The Guardian Acknowledges Anti-Semitism…Or Does It?
November 8, 2011 12:29 by Simon PloskerDeborah Orr’s “chosen” slur in a particularly nasty Guardian opinion piece on the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange and her subsequent disgusting excuse for an “apology” caused a real stink. And it looks like we got the attention of The Guardian:
Excuses, excuses. We hear them all the time. From the Palestinian Authority condemning an act of terror against Jews, not because deliberately murdering civilians is simply immoral and wrong, but because it “doesn’t serve the Palestinian cause” at that particular moment in time.
We heard excuses from Deborah Orr, who was sorry that she upset people for her “badly chosen and poorly used” words that suggested Zionists see themselves as “chosen” but not sorry for the thrust of her outrageous article.
Now we see more excuses from The Guardian’s readers’ editor Chris Elliott in response to the huge amount of anger generated by Orr’s article:
Three times in the last nine months I have upheld complaints against language within articles that I agreed could be read as antisemitic. The words were replaced and the articles footnoted to reflect the fact. These included references to Israel/US “global domination” and the term “slavish” to describe the US relationship with Israel; and, in an article on a lost tribe of Mallorcan Jews, what I regarded as a gratuitous reference to “the island’s wealthier families”.
Two weeks ago a columnist used the term “the chosen” in an item on the release of Gilad Shalit, which brought more than 40 complaints to the Guardian, and an apology from the columnist the following week. “Chosenness”, in Jewish theology, tends to refer to the sense in which Jews are “burdened” by religious responsibilities; it has never meant that the Jews are better than anyone else. Historically it has been antisemites, not Jews, who have read “chosen” as code for Jewish supremacism.
One reader wrote of the column: “The despicable antisemitic tone of this rant is beyond reason or decency.”
In most other publications it would be a given that anti-Semitism should not appear in any shape or form simply because it is wrong. Period. And perhaps, giving Chris Ellliott the benefit of the doubt, he also takes it as a given. The Guardian, however, needs to spell it out.
Instead, the headline of the article says it all. Not how The Guardian should deal with anti-Semitism, perceived or otherwise, but how to avert accusations of anti-Semitism. Elliott concludes [emphasis added]:
I have been careful to say that these examples may be read as antisemitic because I don’t believe their appearance in the Guardian was the result of deliberate acts of antisemitism: they were inadvertent. But that does not lessen the injury to some readers or to our reputation. The Guardian should not be oppressed by criticism – some of the language used by our critics is abusive and intimidatory – or retreat into self-censorship. But reporters, writers and editors must be more vigilant to ensure our voice in the debate is not diminished because our reputation has been tarnished.
So, Elliott is more concerned that anti-Semitism appearing on The Guardian’s pages is bad for the paper’s reputation rather than concern about anti-Semitism itself.
WHERE DID YOUR LETTERS GO?
According to Elliott, The Guardian received more than 40 complaints about Deborah Orr’s article. We know it was more than 40 because HonestReporting was copied in on nearly 500 emails to The Guardian, all of which were critical and none of which were published on the letters page.
The Guardian’s email server rejected our attempt to send all of these emails as attachments in one mailing to Chris Elliott (the number of attachments was simply too high). Nonetheless, an email was sent by HR’s Managing Editor Simon Plosker drawing attention to the large number of letters asking the following:
Our readers would like to know if it is the case that their genuine hurt and anger has been ignored by The Guardian in order to publicly play down the impact of what is a very serious matter. Or does attempting to make one’s complaint public through the letters page simply not count?
We await a reply.
TIME TO HOLD THE GUARDIAN TO ITS OWN STANDARD
Reacting to Elliott’s article, Harry’s Place blog makes a very salient point:
The Guardian now appears to admit that it is antisemitic to use the phrase Chosen People falsely to attack Jews as supremacists. And here is Caryl Churchill’s Seven Jewish Children [Editor's note: Click on the link to see the video and full script of this appalling production that caused much controversy upon its release in February 2009 shortly after Israel's Operation Cast Lead. The play includes much that is likely to offend.]:
tell her we’re better haters, tell her we’re chosen people, tell her I look at one of their children covered in blood and what do I feel? tell her all I feel is happy it’s not her.
That play is online, in print and video, at the Guardian’s own website.
Chris Elliott, of course, is happy to exonerate Deborah Orr from using an antisemitic meme which has “historically” been used by anti-Jewish racists:
I have been careful to say that these examples may be read as antisemitic because I don’t believe their appearance in the Guardian was the result of deliberate acts of antisemitism: they were inadvertent. But that does not lessen the injury to some readers or to our reputation.
However, in the case of Seven Jewish Children, the Guardian was well aware that the primary criticism of the play was that it portrayed Jews – not “Zionists” – celebrating the deaths of non-Jewish children, which they then justified by reason of their supposed “Chosenness”. They pretended agnosticism, and concluded: “Judge for yourself”.
So, having finally admitted that mocking Jews as the Chosen People is racism: why does the Guardian continue to broadcast this antisemitic play?
Indeed why? It’s time that The Guardian upholds its own standards concerning anti-Semitism and the first place it can start is by removing Caryll Churchill’s repugnant play from its website.
We challenge The Guardian to do the right thing and prove that it is serious about addressing the anti-Semitism on its site.
Please write (in civil and appropriate language) to The Guardian’s readers’ editor Chris Elliott – reader@guardian.co.uk – to ask him why, having clearly stated that the “chosen” slur is anti-Semitic, another example of the same anti-Semitic language is treated differently by The Guardian.
Please remember that Chris Elliott is an internal ombudsman and is not The Guardian’s editor – abusive and ill-thought out emails are counter-productive and simply wrong. It is up to you to convince him that The Guardian should show some consistency and do the right thing in removing Seven Jewish Children from the website.
esther
6:12 pm
Nov 08, 2011
Good for you, HR! You can count this as one of your successes. Doesn’t really matter WHY they are going to be more careful in what they print. It just matters that they are, and that they know the world is watching.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
44 
0
Leonie Lachmish
7:10 pm
Nov 08, 2011
The world will be watching and all 40 of us who sent letters !
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
33 
0
Jiri Adler
9:30 pm
Nov 08, 2011
With all due respect, I think that “the “why” does matter. It is obvious that the editor-in-chief wants to make sure that his paper is not perceived for what it is – an anti-Semitic drivel- filled publication. It would be nice if he, that is the editor-in-chief, would have a sudden epiphany and realized that anti-Semitism and actually any type of racism is bad.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
25 
0
esther
7:43 pm
Nov 09, 2011
Wishful thinking!
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
5 
0
Josephine Bacon
6:17 pm
Nov 08, 2011
And then the Guardian, the Independent and the Observer are surprised that their circulation is falling! One thing these people (the antisemitic chattering classes) do not realise: after two thousand years of persecution, Jews do not speak out, demonstrate in the streets, they vote with their feet. Only a minority actually bother to complain. That is why the Guardian’s, Independent’s and Observer’s circulations have dropped dramatically.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
42 
0
DAVID KAPLAN
6:38 pm
Nov 08, 2011
The Guardian is hardly any better than an English language version of Der Sturmer. It is packed with the foulest anti-Semitic lies and slander and these are commonplace occurences, not occasional events. Its circulation base, in a country where anti-Semitism is pretty darn widespread and entrenched, is the same sort De Sturmer catered to.
If the UK is a civilized country and a democracy, why is this sort of thing so prevalent?
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
38 
5
Larry
7:26 pm
Nov 08, 2011
Great job HR.
Keep holding the antisemitic feet to the fire. Unless we all continue to call them out, they will continue to lie, defame and slander us. You are a powerful force for fairness and honesty in reporting, and this reader is profoundly grateful for the work you do.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
41 
0
Yitz
7:35 pm
Nov 08, 2011
Well done HR! However, just a word to the wise – at the end of your piece above, you encourage people to write to the Grauniad (Private Eye readers will understand) in civil and appropriate terms because “abusive and ill-thought out emails are counter-productive.” By the standards of the same ethics that you are advocating that the Grauniad adopts, you should say that “abusive and ill-thought out emails are WRONG, INDEFENSIBLE and UNETHICAL”, not merely that they’re “counter-productive”. We don’t want to play the same tune (l’havdil) as the Palestinians who criticise anti-Semitism simply because it’s counter-productive rather than because it’s evil…
@DavidKaplan: you do us no favours with this sort of brainless rant. Did you ever read Der Stuermer? (I did – in the original German.) I detest the Grauniad deeply (and read it frequently to ensure that my detestation is a result of my own independent opinions and first-hand evidence, not of the absorption of the judgements of others); but to draw even the most tenuous comparison between it and Der Stuermer is to betray a profound ignorance and the most simplistic thought, coupled with bigotry, sweeping stereotype views of large categories of people, and inflammatory language. Frankly, I find that a scary mix – look where it took the Germans…
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
22 
0
philip
7:37 pm
Nov 08, 2011
I notice that the piece to which you refer says the Guardian ‘should not retreat into self-censorship’.
Is self-censorship such a bad thing? (though I suppose such a term means what one wants it to mean).
Does that mean that their columnists can say absolutely anything they like, with editors apologising later if they think fit? – and only if they feel that the Guardian’s reputation (such as it is) appears to be threatened?
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
18 
0
Robert Honeyman
8:10 pm
Nov 08, 2011
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Agree or Disagree:
1 
12
max
9:23 pm
Nov 08, 2011
It’s a nice, careful written argument, Robert, but the facts support Simon Plosker. Chris Elliott’s piece may have been sparked by the reaction to Deborah Orr’s truly egregious one, but there has been such a weight of deceitful and double standard comment (and reporting) over the past few years, and a strong reaction to the same, that the issue of the presence or appearance of antisemitism can’t have passed anyone by who is on The Guardian and has any involvement with the content of cif. You expect Chris Elliott to claim that The Guardian opposes anti-semitism. Were he to do so, I would want to ask “What kept you?”.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
6 
0
w mar
8:13 pm
Nov 08, 2011
Most of the bad as well as the good that is said about jews will usually apply to the english, the americans and most western peoples. Our cultures averlap. If we part from that thougt antisemitism doesn’t make sense unless it is motivated by hidden purposes and they should be unveiled and exposed. This comment brings the British press into our focus; we must not let it get away with a bad word, without answer. That is the work HR is doing and doing it well.
Issues have to be considered in their specific weight and dealt with accordingly, otherwise solutions will remain out of reach.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
11 
0
Emes
1:40 am
Nov 09, 2011
From the top on down hatred of Jews has always been the norm! So it has come to light that Obama and the French President ‘Sarcastic’ has been shown up slagging off our Israeli Prime Minister – Thank goodness for ‘technology’ yes, it was overheard “mistakely” on earphones left on and, well these two premiers are backtracking, sidestepping and moonwalking like the new Michael Jackson – Gd works in mysterious ways to wake Jews out of a stupor of believing we have friends in high places – Feh!
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
19 
0
Stephen
10:55 am
Nov 09, 2011
Heaven forbid I am no apologist for the Guardian and certainly open to being shown the error of my ways, but I wonder if it is strictly accurate to accuse them of antisemitism per se, rather than the liberal left, or ‘progressive’ media as they self-righteously like to call themselves, proclivities to always support the underdog no matter what the context or accountability. It is this strange assumption that the weak are always in the right and have exclusive dibs on human rights. It can get very Kafkaesque and /or Orwellian but the M-E conflict is seen through this prism. Combined with ignorance from journalists who have no understanding of Jewish theology or Peoplehood, it throws up anomalies from supposed champions of liberal causes that unconsciously (perhaps) reflect antisemitic hence bigoted content. They could never admit to this so couch their responses to objections in strategic terms rather than moral values.
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
6
Aliza
12:42 pm
Nov 09, 2011
Regarding Seven Jewish Children that is on the Guardian’s site – they not only host it, but they PRODUCED it. It’s one thing to provide a site for an item to be seen, it’s completely different to be involved in its creation.
“The Guardian has produced this film with Caryl Churchill to allow a larger audience to see the play in performance.”
That sentence alone, once one has seen the play or read the script through to the end, negates anything Chris Elliott says defending The Guardian against charges of anti-semitism, in my opinion.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
17 
0
Tony Klinger
2:25 pm
Nov 09, 2011
This is the text of an E-mail I have just sent to the Guardian Readers e address:
Dear Sirs,
I was a long term reader of your newspaper but now find it impossible to support you. Your journal constantly shows bias against Israel, Zionists or Zionism and, it now appears, Jewish people. This is unacceptable, racist and totally repugnant to me.
Your journalists and editorials are entitled to their views, and I would jump to their defense in order to ensure this freedom. However I do not see any equality in your coverage of other groups, whatever their path. Your journal is institutionally against Israel and its people and this is evidenced by the fact that you appear to have almost no balanced coverage of the Israel / Palestinian question for a number of years.
If my accusation is questioned you should commission an independent and impartial audit of such coverage over the last five or ten years and see what they find with the promise that you will prominently publish their findings. I am entirely confident that you will be seen to institutionally racist when it comes to these aspects of your news and opinion coverage.
Yours,
Tony Klinger
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
17 
0
David Ang
5:30 pm
Nov 09, 2011
It is really a shame for the “Guardian” stakeholders and its editorial Directors to have employed and engaged many of these journalist that are literally half bake in their thoughts and critical thinking especially when presenting news items of the world to many peoples of the world.
These half baked journalist of the “Guardian” think that the world is just that stupid to believe what they write is not ‘slanted’ ” or paid thoughts of others” in their columns.
“Guardian” stake holders and their editorial Directors are just that silly to sell away their a couple of hundreds of years of ‘hard honest and factual reporting” by the generations of past reputable reporters and good honest owners of the “Guardian down the drain for just that little extra cash by not only allowing twisted thinking but sad to see nonsense reporting by third rated journalists and reporting ‘cashing’ in on half bake reporting and simply silly essays, reporters who by writting on their own merits get them no higher than the ‘street corner or coffee shop’ news caster of students going to jurnalism school.
Many in Asia where most good action is, have their own newspapers and good honest reporters, we readers of their news find our own newspaper present better coverage and honest reporting and we look less to the ‘trash’ today’s “Guardian” is putting out.
If the “Guardian” stake holders and their editorial Direstors continue in this ‘fashion’ then I see it is time , that one early morning they may find their “GUARDIAN” in the gutter – employing gutter reporters and writting gutter news get your the gutter into your house.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
7 
0
Salah Yakoub
6:35 pm
Nov 09, 2011
To:-
The Guardian and cannot leave Deborah Orr out:
Let me bring to your attention what we Jews have contributed to this world:
1. All commercial transactions from one country with another could never take place without the Jewish nation i.e. banks, Letters of Credit, Promissory Notes, bills of lading, the buying and selling of shares and more in all the exchanges of the world.
2. Christianity and Islam based all their laws after stealing it from the Jewish nation.
3. Medicines we are the very best in this rotten world with its rotten anti-semitic media.
4. We have given this rotten world the the most innovations than any other country in this world.
And I could go on and on but lets see what Christianity and Islam have succeeded in giving WARS, relentless persecution of Jews all over this world of demons from the time of slavery in Egypt, all the Arab countries, Roman, Greek, Spanish, Russian and most countries of Europe. These are the very countries have thrown out Jews from their countries and confiscated what they have achieved and on many, many occasions murdered savagely my people and many Arab, European countries, Russia threw out hundreds of thousands Jewish people and confiscated their assets and these very same countries need I add Germany’s 6,000,000 and yet The Guardian takes their view of anti-semitism as being correct. CONGRATULATIONS TO THE GUARDIAN AND MANY OF THEIR REPORTING STAFF.
I wonder what THE GUARDIAN and DEBORAH ORR AND HER ANTI-SEMITIC REPORTERS CONTRIBUTED????????????????????????????????????????
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
8 
1
victor kiptanui kipter
2:26 pm
Nov 10, 2011
We have a Goal for the peoples of God. We want to give them bright future which peoples have no any planning for there better and good future. We want develop needy persons. Free education to the children and to the other aged peoples. Free Medical facilities because we know God’s way a complete way of life, Our main Aim is to do work on Reconciliation, and teach them about Kingdom of God, Because every one know that Jesus Christ is coming soon, so we want all peoples will be go with God in his Kingdom, God Bless you. This is Introduction of our ministry work. We wish that you come with us and deal the people of Pakistan with the message of God. We have wish you come in Pakistan with your ministry work and with your Team, and do work with the peoples of Pakistan . we Agree and have already big palate form here for your Ministry”. So please do work with us.
Agree or Disagree:
1 
2
unsospiro
10:54 pm
Nov 10, 2011
I can’t believe how many of you are questioning the ethics of self-censorship! Every newspaper/media has guidelines, called, usually, Ethics of Journalism. Suddenly, everyone thinks it’okay to say anything, hurt anyone, spew lies, all in the name of “freedom of speech,” but that is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind. Screaming “allah akhbar” as one kills another is not freedom of speech. Spewing lies and propaganda is not freedom of speech. No one seems to be able to get past screaming fire in the movie theater! It is not okay to lie in the media on which the masses rely for information; it is not okay to omit information intentionally to skew a story; it is not okay to denigrate a people because the writer has his/her own biases. Google Ethics in Journalism, and find all the sins Orr committed…and that the Guardian permitted. With tolerance of such words and behavior, these people embolden our Islamic enemy, that wants nothing more than to eliminate Western cultures. if this is what Orr wants, then it’s time to go to Saudi Arabia…although there really is a reason that England is becoming islamic. They are supporting Islamic ideas and hatred, and they will earn their just reward.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
5 
0
sav'ta shel Cohen
11:03 am
Nov 14, 2011
Chris needs to learn that a pig in a dress is a pig in a dress! If he really wants to “avert accusations of antisemitism” then it will take more than a rework of a word here or there. Journalists may think that they are able to cleverly craft articles that can persuade and influence readers without the readers ever catching on to the intent of the piece. However, “readers” are generally savvy people and very switched on to content and context as well as to the subtleties of both tone and modality and can spot a porky when they see one – even if it is tarted up in a dress. So Chris, if the Guardian really wants to “avert accusations of antisemitism” it simply needs to report the facts not try to dress up opinion as fact.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
4 
0
Harvey Stelman
11:19 pm
Nov 21, 2011
As a Jew, I have never understood what we have been “CHOSEN” for. Through out time, almost everyone has tried to eliminate us. Maybe CHOSEN is to not be eliminated. All Jews have done is to enhance every society they have been part of.
Journalism has been the latest method to be used. Call us Chosen, but do not call us murderers. Wars started by our enemiess, only lead to their defeat. Leave us alone,and there is peace. Hamas fires thousands of rockets into Israel yearly, but the press ignores that. Israel fires back once, (more powerfully) and the press chastises them. If the Palestinians jhad better weapons, don’t you believe they would use them?
Israel lets over a thousand prisoners free, in exchange for one soldier. Which side cares about preserving a life? When did good journalism disappear? I remind the press, the Gaza is not occupied.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
4 
0
A Year of Dishonest Reporting — Why The Guardian Won | The Conservative Papers
1:30 pm
Dec 15, 2011
[...] made a mealy-mouthed apology, but readers’ editor Chris Elliott acknowledged the presence of anti-Semitism in The Guardian, but didn’t directly judge Orr. [...]
Agree or Disagree:
1 
0