CAMERA focused on the following sentence:
The Central Elections Committee on Thursday disqualified a Jewish far-right extremist and an outspoken Arab lawmaker from running in the March election.
Though it seems accurate to characterize Marzel (a former member of the outlawed Kach party) as an extremist, it appears equally fair to describe Zoabi, (who said that the kidnappers of three Israeli teens last summer were NOT terrorists, and participated in the 2010 terrorist affiliated flotilla) in the same manner.
Well, since the Haaretz editorial was published, the Israeli Supreme Court overruled the Central Election Committee ruling which disqualified Marzel and Zoabi – as an AFP/Daily Mail story on Feb. 18 noted.
Though the headline characterized them both as “right wingers”, the lead sentence followed in the double standards employed by Haaretz:
The Israeli Supreme Court overruled Wednesday a ban on a firebrand Arab-Israeli MP and an extreme right-wing Jewish activist from running in next month’s election, an official said.
Whilst the term “extreme right-wing” naturally conveys very negative connotations, the word “firebrand” is a neutral term to describe someone who gets others riled up for a political cause.
In its application of inconsistent standards in characterizing the two Israelis, the Daily Mail article appears inconsistent with the spirit of the Editors’ Code demand that newspapers clearly distinguish between news and views.
Categories: Daily Mail