As even Nicholas Watt, Guardian’s former chief political correspondent, once acknowledged: “quite often on the left the term right-wing is just used to mean ‘bad'”.
The Labour Party’s reluctant acceptance of the IHRA Working Definition of antisemitism in 2018 didn’t occur without a fight. There was one notable dissenter to the proposal to adopt, in full, the […]
Here are the endorsements by major British media outlets for tomorrow’s general election, and what they wrote about antisemitism in their editorials. The Guardian: Endorsement: Labour On antisemitism: [Corbyn’s] obdurate handling of […]
We complained to Liverpool Echo editors about their publication’s decision to publish such a hateful letter – one which advances the antisemitic narrative that the Israeli intelligence agency is helping to orchestrate the entire Labour antisemitism scandal, and they responded with a clear apology.
Videos such as these help explain why 87% of British Jews believe the leader of the Labour Party is personally antisemitic, and why many of them would view his arrival at 10 Downing Street as nothing less than an existential threat to their community.
The writings of Slavoj Žižek, a defender of Lenin and foe of liberal democracy who who has attributed the attacks of 9/11 to the “antagonisms of global capitalism”, have all the markings of a socialist revolutionary intellectual trying desperately to stay relevant in an age which has rejected such historically lethal ideologies. Unsurprisingly, the Corbyn-Milne brand of neo-Marxist politics he embraces also seems intent on at least trying to hide one central component of his core beliefs – an innate hostility to Jews and Israel.
Of course, beyond ‘merely’ his hatred of Israel, the overwhelming majority of British Jews (87%) believe that Corbyn is personally antisemitic, which renders Rifkind’s suggestion, towards the end of her op-ed, that it’s the responsibility of the Jewish community to reach out to and reconcile with Labour a moral inversion of the highest order.
We sent a polite tweet to the journalist pointing out our concerns. To his credit, he thanked us for pointing it out and agreed to amend the online version of the print article.
A Guardian article (“Lawyer criticises secretive Israeli case against Gaza aid worker”, Nov. 28), by their Jerusalem correspondent Oliver Holmes, included the following claim: More than 4,700 Palestinian security detainees and political […]
Editors at the Independent upheld our complaint that an op-ed by Robert Fisk included a baseless smear of the group UN Watch, and revised the relevant passage accordingly. However, another false claim in the piece has yet to be corrected.
Last week’s round of hostilities between Israel and Islamic Jihad saw hundreds of rockets fired from Gaza at Israeli communities – the “Gaza envelope” villages and the town of Sderot, as well […]
Editors upheld our complaint after we provided evidence demonstrating that between the late 1970s and 2016, there was not one president or secretary of state who labeled the settlements “illegal”. Rather, most – other than Ronald Reagan, who explicitly rejected the view that they were illegal – have characterised them as politically “illegitimate”, or an obstacle to peace, without taking a position on their legal status.
Whilst this blog takes no position on Israeli communities across the green line, we do take a strident position on holding British media outlets accountable to the accuracy clause of the UK Editors’ Code of Practice. So, over the past several days, we’ve pushed back against multiple outlets – including the Guardian, Independent, Economist, Telegraph and Financial Times – that have misrepresented longstanding US policy on settlements in the context of reports on the new US decision that they are not illegal.
Contrary to the Guardian’s claim that the new US declaration rejects the US legal position on the issue since 1978, the 1978 US State Department Hansell Memorandum they’re referring to, which maintained that settlements are illegal, was not the basis of 40 years of U.S. policy, a time period which includes Ronald Reagan’s policy which held that the settlements are not illegal.
Alashqar’s article was written with the sole objective of vilifying Israel by amplifying Hamas talking points. Every action or hardship is Israel’s fault no matter what the truth states. Mr Alashqar – alongside so many others – can continue to blame Israel and indemnify Gazans, but this only serves to make peace an ever more distant dream for both Israelis and Palestinians.
After a series of emails with editors, they finally upheld our complaint, and revised the sentence, which now only narrowly claims that Gaza “residents [are] forced to try to survive on reduced hours of electricity.
Though we should be careful not to overstate the political commonality between the two politicians, both Sanders and Corbyn certainly do seem to share the astonishingly dense and self-serving view that since those on the left are, by definition, anti-racist, those who identify as such should – regardless of what they actually say or do – often be granted moral impunity against charges of antisemitism.
Independent Arabia – a joint venture of the UK based Independent and the Saudi media group SRMG, with ties to the Saudi state – continues to parrot anti-Israeli propaganda in yet another egregiously biased article
An article at the Independent by their Mid-East correspondent Bel Trew yesterday shortly after hostilities between Islamic Jihad and Israel commenced yesterday morning was relatively balanced – at least by Indy standards. However, today’s piece on the conflict contains two significant errors.
Oliver Holmes has been the Guardian’s Jerusalem correspondent for nearly two years, yet, as he shows in a recent article on the Jerusalem neighborhood of Kafr Aqab, he still fails to grasp some basic facts about the holy city.
Whatever Shenker’s motivations, his failure to seriously explore the tsunami of anti-Jewish racism in the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn represents a stunning journalistic abdication.
Independent Arabia, operating under the imprimatur of a presumably “Western” media outlet, recently published a report from Gaza that parroted Hamas propaganda .
Following communication from UK Media Watch, the Guardian revised an extremely misleading claim regarding US Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib’s proposed trip to the region.
As is often the case when reporting on anti-Israel NGOs, the Guardian article reads more like a HRW press release than anything resembling professional journalism.
Once again, we see the standard Indy formula for reporting from Gaza: factual inaccuracies or distortions, blaming Israel regardless of the evidence, and failing to hold Palestinian leaders even minimally responsible for deprivations in the strip.
Written by Petra Marquardt-Bigman From my home on the southern outskirts of Tel Aviv, I hear the Muslim call to prayer every day as it issues from a mosque half a mile […]
A guest post by Joe Geary. The Guardian is so full of gaffes that its nickname is “the Grauniad”: the paper that can’t get anything right, not even its own name. Latest […]
Here’s the latest installment in our ongoing series of posts documenting BDS fails. Political: German parliament condemns ‘anti-Semitic’ BDS movement The German Bundestag has passed a resolution describing the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions campaign against […]
This is a cross-post from BBC Watch. Back in May, in a report concerning Palestinian rejection of the as yet unpublished US peace initiative, BBC News told its audiences that: “It is […]
This is a cross-post from BBC Watch. On October 24th OFCOM – which in April 2017 became the BBC’s external regulator – published its second annual report on the BBC. “The Royal […]
On October 17th the Guardian published an article by its chief reporter in the US, Ed Pilkington, under the dramatic headline “Revealed: rightwing push to ban criticism of Israel on US campuses” […]
One of the leading factors behind the Guardian’s institutional pro-Palestinian bias is their refusal to take Palestinians seriously as agents of their own fate – a failure to grant Palestinians agency which invariably leads to a mono-causal, Israeli focused explanation which is fundamentally ahistorical, thus grossly misleading readers on the root cause of the conflict
With elections looming, Jews face at least the possibility that the country could soon be led by an opposition leader that 86% of the community believe is personally antisemitic, a scenario that some believe represents nothing less than an “existential threat” to Jewish life in the UK.
Though we haven’t read Weiss’s book and don’t know the specifics of her argument, if she was broadly asserting that Muslims in Europe are, on average, significantly more antisemitic than non-Muslims in the continent, she’s certainly on solid empirical ground.
Once again, we see that a Guardian op-ed accusing Israel of systematic racism does not hold up to critical scrutiny.
If the Independent wants to be taken seriously as a respectable anti-racist publication, they need call out antisemitic tropes advanced by extremists, world leaders…and even their own correspondents.
it’s interesting that on the same day the Indy published Barghouti’s pro-BDS op-ed, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief published a report linking BDS to antisemitism, noting, for instance, the frequent use of antisemitic tropes by BDS activists – an unprecedented report contradicting Barghouti’s narrative that the Indy naturally failed to cover.
There’s a new player within the Western Arabic-language media universe: Independent Arabia – a joint venture of the UK based Independent and the Saudi media group SRMG, with ties to the Saudi state. Unfortunately, so far it’s shown little commitment to western journalistic standards, and often prefers following Arab newspapers’ preference for parroting anti-Israel propaganda.
The Guardian are obsessed with Israel, that much was already clear. But the Guardian’s reporting on Israel also contains a vindictive hostility. An endless stream of negative articles, all carefully worded to present Israel as the most vile, oppressive, Muslim hating, Christian hating, gay hating, Palestinian hating, murderous nation on earth
The implicit argument that the religious background alone of David Friedman and Jared Kushner renders them biased, and may help explain US policy, is a toxic and racist charge that should have no place in mainstream British publications.
The Itamar couple was gunned down in front of their four children while driving the family car, and As-Sayeh’s was found responsible for funding and authorizing it. While AFP and Independent Arabia mentioned his involvement as merely an Israeli accusation used to justify his “arrest” (thus omitting his conviction), Sky News Arabia ignored his connection to the attack altogether:
To their credit, shortly after notifying the Financial Times journalist of this error, the passage was revised, and no longer alleges that Oslo committed Israel to the creation of a Palestinian state.
The original article included the wild and completely unsubstantiated claim that, upon invading Lebanon in 1982, the IDF rounded up “all males” as young as 9 years old.
At 2:50 pm Israeli time, the Independent published an article about a proposed Israeli law that would have installed cameras at all polling stations. However, the article was outdated, as, hours before the Indy published their piece, the bill in question was defeated in committee.
Though the Telegraph is normally responsible when it comes to avoiding language that could be seen as antisemitic, this particular sentence clearly serves to legitimise the historically toxic dual loyalty trope, codified as antisemitic by the IHRA Working Definition.
The main point – one that we’ve made continuously at this blog when getting corrections from UK outlets suggesting that Tel Aviv was Israel’s capital – is that, regardless of the question over diplomatic recognition, Jerusalem has been Israel’s official capital since 1949. It is the seat of government, and the city where the Knesset, Supreme Court, Prime Minster’s office and most government ministries are located.
Sky News Arabia did not address the terror attack directly at all. However, after three days, in a report entitled “Israel avenges the ‘Dolev attack’ with 300 houses in the settlements”, it falsely described the innocent victim of the attack as “a settler”,
All of the British publications we surveyed ignored the UN report criticising the Palestinian Authority, despite the fact that most of the outlets routinely report on the UN’s egregiously disproportionate reports critical of Israel.
Though we contacted Daily Mail editors to ask for an editor’s note acknowledging the error, in light of the fact that the claim was made in an actual paper map that nearly one million Britons received (and not merely online), the damage can’t really be undone.