The Guardian once again proves to be biased towards Palestinians


British newspaper The Guardian has long been the chief promoter of Palestinian “cause” and their terrorist acts. Writes Hugh Fitzgerald

The Guardian newspaper has long been the chief promoter in the British press of the Palestinian cause. Its reporters accept the Palestinian narrative at every turn, while ignoring Israel’s version of events. A report on the most recent example of The Guardian’s blatant bias is here: “Media Obfuscates Palestinian Desecration of Al-Aqsa Mosque,” by Adam Levick, Algemeiner, April 21, 2022:

“At a time when more and more journalists have decided to eschew objectivity and truth in favor of partisan advocacy, the Guardian’s naked promotion of the Palestinian cause is an example of how low media organizations can go without the ethical guardrails that have long governed the profession.

The UK outlet doesn’t merely uncritically amplify the Palestinian narrative at every opportunity, but often — by blurring cause and effect and omitting elements of the story that would paint Palestinians in a negative light whilst imputing Israeli malevolence — routinely publishes articles libeling the Jewish state.

The latest example involves an April 15 video report and article that was published on Palestinian violence at the Temple Mount compound. Here’s the Guardian’s summary of the video, in which readers are informed that the “clashes” began when Israeli police entered the mosque.

According to The Guardian, the violence started when the Israeli riot police “entered..the Al-Aqsa mosque compound.” There is no mention of the hours of rioting before the police entered the mosque, in which Arabs threw rocks and Molotov cocktails at Jewish worshippers praying at the Western Wall far below, nor any mention of the same objects being thrown at the police from inside the Al-Aqsa mosque itself.

Now, here’s what really happened:

Around 4 AM on Friday morning, dozens of Palestinians began marching around the Al-Aqsa Mosque (some carrying banners associated with Hamas), and started breaking stones and then throwing them at police and Jewish worshippers at the Western Wall below — while stockpiling more rocks at the mosque to prepare for further attacks. Palestinians later barricaded themselves inside the mosque and hurled stones and fireworks toward officers.

The violence prevented large numbers of Muslim from worshiping at Al-Aqsa.

Israeli police moved in to quell the riot only after morning prayers were concluded.

Videos released by the Israeli police of the rioters includes footage of Palestinians throwing rocks and fireworks from inside the mosque. Did the Guardian reporters not see those videos?

The rioting followed a call by Hamas for Muslims to escalate against Israel in Jerusalem. Earlier in the month, the Palestinian Authority (PA) warned Muslims that Israel was going to commit a massacre in Jerusalem in order to take full control of Al-Aqsa — a variation of the “Al-Aqsa is in danger” libel that has long incited Palestinian violence against Jews.

The Guardian never reported that the PA had in late March spread the story that Israel was planning to commit a massacre in Jerusalem that would provoke the Arabs to violence, which in turn would provide the excuse for Israel to seize control of Al-Aqsa. Nor did the paper report that before the riots on Temple Mount began on April 15, Hamas had called the Arabs in Jerusalem to “escalate” their violence, centered on the need to “protect” Al-Aqsa. Why did the newspaper’s reporters fail to report on these examples of murderous incitement?

Israeli police detained hundreds, and used non-lethal riot control methods to end the violence, thus allowing the mosque to re-open, enabling more than 50,000 Muslim worshippers to return to the mosque for Ramadan prayers. The Palestinian Red Crescent said that 158 were injured — a majority of which were reportedly due to tear gas inhalation. Three Israeli police were injured by Palestinian rock throwing….

The violence began with the Palestinians. It was they who used potentially lethal rocks and Molotov cocktails against Israeli worshippers at the Western Wall and the police on Temple Mount, while the police used only tear gas, rubber bullets, and stun guns to contain the rioters.

The Guardian reporters misinformed their readers as to cause and effect. The police did not enter the mosque first, causing Palestinians to riot in response. The rioters had been throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails for several hours, beginning shortly after 4 a.m., at Jewish worshippers at the Western Wall. The Israelis first asked the Jordanians to quell the rioters, and only when Amman refused, did the Israeli police on the Temple Mount intervene. When they entered the Al-Aqsa mosque itself, it was only to grab rioters who were using the mosque as a base from which to throw rocks and explosives, and to seize the weapons that had been stockpiled inside the mosque. It was the rioters who “desecrated” the mosque, and prevented peaceful Muslims from worshipping. The Israeli police entered and exited as quickly as they could and made it possible for Muslims to say their Ramadan prayers. Fifty thousand did so, without incident, later in the same day. None of that is mentioned by The Guardian’s reporters.

Despite articles such as this one by Adam Levick, The Guardian still has not issued a correction to its reporting on the Temple Mount riots. It ought to acknowledge that both the PA and Hamas had spread false stories about non-existent Israeli plans to seize Al-Aqsa before the riots; it ought to explain that the Israeli police entered Al-Aqsa Mosque on April 15 only after hours of rioting by Arabs on the Temple Mount; it ought to report that that rioting included throwing rocks and explosives at Jewish worshippers at the Western Wall far below; it ought to tell readers what the rioters were doing inside the mosque, and what they had stockpiled inside; it ought to have noted that the Israeli police remained inside the mosque for a very short time; it ought….

But we know, don’t we, that The Guardian will do none of those things. Which is why we need Adam Levick, and many others, to keep writing about its wrongs.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here