Harry's Place

“when clearly it is an institution comprising different people with different ideas.”

Not when it comes to Israel.

Is the ‘Guardian’ now among the righteous?

On Milne’s hands off human rights attitude, I think we made a critical mistake calling people like him “leftists”.

Trying to protect the status quo is oppressive societies based on romanticizing their “authenticity” and history has long been a staple of far right movements, as has demonizing the Jews.

Milne and co have just old fashioned fascists with they twists that they’re fascists by proxy, idealizing and romanticizing myths of other peoples instead of their own, and replacing nationalism with a sort of unacknowledged proxy-nationalism.

Their perpetuation of some ethnic myths in support of the ethnic conflict in Israel is familiar too, their support of some ethnic hatred is familiar too.

The Guardian and the SWP have simply adopted familiar far-right doctrines and sanitized them (they think) by being hate filled bigots on behalf of someone else instead of themselves. It satisfies the same needs to hate for someone else as it does to hate for yourself, it just requires a somewhat more elaborate edifice of rationalization.

Let’s be clear from now on, the Guardian isn’t left. The British left is had caught the right-wing memes of Ludditism and romanticization of the past in order to support oppression and ethnic hatred in the present. They are as reactionary and right wing as possible.

I’m with maglan and I am sorry you have let al-Grauniad’s take on Iran make you go all soppy about them, Gene.

Can you honestly see the Guardian running regular articles to counter its blood and bone hatred of Israel, much less to refute some of the biased rubbish it prints about her, even in the interests of balance and ethical journalism?

Neither can I.

See the thread below this one, for the Guardian reverting to type, Gene. Do you still think it should not be denounced?

Sigh, too many typos. Here it is proofread:

On Milne’s hands off human rights attitude, I think we made a critical mistake calling people like him “leftists”.

Trying to protect the status quo in oppressive societies based on romanticizing their “authenticity” and history has long been a staple of far right movements, as has demonizing the Jews.

Milne and co are just old fashioned fascists with the odd twists (psychological defense mechanism I think) that they’re fascists by proxy, idealizing and romanticizing myths of other peoples instead of their own, and replacing nationalism with a sort of unacknowledged proxy-nationalism.

Their perpetuation of some ethnic myths in support of the ethnic conflict in Israel is familiar. Their support of some ethnic hatreds is familiar too.

The Guardian and the SWP have simply adopted familiar far-right doctrines and sanitized them (they think) by being hate filled bigots on behalf of someone else instead of themselves. It satisfies the same needs to hate for someone else as it does to hate for yourself, it just requires a somewhat more elaborate edifice of rationalization.

Let’s be clear from now on, the Guardian isn’t left. Parts of the British left is have caught the right-wing memes of Ludditism and romanticization of old ways in order to support oppression and ethnic hatred in the present. They are as reactionary and right wing as possible.

Has the Guardian ever published anything that was as anti-Semitic and Fascistic as the New Statesman cover in 2002 that had Israel as a dagger stabbing the Union Jack or the Independent’s award-winning cartoon of Sharon eating Palestinian babies?

Incidently, the 22nd June issue of the New Statesman has its cover story on Iran’s nuclear weapons entitled “How Iran went Nuclear” complete with cover showing missiles in the Iranian National Colours. Also there are articles entitled, “The Rigged election: 10 tell-tale signs” and “The wit and wisdom of President Ahmandinejad”. (Satire)

… Independent’s award-winning cartoon of Sharon eating Palestinian babies?

I live in San Francisco and some asshole pasted that cartoon to a mailbox in my area.

Give it a week, they’ll blame it all on the Jews. They have to, it’s in their charter.

The Guardianistas do have a definite problem with the present and continuing demonstrations in Iran.

I think that we can define two sides.

One is supportive of the demonstrations to bring forth an alternative leadership which is less provocative but still very anti US and UK. It doesn’t matter to them if the reconstructed regime is democratic or not. It doesn’t matter in the reconstructed regime improves the lot of the average Iranian. It doesn’t matter if they continue to hang homosexuals and beat women on the street. Just that it is still anti US, Israel, UK. …….

The second side sees the positive aspects of a true democracy in Iran and is not really concerned if the reconstituted future government is pro US and by continuation, non provocative and not threatening its neighbors with exporting its ‘Islamic Revolution’ to unbelievers. This alternative would not need a bomb as it is not threatening its neighbors and does not see itself as threatened by its neighbors.

the Guardian isn’t left

How often do you actually read it? And I don’t mean scanning CiF for pieces concerning Israel to be outraged about, I mean actally read the newspaper?

The Guardianistas do have a definite problem with the present and continuing demonstrations in Iran.

Hmm, I might be classed as a “Guardianista” and I don’t have such a problem.

I don’t read the newspaper. I follow links to articles. I check the front page then about 1 time in 20.

I don’t listen to Pacifica radio in the US anymore either since that day not long after 9/11 when they had some socialist polemicist on who called Osama a hero of the downtrodden masses and the interviewer was so turned on by the treason that I’m not sure she waited to leave the studio before having sex with him.

I read the Guardian most days – I certainly haven’t noticed a clear editorial division between supporters of Ahmadinejad and Moushavi being fought out in the paper, nor have I seen any article opposing the demonstrations in Iran. I found today’s piece profoundly shocking and illuminating – I had no idea so many bloggers, academics and journalists had disappeared. I also found the report on the teenager who had been tortured and multiply raped profoundly shocking. There is no evidence of a conflicted editorial stance re the Iranian regime.

Let’s be clear from now on, the Guardian isn’t left

Erm, yes it is, and it’s anti-Zionist hypocrisy is a staple of leftist group-think.

Let’s be clear from now on, the Guardian isn’t left

Erm, yes it is, and its anti-Zionist hypocrisy is a staple of leftist group-think.

Lots of people with very different opinions and approaches write and report for the Guardian. Some are excellent. Some are vile, e.g. Milne. CiF has more cranks than the paper itself, I would say, but it’s actually improved.

And there is certainly no group-think among commenters either. Just watch how pretty much every I/P thread goes nuclear…

“when clearly it is an institution comprising different people with different ideas.”

Not when it comes to Israel.

Yes, I imagine the hacks on the sports desk talk of little else other than the evils of Zionism; and if you were to ask to the city staff for their views on the national desk they’d launch into an angry rant about the Gaza strip rather than answer your question.

I would guess that the majority of Guardian hacks, like the majority of people in Britain, do not have strong views about the tragi-squalid regional conflict between Israel and Palestinians beyond wishing it would end.

“when clearly it is an institution comprising different people with different ideas.”

Not when it comes to Israel.

Yes, I imagine the hacks on the sports desk talk of little else other than the evils of Zionism; and if you were to ask to the city staff for their views on the national debt they’d launch into an angry rant about the Gaza strip rather than answer your question.

I would guess that the majority of Guardian hacks, like the majority of people in Britain, do not have strong views about the tragi-squalid regional conflict between Israel and Palestinians beyond wishing it would end.

bill

“Yes, I imagine the hacks on the sports desk talk of little else other than the evils of Zionism”

Then please explain why the Guardian disproportionately focuses on the I/P conflict when compared to other conflicts in the world (and there are many others far far worse) and also please explain why the Guardian gives disproportionate editorial space to known antizionists and antisemites. Oh and why we’re at it, of the thousands upon thousands of plays out there, why the heck did the Guardian produce an audio-visual version of Caryl Churchill’s virulently antisemitic play “Seven Jewish Children”?

‘Can you honestly see the Guardian running regular articles to counter its blood and bone hatred of Israel, much less to refute some of the biased rubbish it prints about her, even in the interests of balance and ethical journalism?’

I assume you didn’t see my 12 part series in 2003/4, an example here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/feb/03/israel

Maglan, I do not know why the Guardian takes the editorial decisions it takes. I do know that the Middle East features disproportionately in online political discourse (as do the cranks and obsessives the issue attracts). That the Guardian chooses to indulge those with a particular interest in the issue is a pity but there you go. It’s taken a stance on the issue and you can either agree with it

But the fantasy some of you seem to indulge in that *everything* the Guardian does is seen through the prism of this one regional conflict is absurd, and says far more about the world view of those making the accusation than it does about the newspaper.

Look, I agree that the Guardian gives far too much space to some anti-Israel nutters. But I object to them because they are tedious cranks with a pernicious influence. The only thing worse would be to balance it out with some equally bigoted and tiresome pro-Israeli writers.

The paper also gives far too much space to Zoe Williams and Polly Toynbee. These are bad editorial decisions, really, nothing more.

Companies which manufactured gas and crematoria for the SS tried to defend themselves by pointing out they also made diapers or other “humanitarian” items.

Similarly, the Guardian’s occasional conscience with respect to Muslim civil liberties in no way excuses its vicious approach to Jewish self-determination and to Jews and Israelis generally, for in those matters the Guardian is simply a slicker version of Drumont’s France juive, Ford’s Dearborn Independent, and Streicher’s Stürmer.

Its obsessive hyper-scrutiny of the Jewish state, combined with its obsessive criticism of unassimilated Jewish communities in the UK and Europe, place it in the same moral cesspool as historically eliminationist, anti-Semitic and Nazi rags.

The Guardian should be boycotted by all people of good conscience and prosecuted for its anti-Semitism.

Linda Grant

I assume you didn’t see my 12 part series in 2003/4, an example here.

Linda. Do you seriously deny that The Guardian, CI(F), its management and all, are not obsessive about Israel.?

It is true that there are some pro Israel articles but just look at the articles from Milne, Ben White, Baram …. All virulent Israel haters. And Georgina………

The following question was posed:
‘‘Can you honestly see the Guardian running regular articles to counter its blood and bone hatred of Israel, much less to refute some of the biased rubbish it prints about her, even in the interests of balance and ethical journalism?’’

The facts refute it.

Knowing various people on the Guardian, including management and the current editor of CIF, no I don’t find them ‘obsessive about Israel.’

And by the way, knowing Daphna Baram quite well, I can assure you is not a ‘vurulent Israel hater’. She does not even call herself an anti-Zionist.

Bill

I appreciate your acknowledgement that the Guardian gives too much space to “anti-Israel nutters” and I’m not suggesting that to balance this out you present radical Israel positions (not that you can even begin to morally equivocate the two). There is an institutional problem however about the Guardian’s obsession and this no paranoia as I do not say this about any other mainstream news outlet. Philosemite hit the nail on the head in what he said. There is simply no place for this kind of discourse in the mainstream press.

re “blood and bone hatred” of The Guardian for Israel.

What utter bollocks.

and when people say things like this

The Guardian should be boycotted by all people of good conscience and prosecuted for its anti-Semitism.

I think, fuck it, I should put aside my own qualms about it (or at any rate my disagreements, in some cases fairly serious, even existential) with some or even many aspects of the publication, and be sure to buy multiple copies of it religiously every day, purely to spite the lying bigots who talk about a liberal newspaper in such a way. And I am no liberal.

Linda:

Daphna Baram is an out and out antisemite (and yes I know she is an Israeli Jew). She can think what she likes about herself but when she calls Israel an apartheid and racist state and supports the one-state solution as she has done so in the past, the denial of the Jewish right of self determination is antisemitic. Doesn’t look like you know her all that well or that you don’t have a problem with her antisemitic views. Daphna Baram is typical of the Sturmer like garbage that the Guardian loves to print.

Well, I’ve called an out and out anti-semite myself, my favourite ’someone who loathes Israel with all her heart and soul’ but I don’t take it very seriously and neither I suppose will she.

Linda:

It seems Daphna is in good company then eh.

By the way I’m sure the likes of David Irving say exactly what you do.

Really? David Irving says holocaust deniers should be locked up?

Linda:

I guess you proved my point.

“Its obsessive hyper-scrutiny of the Jewish state, combined with its obsessive criticism of unassimilated Jewish communities in the UK and Europe, place it in the same moral cesspool as historically eliminationist, anti-Semitic and Nazi rags.

The Guardian should be boycotted by all people of good conscience and prosecuted for its anti-Semitism.”

Wow! Is it just the weather doing weird things to people, or has HP really gone this bathsit?

erm, batshit

Wow! Is it just the weather doing weird things to people, or has HP really gone this bathsit?

I think some of the commenters here, most notably maglan, could use a good, long bathsit.

Gene

Are you really denying the obsessive nature of the Guardian’s focus on the I/P conflict and the regular publishing of articles that deny Jewish self-determination as well as other anti-Jewish articles?

Are you not bothered by the fact that the Guardian went out of its way to produce an audio-visual production of Caryl Churchill’s play?

‘Fraid not, Linda, that was when I was neck deep in my studies and rarely read the Guardian or anything other than textbooks.

Maybe you should take it to heart, Linda.

No problem serendipity, but perhaps best to do a little research before making such statements.

Perhaps, but you know what, having looked too often at CiF I just can’t be bothered. I reason that any newspaper that could lend its name to such hate-filled filth isn’t worth the effort. Sorry if that offends but I wouldn’t use the Guardian even to wipe my feet on now. My local free newspaper has more absorbency.

Sigh, what was a thread about the Guardian doing articles about Iran and those being killed and detained there, quickly turned into a brawl over the Guardian’s generally anti-Israeli coverage. Guess this shows where the priorities of most poster at HP really are.

David All

Actually it shows that we care very deeply that the vanguard newspaper of the left has become a platform for hate-speech and that being left wing does not have to be synonymous with the kind of hate that you expect of the far-right. I think that it would say very much more about us if we passively accepted such discourse.

It is a worthy subject and the Guardian has done a great job in covering the Iran story. Still their editorial line is betrayed and soiled upon by elements of the writer staff fully in bed with Irans terrorist regime and merely re-stating their propaganda. Milne is again an example of this as are a few Iranian writers who seem to spread the idea that the revolt is futile and unpopular.

The OIC just came out standing behind Irans regime and denouncing any condemnation of the election farce.
This same OIC wanted the world to believe that they had a human rights agenda and wanted to impose their pythonesque version of the Declaration of Human rights on the world.

Now in light of their open stance on Iran backing women beaters, murderers and torturers of Muslims should have been better explored and exposed by the Guardian as well as the deafening silence from the Left when it comes to British / Western Muslim groups and women s groups.
I am not holding my breath if they will go the extra yard (not even mile) and expose this hypocrisy given that these same groups are lent credibility on the regular when the Guardian discusses Israel issues or various issues revolving around Muslims living in the West or the UK.

armaros

Apart from Seamas Milne can you name any other ‘elements of the writer staff fully in bed with Irans terrorist regime’. The Guardian has produced a grand total of one pro-regime piece by its staff journalists and some apologists on CIF swiftly countered by opponents. I find the CiF stuff quite interesting as it revealed the debates and fault-lines amongst Iranians themselves. For two weeks the Guardian published on line a daily live blog updated throughout the day, which made no bones about where it stood in its opposition to the regime.

Regarding the ‘deafeaning silence from the left’ – the left is split on Iran, with the Galloway faction marginalised by far greater opposition from the left and women’s groups.

Serendipity – fair enough that you don’t read the Guardian. On the hand that doesn’t put you in a position to make statements about what it does and doesn’t publish, so best to give that one rest.

Linda Grant. If it really is you, I do admire you posting using your real name.

Please do not think that I am being sarcastic or humorous.