Independent fails to correct Ken Loach’s lie of “racially segregated” West Bank roads

As we noted in a previous post, British film director Ken Loach published an op-ed at The Independent last week to rebuke Thom Yorke, lead singer of the band Radiohead, for refusing to cancel his band’s July 19th Tel Aviv concert.  In our post, we highlighted one particularly egregious lie by Loach: that there are “racially segregated roads” in the West Bank.

Here’s the paragraph in question:

The facts couldn’t be clearer: there are not, nor have there ever been, anything resembling “racially segregated roads” or “Jews-only” roads in Israel or the West Bank. There is absolutely no wiggle room for Indy editors here.  

Various versions of this claim – meant to support the Israeli “apartheid” smear – have been definitively refuted, and have led to CAMERA prompted corrections at major news sites, including one at The Washington Post in a March 2017 op-ed by Richard Cohen titled “Is Israel Losing its Soul?” Here’s the correction:

CAMERA also prompted corrections on this same issue at Associated PressThe Boston Globe, and The Post itself back in 2010. Loach’s claim that there are apartheid-style, racially segregated roads in the West Bank is an outright lie, and we encourage you to lodge a complaint at the Indy using this online form.

Related Articles

38 replies »

  1. Why is it that people like Ken Loach are allowed to publish articles containing downright lies about Israel or Jews? It’s a very old phenomenon and it’s called Jew hatred.

    • In otherwords you are free to lie. You are a moronic racist liar and we are calling you on your stupidity and hatred

    • I’m sorry to disagree with Stephen Bellamy. In the UK you are supposed to be able to say anything you like, but you have to face the consequences. If I were to say that in my opinion Stephen Bellamy is a nasty piece of work, that is an opinion, and, as long as I am more than 3 foot away from Mr Bellamy’s fist, I do not fear the consequences. However, if I were to tell the world that Mr Bellamy is a bigamist (please, I’m not implying any such thing, I am just taking a hypothetical example) then Mr Bellamy could challenge my statement in a court of law on grounds of damaging his reputation. And if I couldn’t prove my accusation, I would have to pay hefty damages for slander. That is the consequence.

      Accusing Israel of having racially segregated roads is something that damages Israel’s reputation (and please, Mr Bellamy, don’t tell me that nothing could damage Israel’s reputation any further), which is why Media Watch requested the removal of that remark – unless the Independent could prove its truth. In fact, the Independent cannot prove the truth of their remark, and under various codes of conduct they will be obliged to amend or retract.

      Yes, we do have the freedom to say what we think in the UK (now I wonder in which countries you cannot say what you think?) but we also have the responsibility to watch what we say – or face the consequences. You, to my way of thinking, have very little sense of responsibility, but that is merely an opinion.

      • Jan a country cannot be libelled it not being a person. and indeed we do have to face any consequences of what we say. The question was ” why are people like Ken Loach allowed…..” I provided the answer. If there are consequences for Ken, bring them on.

        • Of course a country cannot be libelled, nor can Jews as a “race” be libelled, but the principle of “you have the freedom to say what you want but you have to take the consequences” still applies. If a private citizen makes nasty remarks about another country, that country can shrug its shoulders and perhaps make nasty remarks back. If somebody in the public eye makes nasty remarks, then that country can pass an official protest to the government of the country whose subject makes the offending remarks. And if it is an official representative who makes the official remarks, the official protest can be very severely worded or even lead to breaking off diplomatic relationship. There are even occasions when an offensive remark leads to a war.

          The courts are not the only route to be used to to curtail your right to say what you want.

          You then asked what are the consequences for Ken Loach. Why should there be consequences for Ken Loach? Shalom Cohen was asking rethorically why a class of people “like Ken Loach” should be allowed to publish “articles containing downright lies about Israel or Jews”. Now this is not libel – as you say, countries cannot be libelled – but we do have laws in the UK that should (but don’t always) limit newspapers from publishing lies. There are perhaps no consequences for Ken Loach, but there are consequences for newspapers, as the News of the World discovered (and the Sun is dicovering). People stop buying newspapers which publish too many lies, advertisers head for other channels of communication

          • It is pretty simple really. The tradition is that we are free to express ourselves freely within the law. Of course if there are consequences then they have to be born. I doubt Ken would regard being slagged off on UK media watch as being much of a consequence.

            • Ah, but there is another tradition. When people slander Jews there are some who are only too eager to rush it into print. This is called antisemitism. It’s something you are only too familiar with, being one of its practitioners. In an age when racists are being denied a bully pulpit in respectable publications, antisemites are being given opportunities so long as rules deemed politically correct are observed. Over time those observed rules become more and more lax, shitstain.

    • Stephen there is not an absolute freedom of expression.
      This may be news to you, sadly that would not be a surprise, but there have always been ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ attached to the ‘freedom of expression’.
      The European Convention Human Rights is clear,
      ” ARTICLE 10
      Freedom of expression
      1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right
      shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart
      information and ideas without interference by public authority
      and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States
      from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema
      2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it
      duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,
      conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and
      are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national
      security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention
      of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for
      the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing
      the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for
      maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

      Stephen I bring to your attention those parts of Clause 2, which point out that the exercise of the freedom of expression “carries with it duties and responsibilities”, and later on “..subject to such formalities,conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society” That is there dear Stephen because of the antics of clowns like you and the rest of the vile anti-Semites who would abuse any freedom, and take any opportunity to spread your lies and half-truths that are full of the vile poison of anti-Semitism.

        • Stephen as usual a ‘reply’ from you that is irrelevant to the content of my post.
          Quelle surprise!

      • Dear Stephen, I have just returned to my office in Karnei Shomron after having been to the city of Ariel, all in Judah and Samaria. Sorry to inform you that the only segregated roads here in this part of the world are the ones close to Arab cities with clear signs outside of them in big Red letters, authorising Israeli vehicles to proceed at their own risk. Besides this I was travelling in complete harmony along the very much shared infrastructure within what you call “occupied territories”, the notion of segregation on these roads both in this area and inside Israel is absolutely absurd!! sorry, LIES!!!

          • Is he not allowed to express himself to YOU of all people? What happened to the freedom of expression you wrap yourself around? You think we’re exempt from those rules because we are talking to you?

            Don’t want Jews talking to you? Then stop talking to Jews.

            But then racists don’t really get logic.

    • Funny how you imply the anti-Zionists are for freedom of expression while it is them trying to silence Zionists (like Radiohead) from performing in Israel.

      And you continuously puke your nonsense on this board directly for Zionists to consume.

      Not sure why you’re such a victim when defending people who attack Jews with racial biases and boldfaced lies. But here you are whining, day after day after day.

      Poor Shit Stain.

      • Bubba I said anti Zionists are for freedom of expression when ? Where ? I defended people that attacked Jews with racial biases and bold faced lies bold faced lies when ? Where ?

            • Cute how you insist I answer your question. So here it goes, Shit Stain….. The topic of this article is Ken Loach demanding that Radiohead not play in Israel. Radiohead, by playing in Israel and supporting Israel’s right to exist, are obviously Zionists. Ken Loach, who hates Israel, is anti-Zionist. Ken Loach says that Raidohead should be boycotted by playing in Israel. That is Ken Loach advocating the silencing of Zionists.

              Still with me?

              You come into the argument by DEFENDING KEN LOACH. Do you remember that? By defending Ken Loach, you are supporting his anti-Zionist measures. You are also echoing his insistence that Radiohead be publicly for daring to cross the unofficial BDS boycott against Israel. So this is where your mindset comes in, Shit Stain. Hard to imagine that someone (such as myself) can dissect such an insignificant pea-sized pebble, but alas….. I am a talented man.

              So you support Ken Loach for being an anti-Zionist in the same breath you bash Zionists for daring to support the notion that Ken Loach is an anti-Semitic hate monger douche canoe.

              What’s most amazing about your insistence that you’re not a batshit anti-Semite is that this discussion is only one of many you conduct every week. Just like this. Defending those who spread lies about Israel by, yourself, lying about Israel.

              That’s a lot of time to spend on your sorry Shit Stain ass, but I feel you deserve it. After all, you only asked me 3 times to explain myself.

                • We got a term for guys like you here in the States: Infowarrior. Alex Jones is from Austin. He’s your cup of Bubba tea.

                  Back when I ran my rock club, I had an employee who liked Alex Jones. This employee would later become a short-term tenant at a property I owned, and even though (or, apparently, because so) I was both his employer and landlord, this guy would get drunk during crew time and complain about me via my Jewishness. It got to a point where everyone in the room, who were my employees as well, wondered what the fuck was wrong with this guy.

                  Conspiracy theories and constant skepticism of the facts. That’s what happened to him.

                  Yes, he lost his apartment. And he lost his job. And almost a decade later, he still considers me to be part of the ZOG. Why? Well, why the fuck not?

              • koufaxmitzvah apart from his being unwilling and or unable to answer questions put to him, which is another clear demonstration of his moral hypocrisy and cowardice, dear Stephen likes to ask questions because, like the strange man in the park shouting at the ducks, he loves the sound of his own voice.
                There is a quote from one of the old philosophers which sums up dear Stephen appositely. “The person who requires a detailed argument even where the evidence is clear or who wants things which could be proved by few arguments to be
                demonstrated to him in many is completely absurd and dull.”
                Very few people are more absurd or greater dullards than anti-Semites such as dear Stephen.

                    • Furthermore dear Stephen another and different old philosopher said this, which also describes you and your intellectual shortcomings.
                      “If a man objects to truths that are all too evident, it is no easy task finding arguments that will change his mind. This is proof neither of his own strength nor of his teacher’s weakness. When someone caught in an argument hardens to stone, there is just no more reasoning with them.”