BBC audiences are told that Hamas is ‘cash-strapped’ – but not why.
Contrary to the dominant narrative, the continuing Israeli occupation is not the cause of Palestinian terrorism. It is the result of Palestinian terrorism. But, as long as Palestinians are not taken seriously as agents of their own fate, and are treated instead merely as passive victims of Israel, this an important causation shaping the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will continue to elude British news consumers.
Contrary to the Indy’s claim, the US anti-BDS bill narrowly addresses business practices, not individual speech. And, even then, it merely protects the rights of local and state governments which decide to no longer do business with those who boycott Israel.
Here’s the latest installment in our ongoing series of posts documenting BDS fails.
The Guardian doesn’t even attempt to demonstrate in which manner the Israeli law undermines equal rights because editors couldn’t, if pressed, point to even one civil or political right enjoyed by non-Jewish citizens before the law that they no longer enjoyed after the law was passed.
Research by blogger David Collier, based on a database of official transcripts of UK parliament proceedings, found an increasing obsession with Israel.
or all their erudition, Beinart and his Guardian fellow travelers fail to grasp a point that most Jews know instinctively: that Jews can never, and will never, replace the Jewish state with the pre-Holocaust state of perpetual political weakness which left Jews continually vulnerability to antisemitic scapegoating, violence and genocide.
The Indy headline caught our eye because “Israeli fingerprints” is a term often used by extremists to evoke the idea of some sort of false flag operation, in which it is alleged that Israel is secretly behind attacks launched by other countries.
A Feb. 14 article in the Independent on reactions to antisemitic tweets by Congresswoman Ilhan Omar devoted several paragraphs to a defence of Omar by the fringe Jewish group IfNotNow, whilst omitting any reference to the near universal criticism by large mainstream US Jewish groups.
Whilst it’s true that Ilhan Omar has been the target of ugly abuse by some due to her ethnic and/or religious background, such completely unjustifiable bigotry doesn’t seem intellectually dissimilar to the liberal racism which rejects universal moral standards by minimising, obfuscating or justifying antisemitism due merely to the gender, race or religion of the perpetrator.
If the Guardian reporter wanted to really meditate upon what Jesus would think of the modern Jewish state, he could explore the state’s record in safeguarding the rights of its Christian community, and how this contrasts with the persecution of Christians in the rest of the Mid-East. Or, more relevant to the topic at hand, he could report on the state’s internationally recognised advances in water technology, such as desalination.
So, if the pro-Israel lobby is so limited in its spending, if the Zionist “tentacles” are so relatively short, how do we explain to antisemites why the US public is generally so pro-Israel? Could it be that Americans simply recognise and support other democracies and free societies, especially when under constant attack by non-democratic, despotic and sometimes Islamist neighbours?
An op-ed by the Independent’s Mid-East correspondent on the electoral hopes of Benny Gantz expresses skepticism that the former IDF Chief-of-Staff truly holds a more centrist view on the Palestinian issue – and, in so doing, falsely accuses him of “glorifying” the deaths of Palestinian civilians.
Evidence of Corbyn’s antisemitism is ubiquitous, and includes: his support for countless anti-Semites and violent antisemitic extremists; his initial defence of an antisemitic mural; his co-sponsoring of a bill to eliminate Holocaust Memorial Day because it was ‘too Jewish’ in its focus; his othering of British Jews as not quite English; and his seeming indifference to the cesspit of antisemitism and antisemitic bullying by Labour activists.
Cross posted by Jonathan Hoffman George Galloway wants to be readmitted to Labour. He was interviewed on Sky News this morning (20 February). He referred to the 8 MPs who recently left […]
As we’ve demonstrated on numerous occasions whilst prompting corrections at multiple British media outlets, the Temple Mount is the most sacred location for Jews. The Western Wall is merely the most sacred place where Jews are currently permitted to pray.
Whilst Ilhan Omar’s story, as a Somali immigrant elected to Congress, is inspiring, the excusing, obfuscating or erasing of her use of antisemitic tropes, based on an illiberal reflex in which her immutable traits trump reasoned discussion and universal moral standards, represents the very worst of the modern left.
It’s hard not to see troubling parallels between Jeremy Corbyn’s loyal band of anti-Semites and antisemitism deniers and the Guardian contributor’s rush to defend Ilhan Omar against charges of antisemitism whilst questioning the motives of her accusers.
Contrary to Guardian claims, 85% of those killed on May 14th along the Gaza border were combatants – numbers consistent with an examination by Meir Amit Terrorism and Information Center revealing that most of the rioters killed between March 30th and Jan. 14th were similarly operatives of terror groups.
This morning, CST published their latest antisemitic incidents report showing that 2018 saw the highest levels of antisemitism on record – an increase, CST noted, was driven in large measure by the ongoing Labour Antisemitism row. Yet, the Guardian’s report on CST’s latest figures used a photo from Gaza to illustrate the piece, as we noted in a tweet to their photo editor minutes after it was published.
An article at the Independent, by their Mid-East correspondent Bel Trew, charged that Israeli racism against Arabs was reaching “unprecedented levels”. Yet, the article is full of distortions and half-truths – and devoid of any semblance of balance or objectivity.
The Guardian has consistently published such pro-BDS letters by British ‘artists’ over the years – missives which amplify and grant credibility to what are extremely marginal – not to mention almost always unsuccessful – anti-Israel campaigns.
Last week, we tweeted in response to a misleading caption below a Guardian video segment on Israel’s interception, over the Golan Heights, of an Iranian missile fired (by Iranian troops) from Syrian territory. […]
Our survey of photos highlighted in their ‘Photos of the Week’ series since March 31st (when the Hamas-led ‘Great March of Return’ began) included no less than 31 photos depicting scenes from the weekly Gaza border riots. In contrast, the Guardian published a mere 21 photos depicting the Syrian Civil War over the same 10 month period.
Though he’s referring to the American political debate, the accusation that supporters of Israel engage in false charges of antisemitism to silence criticism of the state is a smear used by many of Jeremy Corbyn’s most ardent supporters to deflect charges that he’s hostile to Jews.
We’ve been monitoring the Guardian and commenting on the media group’s institutional hostility to Israel for nearly 10 years, and nothing much shocks us at this point. Yet, an official editorial published yesterday reaches a new low in malice and plain out dishonesty.
A 2016 Israeli Institute for Democracy poll did show that serious tensions between Arabs and Jews persist, but that most Arab Israelis (55%) are nonetheless proud to be Israeli. The bottom line is that the Guardian writer’s contention that ‘Arab-Israelis’ reject their Israeli identity, and primarily identify as ‘Palestinians’, simply does not hold up to critical scrutiny.
It’s impossible to get into the mind of Fisk, but it strains credulity to conclude that, after more than 40 years as a journalist, the curmudgeonly anti-Israel reporter is now Semitically ‘woke’, having had some sort of moral awakening about the toxicity of such ‘dual loyalty’ canards over the course of twelve months.
In the Jan. 9th edition of the Telegraph’s new weekly newsletter, Letter from Jerusalem, their correspondent Raf Sanchez wrote that “only around 43 per cent of Israelis support a two-state solution today”. […]
If you see only an “Israeli-Palestinian” conflict, then nothing that Israelis do makes sense. (That’s why Israel’s enemies prefer this framing.) In this tightly cropped frame, Israelis are stronger, more prosperous and more numerous. The fears affecting big decisions, like what to do about the military occupation in the West Bank, seem unwarranted if Israel is indeed the far more powerful party.
Though British media outlets covering the region subject nearly every Israeli moral failure to something akin to a forensic examination, Palestinians (as we’ve documented continually) are usually spared this level of scrutiny – representing a pattern of double standards that egregiously skew reports about the conflict.
We’ve seen a lot of misleading and false charges against Israel in the British media over the years, but an article on Friday at the Independent promotes what’s truly one of the more bizarre allegations we’ve come across, in accusing the state of “gastronomic theft” for simply noting that shawarma is a popular Israeli street food.
Contrary to the Financial Times claim, it was Palestinian leaders who, acting on their own free will, independent of what Netanayhu or Begin did or didn’t do, “denied Palestinians a country to call their own” – a simple historical fact that’s continually obfuscated in British media reports about the conflict.
So, when Angela Davis had the opportunity to truly ‘speak truth to power’ on behalf of actual political prisoners in a totalitarian regime, she failed to do so. Yet, decades later, she ardently champions for the release of Palestinian terrorists convicted for acts of violence against citizens of a democratic state – and is of course bestowed the moral badge of “civil rights activist” by the Guardian for doing so.
The Guardian’s insistence that one or two wealthy Jews are behind Trump’s pro-Israel policies is facile and myopic at best, and, at worst, promotes exactly the kind of antisemitic dog whistles about the ‘injurious’ influence of Jewish power that, when directed at George Soros, their editors and contributors have ardently denounced.
A Dec. 20th op-ed at the Independent by Palestinian activist Abdallah Abu Rahmah included the erroneous claim that a UN report found Israel guilty of apartheid.
According to Sky News Arabia, even Arab citizens of Israel are being “occupied”. This represents the adoption of a radical terminology associated with the positions of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, which views any Jewish presence in the region as an illegal “occupation”.
Our UK Media Watch family just lost a dear friend. Garry Grolman, who succumbed to cancer earlier in the week in Tel Aviv at the age of 72, was a tireless defender of Israel and one of the founding volunteers of the group (CiF Watch) formed in 2009 that would become – along with BBC Watch – part of CAMERA’s UK brand.
Once again, we see how the Guardian seems to be institutionally incapable of holding Palestinian leadership even partly responsible for the misery in Gaza. It’s a pattern of coverage informed by an ideologically-driven propensity to deny Palestinians agency: the seeming belief that, as individuals, they lack the capacity to act independently of Israel and make choices of their own free will.
Narrowing down an entire year of Guardian anti-Israel reporting to the five most egregious examples is not an easy task, but, as a public service to our loyal readers, here are a few errors and lies by their contributors and reporters in 2018 which especially stand out.
Palestinians, it seems, are not quite the peace and social justice warriors of media lore. They are arguably ‘far-right’, and certainly far from ‘woke’.
Such holiday trickery reminds us that though events in the region may change from year to year, the British media’s annual tradition of blaming Israel for ruining ‘Christmas in Palestine’ continues, unimpeded by facts, statistics or even the most painfully obvious observations.
In recent years, CAMERA analysts have noted that media coverage of Beitar is often obsessive, myopic and plagued by double-standards. We’ve noted that ethnic and religious tensions in football teams’ hiring practices, and racism by some fans, is not at all a phenomenon that’s at all unique to Israel. Moreover, we’ve criticised such tendentious media reports which misleadingly draw broad conclusions about Israeli society based on the behavior of one team and some of their fans behavior.
Here’s the headline of a Dec. 18th article at The Independent: The claim that a Texas woman was forced to sign a “pro-Israel pledge” is repeated in the opening paragraph of the […]
On Dec. 6, we tweeted a journalist at The Independent about a story which falsely suggested that Israel occupied all of Lebanon from the early 80s to 2000.
This isn’t merely one poorly written headline. It represent an institutional pattern of reporting informed by a pro-Palestinian sympathy so pronounced that it often erases the most intuitive moral distinction between victim and perpetrator.
Most years around this time, the British media resurrects some variation of the desired Palestinian narrative on Israel’s putative role ruining Christmas in Bethlehem, and this year is no different, with the opening salvo coming from Raf Sanchez at the Telegraph.
Fisk falsely suggests that Israel intentionally murders Palestinian journalists to prevent them from reporting the truth about Gaza. In fact, the IDF operates with the knowledge that Palestinian terrorists have, at times, posed as journalists in order to attack Israelis, and that this tactic was used frequently by Hamas during Operation Protective Edge – an intentional blurring of civilians with combatants that Israeli soldiers protecting the border must carefully navigate during the weekly riots.