Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian.
Meanwhile, the Guardian continues to be secretly Zionist.
David Cronin, at Electronic Intifada, has written: How The Guardian Told Me to Steer Clear of Palestine.
“Early that year, I submitted an exposé of how the pro-Israel lobby operates in Brussels.”
The Guardian did not want the story.
The Guardian did publish a diatribe by Daniel Taub, Israel’s ambassador to the UK.
“The Comment is Free section of The Guardian, where Taub’s nasty rant appears, is now overseen by Jonathan Freedland, a liberal Zionist…
“Taub’s article was the second one published by The Guardian in as many months from a senior Israeli political or diplomatic figure.
“In February, the paper gave Yair Lapid, until recently Israel’s finance minister, a platformto describe calls for a cultural boycott of Israel as ‘shallow and lacking in coherence’…
“While Israel was bombing Gaza last August, it ran a leader accusing London’s Tricycle Theatre of making a ‘bad error of judgment’ in refusing to host a film festival sponsored by Israel…
“Freedland has tried to justify how ‘400 Palestinian villages’ were ’emptied’ by Zionist forces in 1948 on the grounds that ‘the creation of a Jewish state was a moral necessity’…
“Freedland has been tipped as a contender for The Guardian’s editor-in-chief, a post that issoon to be vacant.”
Most of the top journalists are now either Jews or crypto-Jews or Friends of Israel.
And most of the leaders of the Moslem world seem to be part of the Kosher Nostra as well.
Gottlieb-Jews Praying in the Synagogue on Yom Kippur
The Manchester Guardian was founded in Manchester in 1821 by a group of non-conformist businessmen.
The Manchester Guardian used to be seen as a left-leaning, Liberal newspaper.
The Guardian, as it is now called, has a large number of Jewish folks on its staff.
Manchester has a large Jewish population.
According to an article from the Centre for Jewish Studies, University of Manchester:
“The work of the Zionists in Manchester was greatly aided by the support, advice and encouragement of the staff of the well regarded national newspaper, the Manchester Guardian.” (see below)
The Guardian appears to have become a vehicle for subtle pro-establishment propaganda.
“I write for the Guardian,” said Sir Max Hastings
“because it is read by the new establishment.”
Let’s look at some of the contents of the the Guardian website on the morning of 26 August 2008.
1. The lead story on the Guardian website is Britain’s secret propaganda war against al-Qaida.
The writer, Alan Travis, tells us about a UK government unit called the Research, Information and Communication unit, or RICU.
Reportedly RICU is supplying propaganda to the BBC and other parts of the media.
This sounds like good, radical stuff.
Reportedly, this RICU has the job of criticising al Qaeda and trying to make it look bad.
According to The Guardian, a RICU dossier says that al-Qaida has been definitively expelled from large areas of Iraq and has lost ground in Afghanistan.
Now, what is missing from this Guardian news story?
We are not told that al Qaeda has been linked to the CIA and its friends.
We are not told that, reportedly, the CIA has used al Qaeda to carry out its dirty work.
We are not told that the forces opposing the US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are mainly freedom-fighters; they are not al Qaeda.
So, the purpose of this Guardian story might appear to be disinformation.
2. Another lead story is entitled: Russian vote sets up clash with west
You may remember that Russia has allowed a large number of countries, such as Austria, Finland and the Czech Republic, to become independent.
Now Russian MPs have voted unanimously to back independence for Georgia’s two breakaway republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
However, the Guardian story appears to promote the NATO view that the Russians are the bad guys when it comes to South Ossetia.
According to The Guardian news story: “Russia was last night on another collision course with the west…
“The Duma passed the… motion by 447-0. Both houses are known for their slavish loyalty to the Kremlin…
“Russia is facing another chastening reprimand, this time from the financial markets.”
Photo of C P Scott, former editor of the Manchester Guardian and friend of the Zionists, from www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JscottCP.htm
3. The Guardian website gives prominence to a right-wing feature article by Tim Montgomerie entitled ‘The kind of cop we need.’
“During the Clinton years very little was done to combat the spread of militant Islam. Al-Qaida’s planning for the 9/11 attacks … began when the ever so reasonable Clinton was still in office.
“Europeans may want someone like themselves in the White House, but difficult times call for a president willing to eschew short-term popularity and pursue long-term respect.”
Montgomerie fails to tell us that it was the CIA, reportedly, which promoted militant Islam.
Montgomerie seems to want another tough right-wing leader to be appointed president.
4. The Guardian has a LOT of Jewish writers. Often they are writing about their Jewish friends
In the 26 August Guardian we read: “Israeli actor Igal Naor mesmerised critics and viewers as the Iraqi ruler in the BBC series House of Saddam. He tells Rachel Shabi why he came to ….”
‘I am Saddam and he is me’
5. From an article entitled CP Scott and the Manchester Guardian ( produced by the Centre for Jewish Studies, University of Manchester ) we learn:
“The work of the Zionists in Manchester was greatly aided by the support, advice and encouragement of the staff of the well regarded national newspaper, the Manchester Guardian.”
A. Harry Sacher worked at The Guardian from 1905.
Through Sacher, Chaim Weizmann, President of the World Zionist Organization, met the journalist Herbert Sidebotham, a non-Jewish Imperialist.
Sidebotham believed that ‘the interests of the Zionists coincided with those of the British Empire’.
B. C P Scott was the editor of the Manchester Guardian from 1872-1929.
Scott was won over by Weizmann.
Scott was able to introduce Weizmann to Lloyd George, Lord Balfour, Herbert Samuel, and other leading members of the government.
Scott leaked to Weizmann details of the Sykes-Picot agreement (secret Anglo-French negotiations on how to divide up the Ottoman Empire, including Palestine, after the War).
C. A later Guardian editor, WP Crozier, also supported Zionism.
D. The historian Lewis Namier ‘maintained the strong links between the Manchester Zionists and the Guardian’.
When I started out as a journalist in the 1980s, I asked an experienced Irish reporter for advice. “Read The Guardian,” he told me.
The message that there was no better newspaper had a lasting effect. For years, I wanted to write for The Guardian. Eventually, this desire was realized after I emailed the lateGeorgina Henry, then editor of its Comment is Free section, in 2007. Henry was immediately receptive to my idea of tackling the European Union from a critical, left-wing perspective.
I very much enjoyed contributing to The Guardian. Having previously worked for quite a stuffy publication, it felt liberating to be able to express opinions.
There was one issue, however, on which I felt my freedom curtailed: Palestine. AlthoughThe Guardian did publish a few of my articles denouncing Israeli atrocities, I began to encounter obstacles in 2009.
Early that year, I submitted an exposé of how the pro-Israel lobby operates inBrussels. While waiting to find out if the piece would be used, I phoned Matt Seaton,who had taken over as comment editor. We had a pleasant conversation but Seaton stressed that he regarded the subject as sensitive.
I, then, modified the piece to make its tone less polemical. Still, it was not published. (Seaton has subsequently moved to The New York Times.)
A few months later, I paid a visit to Gaza. From there, I contacted The Guardian to say that I had interviewed Sayed Abu Musameh, a founding member of Hamas.
Abu Musameh had expressed an interest in visiting Belfast to study how the Irish peace process worked. He had already held discussions with Gerry Adams, the Sinn Féinleader who had persuaded the Irish Republican Army to call a ceasefire.
Abu Musameh, I felt, was saying something that jarred with the official view of Hamas presented by Israel and its Western supporters. Far from being addicted to violence, he was eager to learn about what policy wonks call “conflict resolution.”
The Guardian was not keen to have me writing from Gaza. Brian Whitaker, a commissioning editor at the time, told me that its comment section received more submissions about Palestine than any other subject. Whitaker, ironically a Middle East specialist, effectively recommended that I stick to writing about the EU. (The recommendation was bizarre both because Palestine is a key issue for the EU and because I am one of the few journalists to examine the Union’s complicity in Israel’s crimes.)
I have decided to make my frustrating encounters with The Guardian public after reading the diatribe it published last week by Daniel Taub, Israel’s ambassador to the UK. Taub uses a quotation attributed to Golda Meir, Israel’s prime minister from 1969 to 1974, to hit back at aid agencies who accuse Israel of impeding Gaza’s reconstruction: “We will only have peace when our enemies love their children more than they hate ours.”
The inference that Palestinians hate Israelis more than they love their children is a racist caricature brilliantly demolished by Rafeef Ziadah in her poem “We teach life, Sir.” Yet, according to Taub, Meir’s words represent a “bitter truism.”
The Comment is Free section of The Guardian, where Taub’s nasty rant appears, is nowoverseen by Jonathan Freedland, a liberal Zionist. I contacted Freedland to enquire if he approved Taub’s article for publication.
Freedland referred my message to the paper’s “media enquiries” unit. A spokesperson, who did not give his or her name, replied by email that Comment is Free “hosts hundreds of discussions every month on a wide range of topics across the entire political and ideological spectrum.”
“We receive a huge amount of submissions for articles and aim to publish a plurality of voices from all over the world,” the spokesperson added. “Naturally, not all of these voices reflect The Guardian’s own editorial position.”
Apologist for ethnic cleansing
I am not in the least reassured by that response. Taub’s article was the second one published by The Guardian in as many months from a senior Israeli political or diplomatic figure. In February, the paper gave Yair Lapid, until recently Israel’s finance minister, a platform to describe calls for a cultural boycott of Israel as “shallow and lacking in coherence.”
Lapid’s view chimes with The Guardian’s “own editorial position,” to quote its anonymous spokesperson. While Israel was bombing Gaza last August, it ran a leader accusing London’s Tricycle Theatre of making a “bad error of judgment” in refusing to host a film festival sponsored by Israel.
As Ben White demonstrated in a trenchant 2014 analysis for Middle East Monitor, Jonathan Freedland is an apologist for ethnic cleansing. Freedland has tried to justify how “400 [Palestinian] villages” were “emptied” by Zionist forces in 1948 on the grounds that “the creation of a Jewish state was a moral necessity.”
If Freedland is prepared to defend Zionist war crimes, I guess it is not surprising that he is reserving space for naked Israeli propaganda in The Guardian’s comment section. While it is difficult to imagine that this bastion of liberalism would welcome openly racist submissions from far-right organizations like the British National Party or English Defence League, it is somehow acceptable for an Israeli diplomat to peddle bigotry against Palestinians.
Freedland has been tipped as a contender for The Guardian’s editor-in-chief, a post that is soon to be vacant.
In a perverse way, it might be a good thing if he gets the job. With Freedland at the helm, it would be easier to show how a supposedly progressive newspaper is in thrall to the toxic ideology of Zionism.
Do not be deceived. The murdered innocents of Gaza are not those who are really suffering. It is the liberal Jews like Hadley Freeman, victims of the new anti-Semitism.
Israel is a state openly founded on racist and theocratic grounds, in which Jews have an absolute right to live in Israel, wherever in the world they were born and their families have been for centuries, and nobody else does. The unfortunate pre-1946 occupants of the land have been mostly driven out into refugee camps, including in Gaza, while religiously motivated settlers continue apace to grab the best Palestinian land and water. The state does this for them precisely and explicity because they are Jewish. Those non-Jews who remained in Israel proper are subject to a whole raft of apartheid style legislation, even governing whom they may marry, and the quantity of this legislation is increasing. 140 Israeli laws specify treatment by race.
Israel is as a state entirely based and run on a racist premise. Its very foundation is racist. But while the Israeli state may steal land specifically for Jews, make provision for Jews, and make life difficult for non-Jews, anybody else who mentions Jews in the context of Israeli behaviour is a vicious racist and anti-Semite. This warped and ludicrous logic is enforced by political orthodoxy and the mainstream media.
It is as though, in opposing apartheid, it was taboo to mention it had been invented for the benefit of white people.
Reading Freeman’s long self-pitying self-centred whinge I was waiting to find out what had actually happened to her to occasion some distress. Had she had a brick through her window? Had she been assaulted in the street? Has somebody hurled racial abuse at her?
Apparently none of the above. It appears that she feels under unfair pressure to denounce the actions of Israel. And- horror of horrors – the Tricycle Theatre has cancelled a Jewish Film Festival in Kilburn because it was financed by the Israeli Embassy. Oh no, the agony! How can a poor girl survive in a North London which is so rife with anti-Semitism! It reminded me forcefully of the very first diplomatic social engagement of my professional career, in 1985 when our Afrikaaner hostess held forth on how she thought people looked down on her in Harrods.
I deplore racism with every part of my being, all racism. Freeman makes what is intended to be a smart observation that the Tricycle’s act “reminds me how very far I am from the States”. It is very plain that she regrets that and believes that the US attitude to Israel is better than the British one.
This then morphs into the meme that the reaction to the Gaza massacre is part of a wave of the “new anti-Semitism”. There have indeed been several deplorable anti-Semitic incidents in Europe in the last few months. But they have killed absolutely nobody in the last two years, while Israel has killed 1,500 people. There have been three terrible examples of racial murders of Jews in the past eight years, and there needs to be continued and unremitting vigilance against all hate crime. The disruption of Hadley’s cinema treats and the daubing of paint on a synagogue are in themselves bad things. But do they really compare to the massive disproportionate force being used to destroy over 1,000 women and children in a month in Gaza, and the context of the entire seventy year programme of ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Palestinian people?
You are right, Hadley. Just because you are Jewish does not mean you should be under special pressure to condemn Israel’s actions. But if you take it upon yourself to write a long article on the subject, we are entitled to expect you – as a human being – to condemn the massacre. And as in the article you write about nothing but your own angst and the evils of anti-Semitism, and manage not a single word of sympathy or regret for the victims of the terrible massacre in Gaza, we are entitled to form our own opinion.
And my opinion is that you are a wholly self-centred and self-regarding little person with an abject lack of moral perspective, who seems to think the murder of 1500 people is about the impact on your feelings.
Hadley, you are not disgusting because you are Jewish: you are just a disgusting human being.
Rusbridger’s Guardian has become an unrepentant unionist, zionist, and neo-con New Labour propaganda vehicle. Particularly deceitful is their attitude to the security services and the “war on terror”, where Rusbridger stands revealed as a handmaiden to power. He was, a very senior Guardian source told me, particularly upset when I described him as “Tony Blair’s catamite”. Let me say it again.
Let me give you a specific case to illustrate my point.
On 2 August the Guardian published a piece by Jamie Doward and Ian Cobain which, on the face of it, exposed the British Foreign Office for lobbying against the publication of the US Senate report on extraordinary rendition, lest details of British complicity become public.
On the face of it, a worthy piece of journalism exposing deeply shady government behaviour.
Except that I had published precisely the same story a full 15 weeks earlier, on April 14 2014, having been urgently contacted by a whistleblower.
What is more, immediately I heard from the whistleblower I made several urgent phone calls to Ian Cobain. He neither took nor returned my calls. I therefore left detailed messages, referring to the story which I had now published on my website.
In fact, the Guardian only published this story after William Hague had written to Reprieve to confirm that this lobbying had happened. In other words the Guardian published only after disclosure had been authorised by Government.
Furthermore, in publishing the government authorised story, the Guardian omitted the absolutely key point – that the purpose of the UK lobbying was to affect court cases under way and in prospect in the UK. Both in civil cases of compensation for victims, and in potential criminal cases for complicity in torture against Blair, Straw et al, British judges have (disgracefully) accepted the argument that evidence of the torture cannot be used because the American do not want it revealed, and may curtail future intelligence sharing. Obviously, if the Americans publish the material themselves, this defence falls.
As this defence is the major factor keeping Blair, Straw and numerous still senior civil servants out of the dock, this sparked the crucial British lobbying to suppress the Feinstein report – which has indeed succeeded in causing a huge amount of redaction by the White House.
My mole was absolutely adamant this was what was happening, and it is what I published. Yet Cobain in publishing the government authorised version does not refer to the impact on trials at all – despite the fact that this was 100% the subject of the letter from Reprieve to which Hague was replying, and that the letter from Reprieve mentioned me and my blog by name.
Instead of giving the true story, the government authorised version published by Cobain misdirects the entire subject towards Diego Garcia. The truth is that Diego Garcia is pretty incidental in the whole rendition story. On UK soil there was actually a great deal more done at Wick airport (yes, I do mean Wick, not Prestwick). That is something the government is still keeping tight closed, so don’t expect a mention from Cobain.
I was fooled by Cobain for a long time. What I now realise is that his role is to codify and render safe information which had already leaked. He packages it and sends it off in a useless direction – away from Blair and Straw in this instance. He rigorously excludes material which is too hot for the establishment to handle. The great trick is, that the Guardian persuades its loyal readers that it is keeping tabs on the security services when in fact it is sweeping up after them.
Which is a precise description of why the Guardian fell out with Assange and WikiLeaks.
I suppose I should expect no better of the newspaper which happily sent the extremely noble Sara Tisdall to prison, but we should have learnt a lot from Rusbridger’s agreement with the security services to smash the Snowden hard drives. The Guardian argues that other copies of the drives existed. That is scarcely the point. Would you participate in a book-burning because other copies of books exist? The Guardian never stands up to the security services or the establishment. It just wants you to believe that it does.
Not anymore, it isn’t. The readers’ comment censors at Guardian HQ are some of the strictest group-thinkers online. If your thoughts on their pet projects are not in line with the group, down the memory hole they go. Three key topics are especially sensitive: Climate Change (aka AGW until it wasn’t!); Israel’s unimpeachable right to wage war on it’s neighbours; the normalcy of homosexuality; and a few others.
A particular affront to the Guardian’s guardians is to mention that they have an agenda on any of their projects. So without insulting the subject matter (Israelis, climate worriers, or metrosexuals) you immediately fall foul of the Ggs.
In this post, I intend to document my comments and expose the paranoid over-sensitivity of the Ggs.
I noticed today that the online Guardian’s front page has 4 promotions for gayness:
Why this obsession with people’s bedroom activity? And why isn’t there any balance with articles on heterosexuality? The Guardian has an agenda of promoting homosexual behaviour as perfectly normal, whereas in statistical or biological terms it is not the norm.
If you welcome research that says being gay results from genetic inheritance, don’t be surprised when they start offering a ‘cure’