Anti-Israel bias in The Guardian

'Voices from the conflict: Israeli and Palestinian op-eds in The Guardian' is the title of this special report on Just Journalism. It shows how

'The Guardian has consistently published commentary from Palestinians who reject the concept of two states for two peoples, in keeping with an editorial line that questions the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state.'

Just Journalism's summary of their own report can be read here but do read the actual report which is based on a six month study of the comment pieces by Israelis and Palestinians that appeared in The Guardian.

'It is a qualitative and quantitative analysis that documents how The Guardian instinctively promotes the views of those who oppose the very concept of two states for two peoples.'

Here are some extracts for you to ponder on, and whilst doing so you can ask yourselves first if the BBC's output differs that markedly from that of The Guardian and second what this convergence of opinion on the Israeli/Palestinian question says about the left of politics.

'Its findings show that The Guardian repeatedly provided a platform to Palestinians who see the Jewish right to self-determination as either irrelevant or unacceptable. While the few Israelis who offered their opinions are associated with a political left that believes Israel must help facilitate an independent Palestinian state, The Guardian gave preference to those on the other side of the conflict who see Israel’s very existence as an intolerable intrusion. Characteristic of this was the comment pieces by those affiliated with Hamas, which believes that there can be no resolution until Israel is physically destroyed by force.'

'On the third day of its coverage (of the Palestinian Papers) The Guardian offered Osama Hamdan, the head of Hamas’ international relations department, the opportunity to give his verdict on the Palestine papers. Hamdan has justified the exact tactics and aims that have resulted in Hamas being labelled a terrorist organisation, arguing that suicide attacks on civilian buses are acceptable since ‘anyone who comes to live in a war zone is a combatant, regardless of whether he wears a uniform’7, and explaining the ‘final goal of the resistance’:
‘We are making the preparations for a confrontation. This is not because we need
to be prepared for an Israeli act of aggression – after all, aggression is intrinsic to this entity – but because the final goal of the resistance is to wipe this entity off the face of the Earth. This goal necessitates the development of the capabilities of the resistance, until this entity is wiped out.’

'In an illuminating interview18 with islamonline in 2008, Abumarzuq’s gave
detailed responses to a variety of questions. He explained that even if Israel were
to withdraw from the West Bank Hamas would not recognise it as this would
mean ‘giving up our right to the rest of Palestine.’ Abumarzuq further clarified
that this was not a matter of failing to recognise that Israel actually physically
existed; ‘the problem is that it doesn’t have the right to’.'

If you don't have the time to read the whole report, and I think you should find the time, here's the Executive Summary:

' * The Guardian published more op-eds by Palestinians than by Israelis during the first half of 2011, with eleven comment pieces by nine Palestinian contributors in comparison with six by four Israelis
* Three of the Palestinians who contributed op-eds during this period were either members of Hamas or strongly affiliated with it, and have endorsed terrorist attacks
* Four further Palestinians were secular nationalists who also reject Israel’s legitimacy and endorse policies that would turn it into an Arab majority state
* All of the Israelis given op-eds are associated with the left-wing of Israeli politics that supports the concessions needed to create a Palestinian state in order to facilitate two states for two peoples
* The majority of comment pieces by Israeli contributors dealt with the repercussions of the Arab Spring, rather than directly with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict itself.'

The Guardian and the BBC have decided to support the Palestinian cause and if that means helping those who deny Israel's right to exist then the view seems to be 'so be it'. The end of apartheid in South Africa left many on the left with no 'cause' to fight for, no country's embassy to scream insults at or picket and no easy target for boycotts and moralistic attacks. Israel has provided these people with a target and the BBC/Guardian are at the forefront of the new movement.

One might wonder how a supposedly liberal newspaper has become associated so closely with a point of view that is anything but liberal, but that would be to forget the past performance of such 'liberals'. Remember the support for Stalin's Russia and later for anything that was not American.