No Room for Pro-Israel Views at The Guardian

I would say that The Guardian is the UK newspaper most hostile to the Jewish State, but there’s always The Independent. I would say that The Independent is the UK newspaper most hostile to the Jewish Stare, but there’s always that Al Qaeda magazine that the faithful pass around the mosque while waiting for the latest Jihadi sermon about the battle to liberate Afghanistan, Syria and Spain.

But even hostile media outlets like to maintain the illusion of a dialogue by allowing occasional editorials, letters to the editor and comments from the opposing side, before swamping it with the full weight and might of its official voices.

But Comment isn’t Free at The Guardian. Far from it.

The British newspaper The Guardian has banned Adam Levick, the managing editor, of the pro-Israel media watchdog, CiFWatch, from its website, deleting all prior comments on Guardian articles and disabling his ability to contribute opinion pieces to the site and further comments.

The CiFWatch monitors the Guardian’s coverage of Israel and is affiliated with the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. “CiF” stands for “Comment is Free” the opinion section of the Guardian where anti-Israel articles often appear.

In a posting on the CiFWatch website, Levick said that he had been a contributor to the Comment is Free section of the Guardian’s website for years and that his user account, and all prior comments on Guardian articles – many of which pointed out anti-Israel bias –  was terminated without any explanation.

Levick’s work at CiFWatch has led in the past to corrections of many Guardian articles.

It was inevitable that the Guardian would move in to quash dissent. Left-wing orthodoxies are not terribly fond of criticism. They tend to respond to it with firings and firing squads. And bigots are even less fond of being critiqued by the very people they hate on a racial and religious level.

Jewish Chronicle by its deputy editor, Jenni Frazer, appeared to capture the feelings of many Jews and mainstream UK Jewish communal bodies towards the Guardian. She wrote: “…I cannot count the number of complaints we have had from readers who do not understand the Guardian’s obsession with Jews and Israel, the poisonous letters or op-eds it publishes.”

What’s not to understand? The Guardian today is what Der Sturmer once was.

CiFWatch does excellent work and if you live in the UK and are a supporter of Israel, it is definitely a site worth visiting. Here on this side of The Atlantic, we have Huffington Post Watch, which covers the US media outlet that is most hostile to the Jewish State, not counting all the other ones.

  • Gb-95

    Wow..this author seems to me to be nothing short of a bigot full pf jatred for all Muslims
    Tbh i couldnt read past the rant about jihadi talks in a Mosque. It just goes to show how racist the author is to generalise over 1 billion people in such a statement. I just thank God the right wing people on this planet are a dying breed, we need to get rid of such views for there to ever b peace.

    • JacksonPearson

      You're full of camel sh*t. The thread's author has it right. The Guardian and apparently you have it wrong. FYI: http://i19.tinypic.com/4ztcv9z.jpg

    • Mary Sue

      You're an ignoramus who doesn't know a damn thing. You should actually see youtube videos of what goes on in a Mosque.

      BTW, idiot, Islam is NOT a "race" so it cannot be racism. Get your Democrat Talking Points straight! And stop drinking their koolaid.

      So, are you telling us it's OK to be bigoted against Jews, then? Huh?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Wow..this author seems to me to be nothing short of a bigot full pf jatred for all Muslims
      Tbh i couldnt read past the rant about jihadi talks in a Mosque."

      It's legitimate hatred of Islam. How do you justify hatred of Israel or Jews? You must lie to even try to build a case. We don't need to lie.

      Can you discern any difference?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "It just goes to show how racist the author is to generalise over 1 billion people in such a statement."

      Which racial theory do you refer to? You introduced racism. We were talking about lying bigotry against Israel and Jews, then you drew false parallels with legitimate hatred of a totalitarian ideology that wants to control the world and is based on lies about objective facts in history.

      You're not very well informed here. But you've got the impulsive reactions of an indoctrinated dupe of the left. That's not good for us, but it's much worse for you.

      "I just thank God the right wing people on this planet are a dying breed, we need to get rid of such views for there to ever b peace."

      Now you really make me laugh. Which god did you thank? Your god will get rid of the Islam-o-phobes AKA "right wing" and THEN peace will reign. Yes, of course. You must be living on your (radical leftist) campus and not allowed to leave la-la land for any dose of reality whatsoever.

  • Richard Wicks

    I've seen you personally censor anything that is critical of Israel. This is just tiresome hypocrisy.

    • Mary Sue

      They delete vicious lies, though I don't agree with deleting such but rather rebutting it.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "I've seen you personally censor anything that is critical of Israel."

      They allow many lies to sit here to rebut. Many of the lies that remain are pretty foul. What they do delete, I can't imagine. On the other hand, many delusional idiots imagine that when their language is offensive that the administrator has an agenda. The admins don't work for FPM. They've deleted a lot of my things and very inconsistently. Some people are allowed to use "idi ot" but my account is flagged to delete posts that have the word spelled correctly. You can't figure out the rules and then you constructed a conspiracy theory based on your ignorance.

      • Mary Sue

        I've seen some of the stuff that got deleted before it was deleted, so I have a pretty good idea of what it is they're deleting.

  • Mary Sue

    Ugh the Guardian has a bunch of idiots running it. And I guess the readership they're focused on (because DUH, it's the Guardian) is the antisemitic Left (including the muslim immigrants).

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "I guess the readership they're focused on (because DUH, it's the Guardian) is the antisemitic Left (including the muslim immigrants)."

      I think you're totally correct. Loyalty to any moral cause is passe when you need to keep your business running. Once you cross the line, the true believers flock to your side and now it's a cesspool of leftist tyrants and jihadis.

  • Ghostwriter

    At least the Israelis are screaming for the deaths of Americans. The Palestinians do that every single day. The "Guardian" seems to be interesting in protecting Palestinians,not Israelis or Americans.

    • Ghostwriter

      I meant in the above thing,"aren't"

  • Mike Yohe

    Not surprised.
    I have been band from most Israeli sites myself.
    Reason is;
    I believe that Israel should allow UN Peacekeeper in.
    I believe that Israel is stealing West Bank land.
    I believe Israel should be taken to the ICC.
    I believe Israel is doing terrorist acts.
    I believe Israel is wrong in going to other countries and murdering its citizens.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "I believe that Israel should allow UN Peacekeeper in.
      I believe that Israel is stealing West Bank land.
      I believe Israel should be taken to the ICC.
      I believe Israel is doing terrorist acts.
      I believe Israel is wrong in going to other countries and murdering its citizens."

      At least you realize it's only delusion.

    • Mary Sue

      ……..

      Israel is going into other countries and murdering its citizens? MURDERING? Where are you getting this?

      • Benjamin Buerk

        Mary Sue, I fear that you are either seriously deluded or tragically narrow-minded. So many Israelis believe that they are the defenders of free speech when they stifle opinions that do not concur with their own.

        Daniel Greenfield's "article" is a disgrace and so deeply riven with rabble-rousing claptrap that he has embarrassed the term 'journalism'.

        The Guardian is, if anything, editing out a considerable proportion of comments from readers which are openly critical of Israeli policy, whilst their reporting position is infuriatingly neutral.

  • Raymond in DC

    The Guardian has been on this trajectory for at least the past 30 years. When I was studying International Politics back in the 1970s I read The (Manchester) Guardian regularly. But by the early 1980s I detected a growing hostility toward Israel that became undeniable during the Lebanon War of 1982. Even the political cartoons showed a viciousness toward Israel that called to mind German propagandists. (I didn't then appreciate that such stuff was daily fare in the Arab press.) I wrote a couple of Letters challenging their reporting and opinion pieces; neither was published. I dropped the Guardian and never went back.