web analytics
October 30, 2014 / 6 Heshvan, 5775
At a Glance
Blogs
Sponsored Post
Meir Panim with Soldiers 5774 Roundup: Year of Relief and Service for Israel’s Needy

Meir Panim implements programs that serve Israel’s neediest populations with respect and dignity. Meir Panim also coordinated care packages for families in the South during the Gaza War.



Home » Blogs » CIFWatch »

In Reporting Israeli Strike, the Guardian Adopts Arab Narrative

Going forward, Guardian reporters would be well advised to keep their opinions firmly within the confines of the Guardian’s op-ed page.
A US Air Force (USAF) F-15E Strike Eagle aircraft in flight.

A US Air Force (USAF) F-15E Strike Eagle aircraft in flight.
Photo Credit: Wikimedia

Check out the front page of last Monday’s (May 6th, 2013) edition of the Guardian and your hair will be blown back by this scorching headline: “Syria Accuses Israel of Declaring War.” The fact that the Guardian chose to legitimize the Syrian narrative is a relatively minor nuisance in an article that effectively intertwines one nation’s right to self-defense with the looming threat of a wider regional conflict.

The article, written by Julian Borger and Joel Greenberg, does not deny the Israeli version of events leading up to the recent air strikes against military targets around Damascus. Rather, and much more insidiously, the piece draws an incongruous parallel between terrorism’s enablers and the chief regional check against its expansion.

First, the Guardian quotes an Iranian army ground forces commander as saying that, “Iran was ready to train the Syrian army if necessary.” Next, the winds of war are further fanned with this bit of sabre rattling, courtesy of the office of the Egyptian president, Mohamed Morsi, which denounced the attack, declaring it illegal and a threat to “security and stability in the region.” Meanwhile, Nabil Elaraby, chief of the Arab League, appealed to the U.N. Security Council to “move immediately to stop the Israeli aggressions on Syria.”

The Guardian fails to frame the most recent conflagration between Israel and the forces of terrorism with appropriate historical context, therefore distorting coverage enough to publish inaccurate information. Exhibit A: whilst Hizballah is mentioned several times, no space is dedicated to defining what Hizballah is: an extremist Shiite Muslim group that receives financial and political support from Iran and Syria. Borger and Greenberg also neglect to note that the governments of the U.S., Netherlands, Bahrain, France, U.K., Australia and Canada classify Hizballah as a terrorist organization.

Next, the Guardian piece spends a good couple of paragraphs describing the effects of Israel’s unleashed war machine on the average Syrian citizen:

“Mohammed Saeed, another activist who lives in the Damascus suburb of Douma, said: ‘The explosions were so strong that earth shook under us.’  He said the smell of the fire caused by the air raid near Qasioun was detectable kilometers away.”

Heart-wrenching. However, the Guardian simply ignores recent history by not including any background as to what precipitated the Second Lebanon War, which is important if readers are to gain a comprehensive understanding as to the geo-political forces currently at play.

Here’s a dose of inconvenient reality to consider: on July 12th, 2006, the Second Lebanon War began when Hizballah terrorists opened fire with rockets on the Israeli border towns of Zar’it and Shtula, wounding several civilians. This was a diversion for an anti-tank missile attack on two armored Humvees patrolling the Israeli side of the border fence. The purpose of the attack was to capture Israelis who could be used in a prisoner exchange barter.

Under cover of this diversionary shelling, two IDF (Israel Defense Forces) patrol vehicles were ambushed. Three soldiers were killed in this attack, two were hurt and two others – Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev – were taken prisoners.

Following the kidnapping, IDF forces opened a massive attack on Hizballah posts near the border. An armored force entered Lebanese territory seeking to retrieve the abducted soldiers, but a short time later it hit a mine and its four crew members were killed. Attempts to extricate the tank back to Israel ended with another soldier dead.

Shortly after the kidnapping, the Israeli Government unanimously authorized a military operation against Hizballah forces in Lebanon.

Following a 33-day war, Israel agreed to abide by the terms of United Nations’ Security Council resolution 1701 for an armistice between it and Hizballah. The resolution called for “a complete halt of acts of aggression, and especially those committed by Hizballah and the military actions on behalf of Israel.”

Furthermore, Lebanon was asked to implement the already existing resolution 1559 dealing with disarmament of armed militias – first among them being Hizballah.

It is the article’s historical myopia that makes it possible for the Guardian to downplay the moral imperative behind the recent Israeli military strike and to frame the story as a no-win situation pitting one country’s security against larger regional stability.

And Israel’s right as a sovereign nation to defend its citizens is thus neatly nullified.

Fortunately for Israel, it has the United Nations as an ally. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter states the following: 

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of collective or individual self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security…

Good, worthy journalism is based on journalistic objectivity, which has been defined as a “genuine effort to be an honest broker when it comes to news. That means playing it straight without favouring one side when the facts are in dispute, regardless of your own views and preferences.”

When a front page news story about Israel and Hizballah omits both the background and the staggering results of the previous conflict between these two regional players – 4,000 rockets fired upon northern Israeli cities, 164 Israeli citizens (119 soldiers and 45 civilians) killed and hundreds injured – one is compelled to question the qualifications of the journalists on duty to deliver just the facts and allow their readership to draw its own conclusions.

Going forward, Julian Borger and Joel Greenberg would be well advised to keep their opinions firmly within the confines of the Guardian’s op-ed page.

Visit CifWatch.

About the Author: Gidon Ben-Zvi is an accomplished writer who left behind Hollywood starlight for Jerusalem stone. He maintains a blog, Jerusalem State of Mind. As a ‘returning resident’ to Israel, Gidon has vivid memories of playing hooky from Rene Cassin High School while strolling through Ammunition Hill. After serving in an IDF infantry unit for two-and-a-half years, Gidon returned to the United States, where he embarked on a twelve-year run of half-baked careers and wholly misguided educational pursuits.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

One Response to “In Reporting Israeli Strike, the Guardian Adopts Arab Narrative”

  1. Ani Stubbs says:

    It was not shocking, they always attack and blame Jews.

Comments are closed.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Current Top Story
Abbas and the Temple Mount: "It's mine, all mine. No Jews allowed.
Abbas Declares Closure of Al Aqsa Mosque a ‘Declaration of War’
Latest Blogs Stories
YG

Please pray for a complete recovery, רפואה שלימה for Yehuda Yehoshua Ben Rivka Ita Breindel Glick.

12

Obama/Kerry hate Bibi, because he is what they aren’t: smart and was a real soldier in the top unit.

Adolf Hitler and the representative of the Palestinian Arabs, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini, December, 1941.

Palestinian anti-Semitism in 2014 is more extreme and mainstream than German A/S in the 1930s.

Arabs turn their back on the Dome of the Rock to pray towards Mecca, Ramadan 2009

Here are 5 quick facts that prove Jerusalem was NEVER A Muslim Holy City.

For further proof that there’s no justice for Jews in this world, the United Nations Security sic Council is planning to meet about Israel’s building plans. (Reuters) – The U.N. Security Council will hold an emergency meeting this week on recent tensions between Israel and the Palestinians in East Jerusalem due to Israel’s plans to build more […]

When is it a good idea to accept a “draw” and when is it better not to do so?

The AlephBet soup of American Jewish organizations must demand an apology and retraction from the Obama Administration to the Jewish People for this crass and vulgar insult to the leader of the Jewish People.

How bad is it? It is a battle royal tearing at the very heart of the yeshiva world.

Zionism brought Yesha to life, attracting Jews and Arabs to the area.

The “bag tax” is eco-terrorism against the Israeli consumer. Have our MK’s reviewed any studies on its environmental impact, or is it all just touchy-feely?

MS. PSAKI: He asked me if we thought he (molotov-cocktail throwing Arab-US citizen was a terrorist, and I said no.

Abbas’s charge of racism spans the entirety of Israeli society.

Why do people often sabotage their own success ?

The best locations for more housing is Yesha and Jerusalem because of convenience and low land cost

Weeping for the heroism of our soldiers, the miracle of our return home, the endless years of exile

A terror attack and a legitimate policing action are not equal. There’s never an excuse for terror.

More Articles from Gidon Ben-Zvi
A US Air Force (USAF) F-15E Strike Eagle aircraft in flight.

Going forward, Guardian reporters would be well advised to keep their opinions firmly within the confines of the Guardian’s op-ed page.

buddy-holly-glasses

How does a mild mannered CPA from Far Rockaway, Queens grow a set of vocal cords of such power and presence that a once meek and put-upon bean counter is now a vital part of the burgeoning Jerusalem acapella scene? And what causes an environmental lawyer from Marin County to discard all her eco-friendly (or at least carbon neutral) possessions to hop a fume-belching El Al Boeing 747 flight with the goal of thoroughly amending her life’s trajectory? Perhaps it’s the pale-pink light bouncing off the Old City’s ancient walls on a typical Jerusalem summer’s evening that somehow catalyzes a reaction, diffusing all reason and refracting all rational thought.

Late last week former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that Washington must make it clear to Israeli leaders that the U.S. must not permit Israel to harm American interests. Previously, Gates had called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu an “ungrateful ally.” It would be a serious mistake to slough off these most recent statements as the idle rantings of a retired civil servant.

Sadly, it appears that the Israeli foreign policy establishment has given up on convincing the international community as to the essential rightness of the Zionist enterprise. Rather, by attempting to push the issue of Jewish “refugees” from Arab lands to the top of the U.N.’s agenda, Israelis abdicating the moral high ground in favor of sinking into a battle of victimhood narratives with the Palestinians.

UNRWA Gaza chief Robert Turner’s “prescription” for saving Gaza’s Palestinians, set out in an article on the Guardian’s Comment is Free site, is based on a severe case of historical myopia. For it’s the one word that Mr. Turner neglected to use in his anti-Israel screed that is in fact behind Gaza’s rapidly devolving state: Hamas.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/cifwatch/in-reporting-israeli-strike-the-guardian-adopts-arab-narrative/2013/05/12/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: