Corrections

UKMW prompts correction to Indy claim that no Arabs in Jerusalem are citizens


The Independent published an article (Outrage over new Israeli law allowing Palestinians in Jerusalem to be stripped of residency, March 11) by their Middle East correspondent Bethan McKernan which claims that “Arabs living in [Jerusalem] do not have Israeli citizenship”.

This is not an accurate statement.

Whilst it’s true that most of the more than 325,000 Arabs living in the city are permanent residents, thousands are full Israeli citizens.  Roughly 7 percent of the city’s Arabs (more than 20,000 people) are citizens and have the same rights (including the right to vote in national elections) as all other Israelis.

In 2015, CAMERA prompted a New York Times correction to the same false claim:Just a few days ago, CAMERA prompted a Haaretz correction to an article which similarly claimed that “Jerusalem’s Palestinians have no right to vote for the Knesset.”  The new language now includes accurate statistics on the percentage of Palestinians who have citizenship and can vote for the Knesset.

After tweeting the journalist, we contacted Indy editors and our complaint was ultimately upheld. The new language now accurately notes only that “most Arabs” in the city don’t have citizenship. 

(This post is available in Arabic, here.)

Related Articles

21 replies »

  1. I just read the article. Interesting that it mentions several reasons for violence including the usual bs about settlements and lack of economic opportunity, but mentions nothing about Palestinian official incitement to violence.

  2. Actually most Arabs in Jerusalem are not Israeli citizens but most have the option of applying for Israeli citizenship.

    However, they choose not to become citizens because they don’t want to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the city and they’re afraid of reprisals from their fellow Arabs if they opt for Israeli citizenship.

  3. It says so much that the UK press is more interested in proving that fallacy of Israel = Apartheid State rather than clearing the matter up for their readers.

    It’s only been going on for 30 years. One would think they’d figure it out by now.

    • That’s because the UK press is controlled by Socialists who hate Capitalism, the US, UK and Israel.

      The UK should disinter karl marx’s carcass and give it to Pootin.

          • Leah if Edward is correct that means that;
            The Barclay brothers owners of the Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph and The Spectator are socialists? I think not.
            Lebedev the Russian oligarch and owner of The Independent and Evening Standard is a socialist? I think not.
            Rupert Murdoch the owner of Times, Sunday Times, and the Sun as well as the Wall Street Journal and Fox News is a socialist?
            Definitely not!

            If stupidity was an illness you and Edward would be dead by now.

            • For a thicko like you to comment on other people’s intelligence is a perfect example of lack of self-awareness.

            • You make a good point, Gerald.
              Are any UK papers or media outlets controlled or heavily influenced by Socialists? Let’s think about that and see if we can come up with one, maybe, hmm?

              • Jeff21st the answer to your question is yes.
                “The Morning Star”

                Many years ago, I used to read it, sell it, and own shares in the PPPS its ‘owner’

  4. Slanted articles (to put it mildly) like the one in the Independent help to support the rantings of lunatics, such as Craig Murray (upper right of this page), and Labour supporters who attempt to mainstream his odious views. This Independent article reads like a piece of Arab war propaganda, which is what it really is. It seems that every time I read one of these things they are filled with either implicit or explicit lies about history, law, and current events.

  5. When before the birth of the State of Israel did 325,000 Arabs ever live in Jerusalem? (rhetorical)
    And yet the British media assert that not only do Arabs have an intrinsic right to live there, whining hysterically of a non-existent threat of so-called ethnic cleansing (the subtext of this nonsense), they also imply that the Jews, who are indigenous to that place, have no right to be there at all except maybe under some willfully blind fantasy good auspices of Arabs. It’s a scuzzy business that needs twists in logic, law, and history. But the truth is so much simpler than the tangled web they weave.
    Could their rank hostility to Jews be more obvious?