Guardian uses Obama Nobel prize award to advance anti-Israel narrative
Even the Guardian had to admit that the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama was “ludicrously premature”. I prefer the version I offered to Forbes Magazine yesterday who quoted me as describing the move as “infantilism” and “soft-bellied adoration of an untested president”.
But after the weasel words of pseudo-criticism the Guardian, in an editorial today, was back to enforcing the kind of narrative which informs the thinking and prejudices of most of the world’s international institutions these days, the Nobel committee included.
Indeed in a we’ve-given-you-this-prize-now-we-own-you kind of way, the paper sought to remind the 44th president that he would still have to prove his worth as a figurehead for bien pensant pieties in a number of areas. First in the line of fire was, of course, Israel.
“Take the Middle East,” the Guardian noted in tones of fake admonishment, “where Mr Obama’s Cairo speech in June was stirring in explaining how Palestinians had “suffered in pursuit of a homeland”, but the desperate conditions in Israeli-blockaded Gaza have not since improved one jot. Indeed the president has failed to secure even a temporary pause in Israeli building in the occupied West Bank.”
So, in advancing the Guardian World View (GWV) we have a falsehood followed by a non-sequitur rounded off with a half-truth (putting it kindly) about the real obstacles to peace.
The falsehood, of course, is that Palestinians had “suffered in pursuit of a homeland”. They have not suffered in pursuit of a homeland. They have consistently rejected a homeland since 1947 and have suffered because they have given priority to destroying someone else’s.
The non-sequitur comes with the move from the falsehood to the notion that conditions in Gaza have not improved, to which the inference that this is Israel’s fault is attached. But conditions in Gaza could improve immediately if Hamas, the group that rules Gaza, were to renounce violence, anti-Semitism and Islamic extremism. Anyone serious about advancing peace would understand that. The Guardian, by contrast, is solely concerned with advancing the superficial and distorted world view that its readers and writers adhere to.
Finally, the half-truth is the BBC-approved narrative which argues that settlement building is the prime obstacle to peace. It is not, as anyone who is aware of the history and current realities of the conflict must know. But the truths about Palestinian rejectionism need to be air-brushed out of the picture if the GWV is to be sustained.
Obviously, this is all par for the course and would not be worth commenting on outside the extraordinary context of the award to Obama.
When we put the two together we just have one more illustration of how the world’s most prominent institutions have been infected with a very particular political-philosophical agenda. The people who despise Israel overlap with the people who adore Obama because the former hope that the latter shares their broader prejudices not just on Israel but on a whole panoply of issues domestic and international.
Let’s hope he disappoints them in style.
To read the Guardian editorial, click here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/10/nobel-peace-prize-barack-obama
UPDATE: I would also recommend reading Cif Watch on this. They have a piece which puts this in some useful perspective and, as Jonathan Hoffman notes below, points out the extraordinary fact that the paper initially referred to “Israeli-occupied Gaza” and then changed it without acknowledging the error, presumably to avoid making themselves look ridiculous. In a list of all previous Nobel Peace Prize winners the Guardian also initially failed to include the names of prize winners from Israel! The mind boggles… Click here to read the Cif Watch account:
.
October 10th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
http://cifwatch.com/2009/10/10/grauniad-caught-in-a-bald-faced-lie-about-israel-again/
It’s worse than that. The editorial at first said “Israeli-occupied Gaza”. It was then changed to “Israeli-blockaded Gaza” without even a note of the correction.
October 10th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Good article, Robin, and very good illustration of Guardian weaselling, particularly where you say, “…we’ve-given-you-this-prize-now-we-own-you kind of way…” (which of course is very similar to what was expected by the UN of Goldstone and which he dutifully delivered).
Let’s face it, al-Grauniad doesn’t do complexity. It likes black and white without the necessary shades of grey which help honest people get to the reality of what is actually going on.
This is why Comment is Free adopts such a dichotomous world view and carefully disposes of the posts of people who try to flesh out with those shades of grey the arguments made against Israel.
I firmly believe that there should be some sort of DSM-IV category of mental illness (in there with the variations of obsessive-compulsive/thought disorders) which would encompass the Guardian’s all-consuming hatred of Israel.
But to have that would be to insult those poor people who actually suffer from obsessive-compulsive disorders and do not hate anyone, let alone a whole people.
October 10th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
One word of advice, don’t try and take the bate if it isn’t worth having i.e. fight the battles that are worth winning, and just ignore the equivalent (or perceived equivalence) of trolling.
My strategy would be: Focus on the essential, and the rest will fall into place.
Cheers, Martyn
P.S. For clarification I post on CiF and elsewhere under the nick of MartynInEurope.
October 10th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
I read the news about Mr. Obama Nobel price in newspaper. On the same page there was a news that US Air force is testing a new 13.500 kg bomb. Is that ironic or it is ironic?
October 11th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Robin, you have a talent for de-constructing the anti-Israeli narrative on par with Mel Phillips and Al Dershowitz. Another well aimed smack in the chops for the Guardian’s skewed morality.