RUTHFULLY YOURS

One consequence of traditional media’s move to online platforms is that the threads which follow many articles are now open to readers to make comments of their own. This not only provides an insight into the kind of people who are attracted to a given article, it also places a responsibility on newspapers to police their websites in order to prevent libellous, bigoted or racist opinions from becoming associated with them.

Few issues reveal the nature of the problem more starkly than the Israel-Palestine conflict where extreme hostility to the Jewish state now masquerades as “normal” commentary in much of the British media. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that fanatics and open anti-Semites feel they have licence to let rip.

The Guardian, of course, has come in for much criticism in this respect but equally egregious in its attitude to Israel has been the Financial Times which is rapidly acquiring a reputation as one of the most rabidly anti-Israeli outlets in the English speaking world’s mainstream press. Following a rare pro-Israel piece by the historian Andrew Roberts in the comment section of the newspaper earlier in the week, the online threads have featured some of the vilest anti-Semitic bigotry to have been sanctioned by a British newspaper for quite some time.

I quote eight examples below to illustrate both the tone and the content of what has appeared. Some clearly attempt to equate Israel with Nazi Germany by reference to the “abused” having become “the abusers”. Others are obsessed with the “Jewish” character of Israel. One (in an irony that would certainly escape him) appears to allege a Jewish conspiracy with the notion that Mossad has taken over the FT newsroom since that is the only explanation for the appearance of a very rare piece of pro-Israeli writing. One refers obliquely to the “chosen people”. Another describes as “laughable” the ancient Jewish presence in the Middle East.

As you read these contributions on the FT’s website, please note that they have been up for several days now. In other words, the FT must know about them and we must therefore conclude that they see no problem with them.

Once again, they all refer to Roberts’ article. Here they are, unedited:….GO TO THE SITE TO SEE THEM