The only reason why the Guardian hasn’t published op-eds explicitly supporting Palestinian terrorism perpetrated by proscribed groups is because to do so would run afoul of Britain’s anti-terrorism laws. Such laws make it a criminal offence to publish statements that encourage, either intentionally or recklessly, the commission of terrorist acts – including statements which ‘glorify’ acts of terrorism.
By that, we mean: there are likely many editors, journalists and columnists who don’t have a moral problem with pro-terror views. They likely only worry about the legal consequences of such op-eds or editorials.
An example of how such laws impact media outlets in the UK: In 2021, we prompted the British Muslim news site 5 Pillars to retract an op-ed by Abdel Bari-Atwan which praised Hamas’s rocket attacks on Israel as “heroic”, and argued that it’s the duty of “all Muslims and Arabs” to join the terror group’s violent resistance. Editors weren’t concerned over their outlet’s endorsement of terror as an ethical or moral issue, but by our warning that it arguably ran afoul of the law.
However, there are ways to get around such anti-terror laws: using language ambiguous enough that there’s plausible deniability that the writer is, in his or her own voice, praising terror. An example of an effectively pro-terror op-ed was published by the Guardian on July 8th by Ahmed Moor, an American from Gaza who’s an advisory board member of the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights (USCPR). USCPR defended the Oct. 7th massacre, and is one of the groups which incited antisemitic protests on college campuses in recent months.
Moor’s over 3,000 word piece (“The Palestine-Israel nightmare won’t end until we accept these basic truths”) argues that Israel has no right to exist, and includes antisemitic tropes, such as his reference to Israel as a “Jewish supremacist” state. Dressing his antisemitic belief that Zionism is a racist endeavor in woke terms, Moor, the co-editor of a book titled ‘After Zionism‘, writes that “Jewish Israelis must relinquish their privilege”.
While this is repulsive in itself, here are the relevant passages concerning Hamas.
It remains the case that many Palestinians view the Islamist parties Hamas and Islamic Jihad as among the only actors committed to their right to self-defense. That right is self-evident to the Palestinians and their supporters, no matter their views of either party. As Hanan Ashrawi, member of the Palestinian Legislative Council and former spokesperson of the Palestinian delegation to the 1991 Madrid peace conference, told me: “People under occupation have the right to defend themselves. It is enshrined under international law.”
Hamas’s assertion of Palestine’s right to self defense – in defiance of Israel, the United States, Britain and Germany – also acts as one of the few points of leverage available to the Palestinians after decades of a failed “peace process”.
While Moor could argue that Ashrawi’s (false) claim that terrorism is “enshrined under international law” doesn’t per se represent his own views, he’s clearly speaking in his own voice when he writes that “Hamas’s assertion of Palestine’s right to self-defense…acts as one of the few points of leverage available to the Palestinians after decades of a failed ‘peace process'”. The Guardian contributor seems to be arguing that Hamas terrorism is a “right” – one serves an important purpose in their struggle.
In fact, this isn’t a one-off for Moor. On October 21st, he wrote this in the Guardian on his emotional response to the Oct. 7 massacre:
I experienced a commingled set of feelings. You can’t, as a Palestinian, as somebody of conscience, observe that bulldozer breaking through that wall and not feel a sense that “the natives have broken free – good for them”. At the same time, I had a deep sense of foreboding [about Israel’s likely response].
While he also wrote that, as a father, he did empathise with the children, on both sides, who were suffering, it seems clear that Moor finds Hamas terrorism exhilarating, useful and moral.
So, when Moor writes elsewhere in the op-ed that “the Palestinians will remain at war against apartheid and Jewish supremacy for as long as they exist“, it’s meant as a warning or sorts, a declaration of permanent war, echoing Hamas leaders who hailed the systematic slaughter of civilians on October 7, vowing to repeat similar assaults continually until Israel is exterminated.
THIS is what the Guardian has become: a safe space for ‘socially acceptable’ anti-Semites and terror supporters.
