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.
Though we haven’t read Weiss’s book and don’t know the specifics of her argument, if she was broadly asserting that Muslims in Europe are, on average, significantly more antisemitic than non-Muslims in the continent, she’s certainly on solid empirical ground.
Once again, we see that a Guardian op-ed accusing Israel of systematic racism does not hold up to critical scrutiny.
If the Independent wants to be taken seriously as a respectable anti-racist publication, they need call out antisemitic tropes advanced by extremists, world leaders…and even their own correspondents.
it’s interesting that on the same day the Indy published Barghouti’s pro-BDS op-ed, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief published a report linking BDS to antisemitism, noting, for instance, the frequent use of antisemitic tropes by BDS activists – an unprecedented report contradicting Barghouti’s narrative that the Indy naturally failed to cover.
There’s a new player within the Western Arabic-language media universe: Independent Arabia – a joint venture of the UK based Independent and the Saudi media group SRMG, with ties to the Saudi state. Unfortunately, so far it’s shown little commitment to western journalistic standards, and often prefers following Arab newspapers’ preference for parroting anti-Israel propaganda.
The implicit argument that the religious background alone of David Friedman and Jared Kushner renders them biased, and may help explain US policy, is a toxic and racist charge that should have no place in mainstream British publications.
To their credit, shortly after notifying the Financial Times journalist of this error, the passage was revised, and no longer alleges that Oslo committed Israel to the creation of a Palestinian state.
The original article included the wild and completely unsubstantiated claim that, upon invading Lebanon in 1982, the IDF rounded up “all males” as young as 9 years old.
At 2:50 pm Israeli time, the Independent published an article about a proposed Israeli law that would have installed cameras at all polling stations. However, the article was outdated, as, hours before the Indy published their piece, the bill in question was defeated in committee.