I've regarded Ahmed's Guardian articles as some of the most insightful in relation to Middle Eastern issues found in the blogosphere. Thus, I was not surprised to read this piece of news. Taking into consideration that Israel plays a key role in maintaining the Empire's interests in the Middle East, Cook explains why an Empire publication cannot allow too much insight to interfere with the interests of the Empire:
The problem with Israel is that its place in the global order – alongside the US – depends on it being a very sophisticated gun for hire. It keeps order and disorder in the Middle East at Washington’s behest and in return it gets to plunder the Palestinian territories and ethnically cleanse the native population. It’s a simple story but not one you can state anywhere in the mainstream because it questions not just a policy (the occupation) but Israel’s very nature and role as a colonial settler state.Although The Guardian allows more critical coverage of Israeli affairs than most mainstream media corporation, Ahmed strayed a bit too far from their protective bias toward Israel.
Given that Israel’s character, as a colonial settler state, is the story, the Guardian effectively never presents more than a fraction of the truth about the conflict. Because it never helps us understand what drives Israeli policy, it – along with the rest of the media – never offers us any idea how the conflict might be resolved.Cook continues on by describing his own experiences with censorship at The Guardian.
And this is where Ahmed tripped up. Because his piece [arguing Israel's true motivation behind the recent Gaza invasion], as the Guardian’s editors doubtless quickly realised, implicated Israel’s character rather than just its policies. It violated a Guardian taboo.
(I signed up as a crowdfunder at $1/month to support his continued investigative journalism.)