Disenchantment: The "Guardian" and Israel [Hardcover]

This is an excellent survey of the Guardian's long relationship with Zionism and Israel. It is a thorough piece of research, as one would expect from a member of the Israeli Bar Association. Daphna Baram concludes that the Guardian is not an anti-Semitic newspaper, writing that "the allegation is offensive and lacks any basis."

She notes the discriminatory rhetoric of Chaim Weizmann, Israel's first president, wrote, "The Arab is primitive and believes what he is told." He also wrote that the Arabs of Palestine were `a race of low morals' and, "They are willing to sell their souls to the highest bidder."

She points out that ever since he had formed his government in November 1955, Prime Minister David Ben Gurion had been `striving to provoke Egypt into war."

She notes that the "intended confusion between Israel's right to exist and its alleged right to attack its neighbours at will was to become a permanent theme of Zionism's apologists."

She observes that the PLO recognised Israel, and backed a two-state solution, 23 years ago. In 1988 Arafat called on Israel to make peace; Israel rejected this as `deception'.

I used to be an avid reader of the Guardian (back then it was the Manchester Guardian). And this newspaper has gone way downhill from the days when it featured excellent reporting and a liberal point of view in its editorials.

I'm not going to bother to argue the issue of whether the Guardian is anti-Semitic or not. Daphna Baram asks that question in this book, and says it is not. Well, what I think does not matter much, but she's wrong. The Guardian is a clear participant in a gratuitous war against the Jews, and especially against Israel. It is anti-Semitic whether I admit it or not. If I, or anyone else, were to consistently express the same views about Israel that we consistently see in the Guardian, we'd be called anti-Semites, for good reason. If you wish, you can look at plenty of books (as well as the Guardian itself) to see specific substantiation of what I'm saying and decide for yourself whether Baram is right or wrong.

Baram makes one excuse after another for the Guardian. Some of them are interesting. She says that the Guardian did start to change its stance during the Jewish revolt against British rule which eventually drove the British out of the place. And she traces some further steps that the Guardian took, all of which she blames on Israel! We do discover some places where the Guardian went further than it had gone in the past, such as when it published two full chapters of a malicious book by Norman Finkelstein.

Yes, the Guardian has gotten worse, much worse. And Baram's book can't make it all better. As a matter of fact, I had a very tough time getting a copy of the book. It took me quite a while to acquire it! Anyway, now I finally have a copy and I've finally read it! I think it is interesting to read, but only because of my specific interest in the etiology, nature, and consequences of anti-Zionist untruths.

Baram is quick to blame the Guardian's problems with its stance on Israel not on the Guardian itself, nor on an unjustifiable obsession with Israel, but on those who have the nerve to complain about it! Yes, that would make people such as me the problem! Does anyone really think that if people such as me merely stop talking about the Middle East, there won't be any problems there any more?

Baram also complains that the Guardian keeps getting falsely accused. After all, she implies, it doesn't mess up facts. It's honest. The problem is that, at worst, it just does not like Israel!

Well, yes, the Guardian doesn't like Israel. And that dislike goes far enough to make it display incredible bias, come up with misleading articles, and ignore facts it does not like. Does it go so far as to come up with outright misinformation? Of course it does, and some of that misinformation is pretty serious. On the other hand, the, um, "dislike" of Israel appears to me as something more like perpetual demonization of Israel, giving the impression that Israel is a weird nation that does things that have little or nothing to do with logic or motives.

I was puzzled by Baram's boast that the Guardian did not call the attack on Jenin a massacre. Yes, some of the media were even worse than the Guardian (for a change) on this one topic, but so what?

Some former writers for the Guardian have commented on the Guardian's problems with Israel, including Melanie Phillips and Julie Burchill. In this book, Baram admits that Jonathan Freedland, who (as far as I know) still writes for the Guardian has mentioned that the Guardian does have a couple of problems, such as appearing to suggest "that the Jewish state is an illegitimate entity," or maybe even appearing to insinuate "that Israel is somehow responsible for all the world's problems." Freedland also pointed out that most Jews see Israel as "a tiny state with 6 million citizens, surrounded by 22 hostile Arab states." Well, I can see why! Israel is a tiny state, a land-poor one at that, and it is indeed surrounded by a hostile Arab world. That Arab Empire is around 5,500,000 square miles, while Israel, even including all of the West Bank, all of Gaza, all of the Golan, and all of Jerusalem, is only 11,000 square miles, 500 times less.

Baram says that the notion that Israel is a tiny nation surrounded by 22 hostile Arab states is "outdated." I think that is a very unfortunate choice of words on her part, given the Arab world's population and resources.

Perhaps it is true that decades ago, the Guardian wanted to save the Jews (later the Israelis) from the Arabs. And that it soon wanted to "save Israel from itself." And perhaps by now it wants to, um, save the Arabs (or maybe even the world) from Israel. In my opinion, had the Guardian taken a political stance that it could defend, obeyed journalistic standards, and had watched its language, it could have maintained much of its reputation. But it didn't. The Guardian correspondent, Suzanne Goldenberg, won (according to the director of the Israeli government press office, Danny Seaman) "the complete disdain and contempt of the Israeli authorities." Baram does not even bother to take Seaman's comment seriously but simply dismisses it. Once again, she's wrong to do so.

Well, enough of this book.

› Go to Amazon U.S. to see both reviews  3.0 out of 5 stars