Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Racist British Editors

Michael L.

Adam Levick reports:
Evoking one of the more lethal medieval antisemitic libels, PA President Mahmoud Abbas, while addressing the European Parliament, accused Israeli rabbis of calling for their government to literally poison Palestinian wells.

The incendiary accusation, debunked by the blog Israellycool (with follow-up research by CAMERA senior researcher Gidon Shaviv), was so fundamentally antisemitic that even several voices known for their egregious hostility towards Israel condemned Abbas.

The New York Times, in a story by Diaa Hadid, characterized Abbas’s speech as one which “echo[ed] anti-Semitic claims that led to the mass killings of European Jews”.  The story was also covered by Reuters, AFP, Haaretz and The Washington Post in reports which were similarly contextualized by citing the similarity of Abbas’s claim with historic antisemitic libels.

Yet, major British media outlets – including the Guardian, Independent, Telegraph and Times of London – have, thus far, completely ignored the story.
This is typical.

I like Levick because he stands up.

He's been covering the British media for years and mainly on his own.

The blunt truth is that the British press is hostile to Israel and, therefore inevitably, hostile to the Jewish people.


  1. Replies
    1. Fair enough, Shirlee.

      But you know that I am going to respond.


    2. Here we go.

      Good morning.

      It's a new day.

      I just crawled from the sheets and am listening to some daybreak rock 'n roll!


      Above Shirlee suggested that the American press, like the British press, also tends to be racist towards the Jews of Israel.

      I cannot even begin to discuss the Australian press because I am ignorant of it.

      When I was growing up nobody that I knew read either the Australian or the British press.

      I mean, no kid on a bike was tossing the Sydney Morning Herald onto my lawn.

      Heck, we barely read the American press!

      But from an historical standpoint it is clear that Israel has a very distinct relationship with Great Britain.

      It was, of course, the Brits that administered the mandate between the fall of the Ottomans and the rise of the Jews within the State of Israel.

      Furthermore, Britain seems to be the center of anti-Israel advocacy in that part of the world today.

      Most of the western-left seems to think that in 1948 Israel was some European-imposed colony, when the opposite is true.

      The Brits sided with the Arabs against the Jews in '48.

      It was the Brits that put forward the White Paper that kept Jews from escaping the Holocaust upon the desire of the Arab leadership.

      In truth, when I think about the situations of Jewish people throughout the world the people that I feel the worst for are French Jews and, then, British Jews.

      I even fret over Kate, despite the fact that I have never laid eyes on the lady.

      But Shirlee is correct.

      The prominent American press - the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. - are not exactly beacons of pro-Israel friendship.

    3. But the American press is no where close to as bad as the British press when it comes to Israel (yet), although it has been catching up. Even though the NYT is hostile to Israel, and that fact compromises its journalistic standards, it DID report on Abbas' medieval libel. The British media completely ignored it. This is not a one off, it's a habit with them. The British media has a pattern of lying by omission to set up lies of commission against Israel. My feeling is that with their own sordid history regarding the creation of Israel they ought to recuse themselves from ever chiming in. The UK cannot be an objective judge of the goings on there. As I say, their own history regarding this conflict is so sordid, and the truth puts them in such a bad light, that they must double down in painting the Jews as the guilty party. I see England as ground zero for the Western demonization of Israel.
      This is why I have been frequenting Levick's joint so often for about 10 years, and why I am so familiar with so many of the British writers and articles that k brings to our attention, as opposed to D-Kos and the like on this side of the pond.

    4. Correction: Replace 'journalistic standards' with 'journalistic integrity'.

    5. No kid on a bike tosses the Sydney Morning Herald onto my lawn either.

      Not unless he wants a half brick tossed back.

  2. There really isn't much in the way of an American Press. It doesn't stand for anything it contributes even less. "The Hill" a website often called one of the most quoted by members of Congress runs 20-25 anti Trump pieces on the front page each day including complaints by the Clinton campaign that Trump's claims about (fill in the blank) are 'bunk'. It used to be that journalists had to source each claim with two independent reliable sources. Now tweets by some 20-something who works for a candidate are sufficient to be called The Truth. Anyone who imagines that there's free press that functions like one in this country is delusional.

  3. How many trust the press to be honest, let alone accurate? 6 percent of people say they have a lot of confidence in the media.

    What they say does not comport to reality, and everyone knows they are either agenda or money driven. It is no longer about journalism so much as platform.

    They are no different than the what seems to be going on across the spectrum. Humans seem incapable to stop the insanity.

    Israel has long been a target, and Zionism, and remains so, as Matti Friedman and Richard Behar amply demonstrated. Prejudice toward Jews is going nowhere because of the fact that Jews are so few among the overall population. When it comes to media, the bias seems the same against Western capitalist values under which the complainers take full advantage.

  4. The "media," is a joke. A bunch of narcissistic blowhards who think they are smarter and more moral than mere plebs. They use to be called reporters an they reported stuff. Now they lecture. Screw 'em.

  5. http://www.returnofkings.com/89090/3-reasons-for-the-downfall-of-mainstream-journalism

    1. Not sure some "men's rights" clown's opinions on the press, or anything else, are worth considering.

  6. Jeez, I did not realize the depth of the animosity toward the MSM around this joint.

    Not that I mind, of course, but the level of feeling on this issue is more than I supposed.

    I gave up on the New York Times after the second Iraq war because I thought that they were being dishonest. Now I check the WAPO, the Oakland Tribune, and the LA Times just to see what they think is important and to make sure that I am not missing any significant national stories.

    Then, of course, there is the Jerusalem Post and the Times of Israel for, more or less, mainstream coverage of Israel and the never-ending conflict.

    And then there are all those blogs and on-line news-oriented / Israel-oriented magazines like Jews Down Under of Shirlee fame or the Gatestone Institute.

    There is the high-brow stuff from places like Mosaic or Fathom.

    The hard-right ideological material from places like Front Page Mag or Atlas Shrugged or Truth Revolt or Israpundit or Gates of Vienna.

    The hard-left ideological material from places like dkos or Democratic Underground or The Nation, Talking Points Memo, Crooks and Liars, etc.

    And then, of course, we have individual bloggers like Abu Yehuda and the Elder as well as aggregators and writers like Ted Belman and Ian over at EOZ.

    When I was a kid the New York Times showed up every morning at the kitchen table.

    My father would hide behind it when my sister and mom started hollering at one another.

    Ahh, good old days.