Palileaks and The Guardian’s Agenda Journalism
January 31, 2011 16:53 by Simon Plosker
Thousands of Palestinian documents, allegedly offering a behind the scenes look at the Palestinian Authority’s stance on peace negotiations with Israel, have been leaked to Al-Jazeera and The Guardian. As the world’s attention turns towards Egypt, the “Palileaks” story has taken something of a haitus offering us a chance to draw breath and examine some of the media issues that have emerged so far.
The Guardian’s Worldview Challenged
The Palestinian documents, if they are to be believed, paint a picture that the Palestinian leadership was prepared to accept the permanence and legitimacy of a large number of Israeli settlements as well as Jewish neighborhoods in eastern parts of Jerusalem. This would seemingly undermine the notion adopted by large swathes of the media (and many international politicians and non-governmental organizations) that settlements represent the biggest “obstacle to peace”.
For The Guardian, the paper has been shown up to be “more Palestinian than the Palestinians”, consistently adopting a more uncompromising approach than the Palestinian leadership, putting its editorial line more in step with that of Hamas. As Robin Shepherd notes:
In one of its most resentful leader columns for years, the Guardian was nothing short of apoplectic: not so much with Israel, but with a Palestinian leadership which has effectively blown the credibility of the Guardian’s very own mantras on the MidEast straight out of the water. The Palestinian leadership, the paper declaimed, had been shown to be “weak” and “craven”. Their concessions amounted to “surrender of land Palestinians have lived on for centuries”. And, in words that look alarmingly close to the position adopted by Hamas, “The Palestinian Authority may continue as an employer but, as of today, its legitimacy as negotiators will have all but ended on the Palestinian street.” This is sheer spite.
The Palestinian leadership accepts what any reasonable person has been able to accept for decades. The Guardian then slams them as surrender monkeys. The Guardian newspaper is more hardline against Israel than the Palestinian leadership itself.
Melanie Phillips concurs:
Wherever the actual truth of this lies, it seems to me, the Guardian is stuffed. Either it’s right about the content of the documents – in which case its whole analysis of the Middle East has been totally wrong all these years; or in its desire to destroy Israel it has fallen for an epic scam, and those writers who couldn’t contain their eagerness to put the boot into Israel in this morning’s paper are thus revealed to be idiots.
Indeed, The Guardian’s outrage at seemingly “moderate” Palestinian positions continued with the release of documents addressing the apparent willingness of the PA to compromise on the Palestinian “right of return” for refugees.
A Platform for Terrorists
Arguably, the greatest damage to the Palestinian Authority was not caused by the leaking of the documents but by the Palestinian leadership’s inability to adequately prepare its own people for necessary compromises for peace. Nonetheless, The Guardian was still compelled to twist the knife into the PA by giving a platform for Hamas.
Referring to the PA as “stooges and tools for the opression of the Palestinian people”, Hamas head of international relations, Osama Hamdan, published an op-ed in The Guardian accusing the PA of “treason”. He concluded:
As an immediate response to these revelations, we in Hamas have begun a series of communications and meetings with Palestinian factions and prominent personalities to discuss practical measures. It is our responsibility to regain the initiative in order to protect our cause and isolate those who have betrayed it.
Based on Hamas’ previous efforts to “isolate” its enemies, which have involved throwing Fatah activists from the roofs of high buildings, one can draw the appropriate understanding.
While freedom of speech is a value to be upheld, we have long argued that it is irresponsible for media outlets to give platforms for terrorist groups such as Hamas that are proscribed as such in the US, European Union and elsewhere.
As Jewish Chronicle editor Stephen Pollard put it:
Hamas’ practical measures need no elaboration. The Guardian crossed a line this week. It has not practised journalism but rather hardcore political activism, playing with people’s lives.
But this wasn’t the only platform for terror that The Guardian managed to slip in as the letters page also crossed a red line. Referring to the Palestinian leaks, philosophy professor Ted Honderich is given a platform to legitimize and justify Palestinian terror:
They provide a further part of what is now an overwhelming argument for a certain proposition. It is that the Palestinians have a moral right to their terrorism within historic Palestine against neo-Zionism. The latter, neither Zionism nor of course Jewishness, is the taking from the Palestinians of at least their autonomy in the last one-fifth of their historic homeland. Terrorism, as in this case, can as exactly be self-defence, a freedom struggle, martyrdom, the conclusion of an argument based on true humanity, etc.
Following complaints, The Guardian’s readers’ editor addressed the issue:
It is the policy of the Guardian not to publish letters advocating violence against others, but that does not – and should not – preclude a discussion about the nature of terrorism. The letters editor defended the publication of Honderich’s letter on the basis that it was about the way language is used: “What he is questioning is how things are defined – and how they might be defined as something else. It seems to me legitimate to debate (at least, by someone who perhaps has credentials to do so) – he is not advocating suicide bombing, he is questioning how it is regarded by most people in the west, and how it might be seen as something other than terrorism by people in other places and circumstances.”
The readers’ editor concludes by dodging the issue of legitimizing terror:
It is a legitimate area of discussion. But suggesting that a defence may be offered for an argument should not imply it is the attitude or position of the Guardian.
Not content with promoting terrorists and their supporters, The Guardian also published this cartoon on its live blog of Mahmoud Abbas by Brazilian cartoonist Carlos Latuff. As Just Journalism notes, Latuff, notorious for his anti-Israel (and anti-Semitic) images, claimed second prize in the 2006 Iranian International Holocaust Cartoon Competition.
Distorted Analysis
BICOM has produced a detailed assessment of The Guardian’s coverage and addresses some of its most prominent distortions. In summary:
In trying to make a case that the Palestinians were subservient and the Israelis uncompromising, The Guardian repeatedly misrepresents the documents themselves, for example:
- Mistakenly claiming that the Palestinians conceded on recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, when the documents and historical record show a hardening of the Palestinian position on the on the issue;
- Characterizing the Palestinian territorial offer, including on Jerusalem, as a far reaching concession, and Israel’s response as dismissal ‘out of hand’, when in fact the Palestinian offer was not as far reaching as presented and the Israeli side showed willingness to engage;
- Apparently misreading sources to argue that the Palestinians accepted an Israeli offer for the return of 10,000 refugees, when the available evidence seems to indicate the Palestinians were demanding an initial number of 150,000 subject to renewal, and pursuing other refugee claims relating to compensation and Israeli responsibility.
- Linking apparently unrelated quotes from Tzipi Livni to inaccurately characterise the Israeli position as favoring ‘transfer’, on an occasion when the issue was humanitarian and territorial issues relating to villages bisected by the Green Line.
Read the full summary here and the full paper here (PDF format).
As Stephen Pollard states:
There is nothing, of itself, wrong with the Guardian publishing its scoop; all serious newspapers relish scoops. What is very wrong is the way the paper chose to present its story: the distortions, the bias, the agenda, the spin and the breathtaking arrogance of its handing down instructions to the Palestinians of how they should behave. Make no mistake: the Guardian’s presentation was, as David Landau puts it, “intended to poison the Palestinians against their leaders”. And to poison the world against Israel.
Poisoning the World Against Israel
Indeed, it isn’t only the Palestinian Authority that has been portrayed negatively as a result of the leaked documents. It would be almost impossible to imagine The Guardian not publishing something that could be used to attack Israel. In this case, the documents alleging historic Palestinian compromises (despite most of the issues being openly discussed as far back as the 2000 Camp David summit, the Clinton Parameters and the Geneva Accords) paint Israel as the intransigent party that was unprepared to go the extra mile for peace.
This view, promoted by The Guardian, is certainly selective. The New York Times reports on Ehud Olmert’s memoirs, in which the former Israeli PM claims to have come close to sealing a peace deal two years ago. The NY Times article notes that interviews with Olmert and Abbas, which are to be published in the next few weeks, were recorded only two days before the publication of the Palileaks documents.
While the documents detail little of what Israel offered in return during the Olmert peace negotiations, The Guardian has systematically downplayed or even ignored the latest statements from Olmert – someone who was directly and intimately involved.
But perhaps an Israel desperately seeking peace and prepared to make concessions doesn’t fit with The Guardian’s dominant narrative.
We await the next tranche of documents with interest, albeit with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Harvey Rosenwasser
6:57 pm
Jan 31, 2011
There have been a number of creditable comments suggesting that some of the papers given to Al-Jazeera and The Guardian have been doctored for the purposes of embarrassing, and thereby undermining the Palestinian Authority in its negotiations with Israel.
There is the use of the Hebrew term for Jerusalem, “Yerushalayim,” by Saeb Erekat. It is unlikely that this experienced, Palestinian negotiator would use the Hebrew term. Rather they would use al Quds, the way most Arabs and Palestinians refer to Jerusalem.
Besides the journalistic distortions by The Guardian, the authenticity of all the documents themselves should be examined. They may be a clever effort by Hamas to discredit the PLO.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
69 
3
Alice
7:07 pm
Jan 31, 2011
I see see that lies are the new truth for the Guardian.
You should be ashamed of your blatant anti-Semitism.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
88 
3
Moll
7:19 pm
Jan 31, 2011
With every action the nonstate tribal arabs take, and with every word the nonstate tribal arabs speak, the nonstate tribal arabs confirm that what the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob caused to be written about the nature/characterization of the nonstate tribal arabs, AFFIRMS/CONFIRMS the accuracy of the Hebrew Scriptures.
It is recorded, in Bereshet 16, verse 12, that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob informed the very pregnant Hagar, Abraham’s egyptian servant/slave, about the child she was carrying, that “…. thou shalt call his name Ishmael … and he shall be a wild ass of a man; his hand shall be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the face of all his brethren.” Ishmael’s birth is documented around 1850BCE.
Repeat (sing it a little louder than previously) With every action taken, and every word spoken, the nonstate tribal arabs confirm the accuracy of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
43 
2
andrew o'shea
5:52 am
Feb 20, 2011
I fully agree with you regarding these verses of scripture. I can see how the ‘house of Ishmael’ is spreading out across the world. The destruction of ‘people’s rights and ways of life’ are now being intefered with, with no regard for the citizens of these countries they infiltrate. I live in Australia, even here we feel the’impost’ of this ‘religion’ and our government is bowing to ‘its’ demands. I say Praise GOD, for all these events are written within His word and His word is true. I realise that we who know the Truth must reveal Him to as many as possible for this is what He has called us to do. yours in Messiah , Christ Jesus , andy
Agree or Disagree:
2 
0
Tweets that mention Palileaks and The Guardian’s Agenda Journalism -- Topsy.com
7:21 pm
Jan 31, 2011
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by HonestReporting and Jonathan Danilowitz, msredrivka. msredrivka said: Palileaks and The Guardian's Agenda Journalism: http://t.co/R0PBRry [...]
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
9 
1
M Liwshitz
7:25 pm
Jan 31, 2011
The Guardians attacks on Israel are sickening. They can be compared to what was published years ago in the Stuermer.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
60 
1
Barbara Stone
7:28 pm
Jan 31, 2011
The Guardian’s reputation for balance and objective journalism evaporated yonks ago. Nowadays only the BBC and other useful idiots believe a word it prints – no wonder its circulation is ailing and failing.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
57 
1
steve mann
8:16 pm
Jan 31, 2011
The Guardian’s reputation for balance and objective journalism evaporated yonks ago. Nowadays only the BBC and other useful idiots believe a word it prints – no wonder its circulation is ailing and failing.”"
Oh! you are so right-
But there again the BBC is as bias as the Guardian- For the BBC commissioned Malcolm Balan to write a report on whether the BBC was bias in its journalism on the M.E.
After a complaint that it was ant-Israeli- that was some4or5 years ago- we are still waiting for them to publish it.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
42 
1
Samuel L. Frydman
9:15 pm
Jan 31, 2011
What comes across in the entire wide range of Guardian-type so-called “journalism” is the total laziness of the reader; most of whom require some ‘other’ person to do their thinking and knowing for them. Public opinion based on the need to sell publications, time, keeping jobs, and the mixed forensic ego issues of most journalists, has developed a vitrified form of progressive dementia. Needless to say, how much more attractive, important and witty we all feel in a military uniform as part of the larger group effort. Cocktails at Raffles rather than thinking is the human condition at this late date. Unfortunately, we no longer live in a three Musketeers technology world, but rather one of a forthcoming new asteroid belt between Mars and Venus. TTFN
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
15 
0
R. Eluchans
9:42 pm
Jan 31, 2011
BBC and The Guardian in my view are sadly not practising serious journalism anymore. They distort facts and ignore history. The incite violence either motivated by hate against Israel or just for money. Therefore their profesional integrity are now seriously compromised.
They would fit well with the Joseph Goebbe’sl machinery in the Hitler era.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
34 
0
Steven L
10:36 pm
Jan 31, 2011
Guardian and alike are not more Palestinian than the Palestinians. They do not care about the Palestinians. They care about getting rid of the Jews and Israel. Everything to erase the Balfour declaration statement will do. We are at war with the Westerner ORIENTALISTS!
Why is the Western govts are unwilling to twist the arm of the Arab monarchs and push for real democracy? Self-interests and not the interests of the democracies (the peoples).
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
29 
0
Steven L
10:42 pm
Jan 31, 2011
It is not even in the interest of England to see Israel and the Arab world realize that it is in their interests to get along and create a new economic pole in the ME.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
11 
0
PAthena
12:19 am
Feb 01, 2011
The Guardian reveals its antisemitism again. Its reporters cannot even study history. “Palestine” and “Palestinian” have been synonymous with “land of the Jews” and “Jews” since the Roman Emperor Hadrian changed the name of Judea to “Palestina” in 135 A.D., after suppressing the last Jewish uprising under Bar Kochba. He wanted to eradicate all memory of Judea and the Jews, and outlawed Judaism.
In 1964, Gamal Nasser and the Soviet Union in Cairo invented the “Palestine Liberation Organization,” with all the phony propaganda that Arabs were “Palestinians.” Their aim was destroy Israel.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
33 
0
Avi
12:48 am
Feb 01, 2011
LOL no mention that the picture in the “10,000 refugees” article, captioned “Palestinian refugees fleeing their besieged camp in north Lebanon in May 2007″ – is from when the *Lebanese* army was fighting *Palestinian* terrorists?
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
16 
0
AKUS
3:33 am
Feb 01, 2011
I really think, given that you have essentially copied articles straight off CiFWatch’s website, that you might have credited your source.
Agree or Disagree:
3 
2
Simon Plosker
11:01 am
Feb 01, 2011
Hello AKUS. Sorry you feel that way. In fact we have excellent relations with CiF Watch and a whole host of other organizations and we are only too happy to hyperlink and hat tip to other good content.
The Palileaks have been a source of much discussion in recent weeks and many of us have identified common themes stemming from The Guardian’s coverage. This is actually a good thing and it’s positive that other organizations and individuals are upping the pressure on The Guardian.
Please rest assured that our latest work was not lifted from CiF Watch, an organization that we have a great deal of respect for.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
10 
0
RICHARD
3:34 am
Feb 01, 2011
Why is everyone surprised? The British press is still bitter that Britain was driven out of “Palestine” by Begin, Shamir and the rest of our heros.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
24 
0
ismail
1:00 pm
Feb 01, 2011
osama ladin is back be aware america specially george bush.
Hot debate. What do you think?
0 
9
Ben-tsiyon (ha rishon)
3:33 am
Feb 02, 2011
What a twitty remark, but I suppose it’s the best that people like you can do !
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
9 
0
H Tromp
5:05 pm
Feb 01, 2011
With all the virulent anti-semitism from the BBC, Guardian and even the Economist my wish for you British is 10 million more Muslims.
You deserve every one of them
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
14 
0
lfpf
5:54 pm
Feb 01, 2011
It is interesting to see the Guardian and its contributing writers twisting themselves in knots to continue, not their fight for the “palestinians”, but to denigrate Israel’s efforts in the region to make peace, despite the continued rockets and other activities of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran to destabilise the region,(with their constant anti Israel propaganda on Press T V with the anti semitic face of George Galloway. Thank goodness Ken Livingstone with his ambitions to return as Mayor of London has now resigned his job on Press TV), We are now able to see the quest for democracy in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen as well. Who will be next. Saudi Arabia or perhaps Iran? Next time they may be successful.
Those arabs who are rebelling seem to want a government intent on improving the lives of their population as Israel has done in its short life to date for its own population, instead of the corruption which has been practised so blatantly, in those countries. What arab country would allow a Jew to pass judgment on one of its former high officials, as Israel allowed an arab judge to do in the Israeli High Court.
A Guardian contributor had an article published by the J C a fortnight ago berating Israel for starting investigations into certain left wing N G O’s because of the undermining of Israel which they propogate. The Israeli government wants to find out who are the suppliers of funds for these N G O’s. This is fairly similar to the British Political parties being unable to accept funds from foreign sources. The contributor went on at great length to malign the Israelis,despite his Jewish heritage.
Of course he did not mention the fact that many NGO’s in Great Britain are being closed down by the British coalition despite the effect on the unemployment figures, without further investigation. Perhaps this method should have used by the Israelis and then the comments may not have arisen ?? I wonder.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
8 
0
Sergio
5:56 pm
Feb 01, 2011
I have just watched the House of Commons on the BBC, validating the Palestinian papers in a way that shocked me.
I would appreciate if someone at Honest reporting could take a look at the BBC’s footage of the presentation of the foreign secretary in the house of commons, which aired today at around 3 pm. I hear little, so I cannot cite nothing in particular, but it was completely biased and false arguments on the parts of the MPs, taken at face value by all there. Unbelievable!
Thanks.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
6 
0
Brent Pudsey
10:38 pm
Feb 01, 2011
I do not believe that the Palestinian Liberation organization or other groups want peace with Israel. This seems to be a ploy on the part of the newspaper.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
11 
0