The Guardian’s Amazing Suicide-Resurrection Show

Last Sunday, the Guardian editorial criticised the Palestinian leaders as "weak" and "craven" for being willing to negotiate on issues such as the settlements, Jerusalem, and Palestinian refugees' "right of return". The Guardian spelled out their idea for a solution, which is for the Palestinians to reject any sort of concessions on those issues, and for acceptance of Hamas (who, for those who don't remember, call for Israel's destruction).

This was reinforced in a Guardian column written that day by Palestinian Hamas supporter Karma Nabulsi, disgusted at the Palestinian leaders, practically spitting as she rejects the idea of concessions and states that "had such deals eventually come to light, Palestinians would have rejected them comprehensively". Her solution? The restoration of the "Palestinian revolution", a barely hidden reference to the intifada.

Two days after it's amazing scoop, the Guardian, red-faced, looked around and saw that strangely, the other newspapers didn't seem to agree that the Palestinians and Hamas should be able to do whatever-the-hell they want. The other newspapers seemed to think it was a good thing that the Palestinians were actually considering negotiating! That it might be a sign that at some point there could be peace!

So the Guardian backtracked and wrote an editorial to clarify, in case people somehow got the idea that it is anti-Israel and more terrorist than Hamas:

"Let there be no doubt. A two-state solution remains the only show in town... But such a deal requires both sides to make difficult concessions; in other conflicts we always praise those who do so."

The next day, though, they published an article by Hamas spokesman Osama Hamdan, who blathers on about repression, betrayal and treason, before offering his idea on how to solve - sorry, I mean prolong - the conflict:

"As an immediate response to these revelations, we in Hamas have begun a series of communications and meetings with Palestinian factions and prominent personalities to discuss practical measures. It is our responsibility to regain the initiative in order to protect our cause and isolate those who have betrayed it."

This isn't so far off what the Guardian said in their first editorial: like Hamas they view Fatah as traitors and incompetent in their approach to negotiations, (and, needless to say, Israel as well); and they place their trust in Hamas by calling for their legitimisation and acceptance.

In case Hamdan wasn't clear in his article, by "cause" he means the destruction of Israel, and the "practical measures" he refers to are terror attacks on Israeli civilians. The day after that article, the Guardian published a reader's letter that abandons all pretence and euphemisms, claiming that the leaks show that:

"the Palestinians have a moral right to their terrorism within historic Palestine against neo-Zionism... Terrorism, as in this case, can as exactly be self-defence, a freedom struggle, martyrdom, the conclusion of an argument based on true humanity".

The Guardian defended this letter as not going against their policy "not to publish letters advocating violence against others", claiming that the letter is "about the way language is used... he [the letter-writer Ted Honderich] is not advocating suicide bombing."

I think Honderich would beg to differ, seeing as he's made it quite clear that by stating that suicide bombing is a moral right, he means just that.

I can think of no better definition for the phrase 'epic fail' than - n. The Guardian.

Palestine Papers: Negotiations, Lies, And The Guardian's Relief

The Guardian, in conjunction with Al Jazeera have leaked papers relating to Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations from the last 10 years. Strangely, even with their exclusive access, the Guardian can't actually seem to comprehend the meaning and significance of the documents. One of their headlines claims "Palestinian negotiators accept Jewish state, papers reveal", leaving out what PA negotiator Saeb Erakat actually said in the memos, which was "call it what you want... this is their issue, not mine". In response to the leaks, JPost reports that Erakat denied that the PA has ever offered to give away any of East Jerusalem, and "denied that the PA had agreed to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. He said that when asked by Israel to accept this demand, he replied that it was tantamount to asking a Palestinian to join the Zionist movement." Erakat has also reinforced that the position has always been that the

"Palestinian Authority would never give up any of our rights. If we did indeed offer Israel the Jewish and Armenian quarters of Jerusalem, and the biggest Yerushalayim as they claim, then why did Israel not sign a final status agreement?... Is it not strange that we would offer all these concessions which Israel demands, yet there is still no peace deal?"

Meanwhile PA president Mahmoud Abbas claims that it has been distorted so that the position of dividing the Old City, taking in 100,000 Palestinian refugees, and recognising Israel as the Jewish state is portrayed as the Palestinian position by Al Jazeera and the Guardian, when actually this is what is widely known as the Israeli position: "What is intended is a mix-up. I have seen them yesterday present things as Palestinian but they were Israeli... this is therefore intentional". So Abbas is now using Israel's transparency in these matters to defend himself.

In Hamas' view, this shows the "ugly face of the [Palestinian] authority, and the level of its co-operation with the occupation... and involvement in attempts to liquidate the Palestinian cause, particularly on the issue of Jerusalem and refugees, and its involvement against the resistance in the West Bank and Gaza Strip".

Unsurprisingly, but sickening all the same, is that this is the Guardian's take on it as well. Robin Shepherd observes that it shows that the political establishments, NGOs and media, particularly the Guardian, "have been adopting a position which was significantly more uncompromising on 'settlements'... more hardline against Israel than the Palestinian leadership itself."

CifWatch point out how, even worse, the Guardian's editorial in scorning the Palestinians' flexibility as "weakness" has actively

"egged on the Palestinians to reject even the slightest territorial compromise, encouraged them to accept nothing less than new maximalist demands, and, most dangerously, legitimized and empowered the most radical movement in their society: Hamas".

"Not content to merely cheer lead for the Palestinian side, and demonize Israel, they now seem to view their role as inciting the Palestinians to reject moderation and accommodation... in framing the compromises which may have been considered by the Palestinian leadership, as a cowardly surrender to the cause, Guardian editors have now emboldened Hamas, and have abandoned even the pretense of advocating for peace."

In stark contrast to the Guardian - who, originally shocked and dismayed at the Palestinians' apparent willingness to talk, are at the same time relishing their role in how the leaks will prolong the conflict* - the Times take an optimistic view of hopes for peace in the future:

"At last, Palestinian leaders appear to acknowledge that peace requires giving up things that they would otherwise wish to keep. They have provoked denunciation from theocratic absolutists [like the Guardian!] for whom compromise is betrayal. And that is reason enough to be hopeful."

We can be hopeful, but should also be realistic. Elder of Ziyon points out that whilst the documents do seem to be true, the Palestinian leaders' reactions to it are what is most telling about the difficulties in solving the conflict. The fact that they kept it all so secret, never explaining to their people their efforts to make peace, and now the way in which they're denying the truth of the documents, indicates that peace is not their priority. They have demonstrated they they are fully aware that the majority of the Palestinian people would not accept any of the suggested concessions, and they have done nothing to try and educate their people to change this stance.

*Excellent article on 'How The Guardian Helped Kill The Peace Process'.

Terrorists Attack; Terrorists Arrested

Yesterday IDF soldiers found Hamas terrorists planting explosives near the Gaza security fence. In the fighting that followed, four Israeli soldiers were wounded and one killed.

Today a Palestinian armed with two pipe bombs and a knife was shot and killed at a checkpoint as he approached IDF soldiers, shouting "Allahu Akbar".

Terrorists in Gaza fired a barrage of mortars into Southern Israel today, injuring three Thai kibbutz workers, one seriously.

Last week Israeli soldiers accidentally killed a Palestinian man in a raid to re-arrest six Palestinian terrorists that had been released by Abbas. One of them, released just four months after his arrest, was involved in the shooting and murder of four Israeli civilians last August, and a 2008 suicide bombing that killed one Israeli and wounded 10. The accidental killing of the innocent Palestinian is tragic, but there is a bigger picture that the media most likely ignore: the corruption of the Palestinian "justice" system, the fact that the murderer of four Israeli civilians was released four months after his crime, and the obligation of the IDF to re-arrest these terrorists before they murder even more Jews. Not something Israel haters are really bothered by.