Backspin FrontPage
Backspin FrontPage
Media Backspin
About Media Backspin Contact Media Backspin Media Backspin
  Media Backspin
Backspin FrontPage
Media Backspin RSS Feed   [ About RSS ]
Subscribe with Bloglines
Add to My AOL
Subscribe in Bloglines
Subscribe to MyMSN
Subscribe in NewsGator Online
Add to Google Reader or Homepage
ARCHIVES January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010
Media Backspin
« Introducing Digital Diplomats | Main | Watch CBC's Full Report on the Hariri Assassination »

Tuesday, November 23 2010

Dejudaising Jerusalem: The Guardian Helps Promote Palestinian Lies

Does The Guardian buy into Palestinian claims that Israel and the Jewish people have no spiritual or historical connection to the Western Wall and the Temple Mount?

See HonestReporting UK's latest critique: Dejudaising Jerusalem: The Guardian Helps Promote Palestinian Lies



TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dejudaising Jerusalem: The Guardian Helps Promote Palestinian Lies :



I'm a big fan of Honest Reporting - but I think this particular article was bit exaggerated in its offense. Reading the sensational headline, then the actual text quoted in the article I was confused about that actual amount of dejudaising that was occurring. I agree of course that some of the phrasing was not as accurate as would be ideal, but I also thought that the journalist attempted balance by pointing out that the wall is holy to Jews and that the Jews have a separate name for the mount (which I think is fairly self explanatory as to its roots).

So - while I fully support picking up on inaccurate and offensive stories and comment, I think demonizing this particular journalist and having him inundated with letters on this occasion could be counter productive to the general positive attitude we are all wishing to create towards Israel.

If readers do want to write to him, please take this into account and do it gently.

That's my opinion anyway!

I read the Guardian article twice to see if I could work out what your concerns were and I'm afraid I couldn't see any. It seems to me that it has been written in fairly neutral tones. I agree with Glen Keller and would suggest that you avoid crying "wolf" on this one

Personally I read it differently.

The hidden point is that the al-Aqsa mosque is made out to be of great spiritual importance- It is not- It was built on top of the Temple Mount-That was an insult in the same way as the Cordoba mosque or now the Ground Zero Mosque.

When one considers that Jerusalem is not even mentioned in the Qar`an.

That Muslims face away from Jerusalem and face Mecca when praying.

Steve Mann - By "Ground Zero Mosque" do you mean the Islamic centre two blocks from Ground Zero or is there another builing at Ground Zero I dont know about?

Now you are splitting hairs-

For you you must be well aware that the idea of a Mosque at that point is offensive to many even if it is in an Islamic centre-
If the building of a Mosque is needed then a place that would not offend - should have been located elsewhere if the Islamic community cared for the feelings of those bereaved.

Steve Mann - Ground Zero Mosque - meaning a mosque built on Ground Zero. Reality an Islamic Centre with a prayer space, basketball court, swimming pool etc 2 blocks away from Ground Zero. How far away from Ground Zero must the Islamic centre be to spare the feelings of the bereaved?
Anyway we are digressing - I was merely making the point that if you are giving a lesson in historical accuracy then please be precise yourself and say that the Islamic Centre 2 blocks away from Ground Zero is offensive to many Americans including some of the bereaved of 9/11. Better still dont use it as an historical comparison at all

HR Links

HR Social Media

Featured Blogs

Featured Links

Media Backspin