This is a guest post by AKUS
WellofSense’s article Georgina and Matt; a reality check has really got me thinking about the inner workings at the Guardian.
The changes at CiF certainly are interesting, and may indeed be due to the economic situation and its impact on advertising revenue. That is not trivial, and around the world newspapers are struggling to exist.
However, it seems to me that the growing drumbeat of opposition to the Guardian’s bias across the blogosphere, the Guardian’s chosen battlefield for its attacks on Israel and British Jewry, the revelations about internal issues such as the BellaM affair, and the focus on collecting and exposing the antisemitism and fallacies (lies) about Israel and Jews that have been the meat and potatoes of the site, “Comment is Free”, that CiF Watch in particular has focused on, have had a significant effect
The “hard news” crowd, worried about the sales of the print version, may have been less focused on what was appearing in the blog as long as ad revenues grew. If there has been a decline, it may have forced those on the more traditional side to take note of the activities of Henry, Seaton and Whitaker, who have been running a propaganda campaign for a Stalinst/Trotskyite/radical Islam alliance through their control of content on CiF. Advertisers may be taking note that this does not accord with the goals they have for their advertising, nor is the collection of antisemites, weirdos, conspiracy freaks, jihadists and would-be jihadis and assorted nutcases attracted to CiF likely to be their target market.
Serious commentators condemning CiF daily like Robin Shepherd or Yaakov Lozowick cannot be lightly dismissed, and the Guardian may hate and ridicule Melanie Phillips but she has a very large readership and her reporting has done much to undermine the Guardian’s reputation. Just as an example of the difference in reach, her book “Londonistan” has been published world wide with considerably more success than other books put out by its stable of Theobald Jews and antisemites that the Guardian has relentlessly tried to promote to its readership. I have seen it in stores across America and Canada, and have yet to see one of the Guardian’s favorite sons’ “works” show up.
Like many others, I stumbled across the Guardian’s website and its CiF Israeli obsession while looking for some of the old reporting we used to read with interest, even admiration, and could hardly believe what I was reading. It was like looking onto a topsy-turvey universe, where up is down, black is white, and a determined attempt was being made to describe Israelis in particular and Jews in general in terms that Goebbels would not have hesitated to use while every Moslem atrocity was ignored, brushed aside, or blamed on the victims.
Thus in terms of We can afford to be choosy by Douglas Murray, he hits the nail on the head with this paragraph:
I think we can do – indeed we have to do – better than this. Let me give an example. Those of us who are friendly towards the Israeli state often notice that in Britain at any rate there is a form of anti-Israeli-ism somewhat distinct from the more rabid recent varieties. It tends to be held by British people of the older generation who will tell you that the Israeli state was founded on terrorism. They cite the acts of such groups as the Irgun and Stern gangs.
Those who watched the video of the antisemitic sad sack screaming at the camera outside the caroling hate-fest in Bloomsbury the other night will recognise the reference. In the same vein, I stumbled across a recording of the vile Gerald Kaufman speaking in parliament, claiming to have been best buddies with Ben Gurion, Golda, Abba Eban – you name a significant Israeli or Jewish leader , he was their friend – and in his horrendous English pronunciation of Hebrew, mouthing the names of the Stern gang and the Irgun as if it happened yesterday, while invoking the death of his grandmother in the Holocaust to claim that Israelis are the same as Nazis. A trope picked up and endlessly repeated by Seth Freedman until finally, through this site, I was able to publish the collection of his puerile but vile Nazi analogies. The Guardian, never shy about publishing them in his articles, relentlessly deleted the list every time I published it on CiF.
The institutionalization of this kind of hatred – what I think of as the “brainwashing of Britain” – is, I think, unequalled even among the other EU countries. Its extraordinary effectiveness is how it has been accepted by many of the very people who will one day be its victims – the 300,000 or so Jews in Britain, with a few brave and notable exceptions such as Jonathan Hoffman. Never since WWII have so few been so attacked by so many for so little reason.
The Guardian has made it its business to be the standard bearer for this attack on Israel and British Jews, through its support of radical Islam, reports such as the Dispatches program, the Carol Churchill play, its disgusting antisemitic cartoons, and the protection it gives to those who relentlessly attack Israel and the defence of those who call for Israel’s destruction in the columns it publishes and the comments it retains on its website – a destruction of the State of Israel which actually means the deaths of some 6 million Jews, once again.
It is a shocking story, and may yet result in people one day mentioning the Guardian and Der Sturmer in the same breath.