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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.