Instead of reporting facts, Donald Macintyre openly lets the narrative run over them. He appears to possess admiration and evoke sympathy for a terrorist organisation, whilst accusing the opposing army of slaughter. That he believes what he believes is upsetting – that his writing is considered enlightened, intelligent, and worthy of print is egregious.
Here is the basic question: Why is the Guardian more concerned about the possible future instability caused by Washington’s pullout from the Iran Deal than the actual death and destruction that Tehran is causing today in the Middle East?
The Guardian’s comparison between the views of Israeli President Reuven Rivilin and those of chief Gaza protest organiser Ahmad Abu Artema is highly misleading. Unlike Abu Artema, who believes in a one-state scenario which ends Israeli sovereignty, Rivlin champions the idea of an Israeli annexation of the West Bank with Israelis and Palestinians living side by side under Israeli sovereignty and Palestinians being granted full Israeli citizenship. Abu Artema wants to end Israeli sovereignty. Rivlin wants to expand Israeli sovereignty.
What is the content of the “debate” Mr Segalov is calling for in his Guardian op-ed? One cannot “debate” in the abstract, one must debate something – an argument, a concept, a preposition. Mr Segalov stops short of saying what his proposition is, but leaves little to the imagination. In his mind, the correct way to mark Israel’s independence is to challenge its continued independence.
The argument by the Guardian contributor that Yom Haatzmaut doesn’t leave room for nuance is simply wrong. One can be right-wing or left-wing, secular or religious, Jewish or non-Jewish, pro-Netanyahu or anti, and basically subscribe to any political ideology under the sun, and celebrate Yom Haatzmaut. This isn’t just theoretical – this is the reality in Israel! Celebrating Yom Haatzmaut simply means you celebrate the existence of a Jewish state of Israel in some form.
The only difference between Hamas and Ahmad Abu Artema, the Great Return March chief organiser, is that Hamas is a terror group founded on the idea that Israel has no right to exist, and Abu Artema is a “non-violent” activist dedicated to the idea that Israel has no right to exist.
A recent Observer editorial is critical of Obama’s decision not to bomb Assad in 2013, but there is just one thing the editorial does not mention –that Observer editors, at the time, encouraged Obama NOT to take action.
This month, the New Statesman published an article by Sarah Helm entitled “How Donald Trump provoked a Palestinian refugee revolt” which is inaccurate on two levels – it makes false assertions and misleading statements about specific details, and presents a very selective version of the overall story.
Netanyahu’s trip to India reveals two sides of Israel that do not receive enough media attention – Israel as a partner in solving the major humanitarian issues of the day, and Israel as a country that is quite popular in many parts of the world – facts which contradict the simplistic, one-sided narrative often presented by foreign journalists covering the region.
It is entirely logical for Israel to not allow BDS activists into the country. It is not because they are documenting human rights violations – human rights organisations work freely in Israel. It is because they have made the choice to join a movement whose stated aim is to harm Israel. Why do such people have the right to enter the country they seek to harm?