Controversy Surrounds Guardian Review of Oct 7 Documentary on Hamas Massacre

[Social Media]

 

The Guardian has found itself at the center of an online controversy following the publication of a review of *One Day in October*, a documentary by Channel 4 covering the events and aftermath of the Hamas massacre on October 7. Written by feature writer Stuart Jeffries, the review sparked outrage, particularly over the suggestion that the film "demonises Gazans" as “Hamas killers.”

Hamas shot and killed anyone on sight on October 7th. The Palestinians celebrated their atrocities, and called them heroes.

This says it all. The Palestinians chose this war, they are NOT the victims. The vast majority of them are despicable murderers.

https://t.co/xsorSRsyiH

— Vivid.🇮🇱 (@VividProwess) May 14, 2024

 

While the review largely praised the documentary, it criticized the portrayal of Hamas and Gazans, comparing their depiction to the “nameless hordes” of warriors in the 1964 film *Zulu*. Jeffries argued that the film "othered" Hamas, making them a generalized enemy while the Israeli victims were made relatable. He commented that the documentary "does a good job of demonising Gazans," portraying them as “testosterone-crazed Hamas killers” and later as civilians looting a kibbutz during the attacks.

 

 

This comparison ignited fierce criticism online, with many taking issue with what appeared to be an attempt to draw moral equivalence between the perpetrators of the massacre and its victims. Dan Reed, the director of *One Day in October*, strongly condemned the review, stating that it “equates Jewish civilians with British redcoat troops and Hamas goons with Zulu warriors.” Reed further criticized Jeffries for seeming to object to the "demonisation" of individuals who "murdered helpless families.

 

 

The Guardian has since removed the review from its website, stating that the article “did not meet our editorial standards.” The piece is now “pending review,” and the publication’s independent readers’ editor will be addressing the numerous concerns raised by readers.

 

The review originally opened with a critique of the documentary’s perceived failure to explain Hamas’s motivations, stating, “If you want to understand why Hamas murdered civilians, though, *One Day in October* won’t help.” The piece also highlighted how the film included first-hand accounts from survivors and footage from the day of the massacre, including a Hamas terrorist live-streaming his actions to viewers in Gaza.

Absolute savages! Gazans, ordinary civilians in Gaza, hitting a corpse of a dead Israeli, who was kidnapped on #October7Massacre! pic.twitter.com/fdLULEVKDL

— Arsen Ostrovsky 🎗️ (@Ostrov_A) October 7, 2024

 

Jeffries’s review noted that, despite the documentary's portrayal of "evident evil," it followed a narrative structure that encouraged viewers to identify with the Israeli victims, while casting Hamas as a faceless and generalized threat. This perspective, according to the Campaign Against Antisemitism, was "disgraceful," and many agreed that it trivialized the severity of the massacre.

 

 

In response to the backlash, Guardian News & Media reaffirmed that the article had been taken down because it did not meet their editorial standards. Readers are awaiting further clarification from the publication regarding how such content made it to print in the first place.

 

 

Based on a report from The Daily Telegraph | X 2024-10-12

 

 

 

[sikishrory]

The problem with this online world we have now is everything is magnified and a click away.

"Controversy" exists everywhere where previously there was nothing but a morning paper, coffee and being reasonably oblivious to every little "controvesy" you could imagine.

[herfiehandbag]

The Guardian appears to have burnt their fingers somewhat in releasing this only a year on.

 

Still, given time in more favourable circumstances it will no doubt re-emerge as part of the overall effort to blame Israel and whitewash the Gazans.

Edited October 12 by herfiehandbag

[Thingamabob]

Hardly surprising. It's the Guardian after all. A miserably biased rag.

[Thingamabob]

3 hours ago, sikishrory said:

The problem with this online world we have now is everything is magnified and a click away.

"Controversy" exists everywhere where previously there was nothing but a morning paper, coffee and being reasonably oblivious to every little "controvesy" you could imagine.

This was not a 'little controversy'.