc). I think idf should do much more to prevent civilians death if they wanted.
ReplyDeleteOh, and you shouldn't only read Breaking the Silence soldiers' testimonies, but also Soldiers Speak Out.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1100740.html