The Guardian's bias in Gaza

Today's issue of the Guardian is typically biased in its coverage of the Gaza flotilla story. There is little balance. The one op-ed piece is an attack on Israel. All five letters on the letters page take the same view. The first five pages of the paper are dedicated to this story and are full of subtle distortions.

Non-Israeli casualties are stated as fact (“at least nine pro-Palestinian activists were killed”), but Israeli casualties are not (“Israel said more than 10 of its troops were injured”). Its front-page lead says, “Israel immediately imposed a communications blackout on the detained activists... while simultaneously launching a sophisticated public relations operation to ensure its version of events was dominant.” Anyone who watched any British news bulletin or  looked at any British newspaper coverage could hardly reach the conclusion that Israel's “version of events was dominant.” An alternative version of this sentence, though less loaded, might be “to ensure its version of events was heard.”

The front page story speaks of “a wave of global condemnation,” specifically quoting five sources: the Turkish PM, the UN secretary general, the British foreign secretary, the Palestinian president and a former Israeli ambassador to Turkey. Not a single balancing voice is quoted on the front page except for the Israeli government, “robust in defending its actions,” and Benjamin Netanyahu “defended the assault,” though no specific words are quoted. Israel therefore remains largely anonymous and faceless. On the front page there are two references in each story to “pro-Palestinian activists” who are simply (it seems) “deliver[ing] 10,000 tonnes of aid to Gaza.” This is again stated as fact. Is it a fact? According to whom? Against the “activists” we have “a blitz of military strength,” “a blitz of military muscle” and “masked commandos.” There is no such emotive language used to describe the “pro-Palestinian activists.”

Most offensive of all is the Steve Bell cartoon, yet another example of the British left's attempt to imply moral equivalence between Israel and the SS. The image includes the familiar barbed wire and death's head, used as an insignia both by the SS and before them by the Freikorps, both incorporated into the Israeli flag. I understand the Guardian's position on this issue. But to imply an equivalence between this incident and the actions of the Nazi state, in particular the SS, is ridiculous.

Whatever one's views of this incident, or of Israel, in general, newspapers are supposed to attempt some kind of balance and not resort to the most emotive and biased reporting. Israel is clearly no longer to be treated in the same way as any other subject by the left.