Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Ranting at The Guardian over the Palestine Papers



I'm aghast. Incensed. Furious.

Yesterday, The Guardian (international edition) devoted 80 percent of its front page and five inside pages to the Palestine Papers. No less than 14 pieces on the Palestine Papers appeared on The Guardian website, Comment is Free. The editorial spin is that the Palestinian Authority's purported 'concessions' ceding parts of Jerusalem to Israel and the 'right of return' for all but 100,000 Palestinian refugees would have been an outrageous betrayal of the Palestinian people's aspirations.

The Palestinians are said to be making generous concessions on Jerusalem: yet the old city and East Jerusalem, whole districts of Baghdad (where Jews were 40 percent of the population), Tripoli, Alexandria, Cairo, Fez, Meknes, Tunis, Sana'a, Damascus, and dozens of other cities were brutally emptied of their Jews in the last 50 years. These Jews do not deserve justice in the eyes of The Guardian.

The Jews have more than paid any price - they have lost land equivalent to four times the entire surface area of Israel, they have had assets seized and stolen by Arab governments (worth twice as much as Palestinians have lost). On top of all that they have suffered ethnic cleansing.

Yet the Palestinians, who lost a war they started (to eradicate Israel), have the temerity to demand a 'right of return' to their homes after 60 years, whereas an exchange of population with a roughly equal number of Jews (who couldn't go back to their homes in Arab lands, even if they wanted to) is what occurred. What The Guardian does, by encouraging the Palestinians to adhere to their maximalist demands, is to make a humanitarian solution for Palestinian refugees in their host countries more remote than ever, and give extremists every incentive to keep the conflict going.

Where is your sense of justice, Guardian? Where is your sense of perspective, CiF? Why are the Jews of the Middle East always absent from the debate on your pages? Why do Arab rights always trump Jewish rights in your warped and simplistic view?

Rant over.

Crossposted at CiFwatch

8 comments:

Empress Trudy said...

I don't understand your outrage. This is precisely what antisemitic maniacs DO. This is where they come from. If the Guardian got its way there would be Concentration camps all over Britain and the mideast. Everyone knows that. They SAY it themselves. Just because they're middle class and they drive hybrid cars doesn't mean they're not exactly what they say they are.

bataween said...

Point taken, Empress, but these are also self-declared LIBERALS. They don't see that they are aligning themselves with the most reactionary, misogynist, homophobic, bigoted and imperialist forces in the region!

in the vanguard said...

Why are you getting bent out of shape? The Guardian - you thought - was an "English" paper, thus relegating some respectability to it. But, if you haven't noticed, or listened once or twice to Melanie Philips (eg, http://hezbos.blogspot.com/2011/01/melanie-philips-why-lie-overshadows.html) the English are in bed with Muslims, and for so long too. Moreover, it may look like the English have control of their "minority" Arabs, but where have you been for the last few years - hasn't everything coming out of not-so-great britain been a catering to muzlim interests? Why then get bent out of shape, or even give a moment's notice to what Arabs have to say about Jews or Israel. A lie is a lie whether it comes from the muzlim or from its promoter.

bataween said...

I'm not surprised, vanguard, at The Guardian - that does not make me less outraged.
I know the paper well - have even written for it - but this has nothing to do with Muslims and everything to do with useful idiots.

Sylvia said...

And how about stop clicking on the Guardian CIF? Boycott it like any grossly biased outfit should be boycotted? I realize what I am saying is unpopular, but though I like CIF Watch, I think it has done more to popularize CIF than anything else. Stop clicking on the beast!

bataween said...

Apparently (and as a technophobe I don't understand these things) you can insert 'no follow' back to the link in question and this stops Google registering it as a hit. Hopefully, CiFwatch will have done that - are you listening, Hawkeye and Adam Levick?

Silke said...

outrage needs to be vented once in a while ...
and I liked (wrong word in the context I know) bataween's rant quite a bit

but in this context I'd like to alert you to a BBC-audio I heard and described here
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2011/01/turkel-on-whether-gaza-is-occupied.html#comment-136141455

as to CiFWatch - since I know about them I read them and never clicked on CiF again - the need had gone ...

I don't know but I'd guess disregarding is helpful with smaller blogs but with big ones outfits like CiFWatch seem to be worth a try.

ben Shlomo said...

right on!