Prejudiced analysis

This particular subject not only applies to the Guardian but to many, if not all, Western mainstream news organisations that have been assimilated into the corporate borg. As the tragedy in Syria rolls towards its third year, so much has been written about this civil war yet so little actually learnt. The 24 hour news cycle in cyberspace focuses on war crimes, refugees, Asma al-Assad’s shopping habits, sporadic skirmishes and other lowlights from the days events. A running commentary on the ins and outs of the unfolding conflict is welcome but where is the substance? Where is the geopolitical analysis which so many people crave and in doing so are driven to alternative, independent news sources to acquire?

As evidenced in my previous blog post entitled “Rewriting the Syrian Script” – The State Department has played a key role in the fomentation and on-going escalation of the crisis. Working in lock-step with Israel they have covertly and often overtly pressed for regime change in Syria. For all the thousands of articles, editorials and opinion pieces written on the subject  – how come so few have stopped to ponder the question ‘why’? The same goes for Saudi Arabia and Qatar who have spent millions (possibly billions) funding and arming the rebels. Where is the in-depth analysis on these particular players?

In contrast, we are repeatedly informed that Bashar al-Assad fights his opponents in order to cling on to power for his family dynasty. For protecting his interests he has been compared to Hitler – whilst the Jihad sponsors in the Gulf, attempting to carve out their own interests in an equally brutal manner, have been compared to no one. Russia’s involvement in protecting its interests has repeatedly been put down to Mediterranean naval bases and arms contracts – whilst Israel’s quiet yet determined, pro war lobby groups, work towards regime change in Syria with the mainstream media refusing to analyse their motives.

The silence is deafening.

I’m going to give you a perfect example of what I’m talking about.  The Israeli Government recently granted a U.S. subsidiary of a company called Genie Energy the first license to explore for oil and gas in the occupied Golan Heights. The company is advised by former vice president Dick Cheney and its shareholders include Jacob Rothschild and Rupert Murdoch. This development was documented online (including Bloomberg) far and wide and would obviously be an important factor when considering Israeli and U.S involvement in the Syrian war – but when we type ‘Genie Energy Golan Heights’ into the Guardians own search bar we are told…. No results!

NO - results

Here is a list of reasons (taken from a recent YouTube comment) as to why this Western backed insurgency in Syria could be taking place – non of which have been discussed in any great detail by the aforementioned press.

POSSIBLE REASONS BEHIND SYRIAN ATTACK:

Shut down Syrian independent banking system
Split anti-Zionist alliance; Iran-Syria-Lebanon-Palestine
Destroy Russian-Iranian-Syrian Silk Road Pipeline
Benefit Israeli Leviathan gas, oil & transportation industry
Benefit Al Saud family’s/Qatari gas industry
Benefit Industrial Military Complex multi billion contracts
Allow Israel annex South Lebanon for water supply & Golan Heights for oil & gas
Advance Zionist Agenda for “Greater Israel”; New World Superpower

Whilst the complicit, mainstream media continues to paint the enemies of Western, financial hegemony in an evil, nefarious light – who’s motives are always callous and cold – it simply ignores its paymasters motives in the conflict altogether. Articles refer to ‘American strategic interests’ but seldom delve any deeper. Writers refer to ‘humanitarian intervention’ as if to suggest the repressive petro-monarchies in the Gulf spend their millions on mercenaries with nothing but charitable intentions.

I pay my respects to the small number of journalists within the mainstream media who challenge the status quo and inform their readers of the true motives behind these complicated conflicts – some of whom work directly for the Guardian. This blog decided to specifically target the Guardian as a way to highlight how far our ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ media had strayed off course.

On that note – I’ll leave you with something our mainstream media needs more of: Illuminating, in-depth, geopolitical analysis. This is a video by the excellent James Corbett, entitled Who Is Really Behind the Syrian War?’

Censoring Debate

The Guardian have a habit of over moderating readers comments when it comes to discussing the sensitive Israel/Palestine conflict. Understandably, racist and antisemitic comments need to be deleted but seemingly innocent comments regarding Israeli foreign policy have, in the past, been completely removed. Another recurring feature on the Guardian message boards (referred to as CiF) is an ongoing reluctance by the moderators to allow any discussion of the pro-Israeli Guardian monitoring group http://www.cifwatch.com

I’ve had around 6 or 7 comments completely removed by the moderators after politely but specifically mentioning CiF Watch. When I asked why my comment had been removed I was told that it was “off topic”. Unless the Guardian run an article specifically about CiF Watch (which seems unlikely)  I imagine that mentioning them at any point will be deemed “off topic”.

Here are some statements from the CiF Watch website;

About Us

Welcome to CiF Watch, dedicated to monitoring antisemitism and combating the assault on Israel’s legitimacy at the Guardian and its ‘Comment is Free’ blog.

By labelling something antisemitic are you not shutting down debate on what is perhaps a legitimate subject of debate?

Absolutely not. We support vigorous and open debate about Jewish related issues, including issues of controversy, however we object to speech that violates the EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism.

In particular, it bears emphasizing that we support open and honest debate about the Israel-Arab conflict including harsh criticism of Israel as long as the criticism of Israel is similar to that leveled against any other nation of the world.

Judging from its mission statement CiF Watch seems like a reasonable and balanced organisation. I agree that racism should be challenged. However here are some statements made recently by CiF Watch on twitter, which (in my opinion) portrays the organisation in a much more radicalized light;


ImageImage

Image

So is my beef with The Guardian or CiF Watch? I believe the Guardian has a duty to allow debate about any outside influence it may be under when allowing readers to discuss world issues. Censoring debate in this way limits its readers knowledge and therefor helps shape opinion.

UPDATE 17/11/15

CiF Watch has now changed it’s name to UK Media Watch > http://ukmediawatch.org/