You don’t need to be a journalist, Mid-East analyst or expert of any kind to come up with a list of practical steps ‘protesters’ participating in the Hamas organised Great March of Return can take to save Palestinian lives. Here are just a few:
1. Stop firing at soldiers on the border.
2. Stop throwing grenades and other explosive devices at soldiers on the border.
3. Stop attempting to damage the security fence and infiltrate into Israel in order to kill Jews.
The Telegraph’s promotion of the Lebanese PR event in defence of Hezbollah is another example of the media’s frequent failure to subject the accusations of Israel’s enemies to the same degree of journalistic skepticism and critical scrutiny that Israeli claims are almost always subjected to.
Whilst covering events in Jerusalem over the past year, including tensions at the city’s holy sites in the summer of 2017, Sky News Arabia has repeatedly leveled unsubstantiated and erroneous allegations against Jewish visitors and Israeli security forces when reporting on incidents at The Temple Mount – Judaism’s holiest site. Namely, all Jewish visitors to the Temple Mount are blanketly referred to as “settlers”, and are accused of “storming”, “infiltrating” and “violating” the al-Aqsa Mosque compound with the support of the Israeli police (“the police of the Occupation”).
Following communication with UK Media Watch, editors at the Daily Mail corrected an article which stated, as if it were a fact, that Israeli soldiers killed an 11 year old Palestinian boy on the Gaza border.
In over 1200 words of text in Shlaim’s column, there isn’t even once sentence so much as suggesting even the possibility that some Palestinian actions since 1993 may have been injurious to the peace process, illustrating another example of the one-sided, distorted and agenda-driven commentary on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict that Guardian editors consistently promote.
Corbyn and his supporters – including those on the Guardian editorial board – wish to remain free to assert, in some form or another, that “Zionism is racism” and that “Israel has no right to exist” with moral impunity – a fact which explains why the overwhelming majority of British Jews will continue to see the current Labour Party (as well as the pages of the Guardian) as a “hostile environment” antithetical to their values.
In smearing Israel, Jonathan Sacks and – by association – most British Jews, Steve Bell has attempted to grant Jeremy Corbyn and his cult-like band of acolytes the ultimate political get-out-of-jail-free card the times – lifetime moral impunity for expressions of anti-Jewish racism.
Yesterday, the Labour Party adopted – at least for the time being – the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism with all its examples, though with a caveat which Labour Friends of Israel claimed […]
Despite a brief moral throat-clearing, in his Guardian op-ed, on the need to fight ‘real’ antisemitism, by impugning the motives of those calling for the full definition’s adoption, and using dog whistles about ‘Zionist power’ in the UK, Ash Sarkar appears to be as committed to fighting anti-Jewish racism within Labour as the party leader his publication so enthusiastically supports.
Let’s remember that Zionism is the simple recognition that Israel has a right to exist. Anti-Zionism is the belief that Israel doesn’t have a right to exist and shouldn’t exist. It’s not a theoretical discussion, but a radical campaign which seeks the destruction of an actually existing nation-state. Further, anti-Zionists such as Khalidi don’t say nation-states shouldn’t exist. They say that only the Jewish state shouldn’t exist.
British Jews, according to an op-ed endorsed by Sarah Helm, have too much power in Britain, and are using this power to subvert democracy with a well-coordinated smear campaign alleging that Jeremy Corbyn is antisemitic – a charge they know to be untrue.
The real ‘irony’ is that Corbyn’s own words vindicate the work of Millett, which is premised upon the understanding – based on sound empirical evidence and their first person reports over the years – that there’s a strong correlation between antisemitic and anti-Israel attitudes in the UK.
Yet, despite Hamas well-documented history of using such putatively ‘civilian’ structures for military uses, the Guardian largely ignored the IDF’s statement, and parroted Hamas claims the IDF targeted what was merely a cultural centre. In three articles, encompassing over 2500 words of text, the Guardian devoted a mere four sentences, and 173 words, to the Israeli position.
Here’s the latest installment in our ongoing series of posts documenting BDS fails.
Once again, the Guardian has denied readers the full story, omitting crucial details, failing to provide relevant context and erasing nuance – all of which helps advance the desired Guardian narrative, one which invariably imputes maximum Israeli malevolence to any dispute between the two parties.
We immediately filed a complaint with Daily Mail editors, taking issue with their claim that the IDF broke the ceasefire with Hamas when they used force in response to violent border riots. After several days, editors upheld our complaint, and revised the sentence in question to more accurately contextualise the Palestinian riots in relation to the ceasefire.
Whilst it would be wrong to blindly accuse journalists and editors of being personally antisemitic, some within the top echelons of media group – though at times condemning antisemitism in the abstract – seem, much like Corbyn himself, to hold the values and concerns of the mainstream British Jewish community – united in the belief that Labour Party leader represents, as The JC phrased it, “an existential threat to Jewish life in the UK” – in utter contempt.
As long as they’re held hostage to the theory that powerlessness grants a degree of impunity against universal moral standards, such an intuitive causal relationship between Hamas’s actions and Gaza’s economic and political outcomes will continue to allude Owens and his fellow travelers within the Corbyn-left.
The Guardian upheld our complaint to an article which erroneously claimed that the Balfour Declaration promised “the land of Palestine” to the “Zionist Federation” of the UK and Ireland.
We contacted the Financial Times Jerusalem correspondent to express our concern that his characterisation of the change to Palestinian access to the Supreme Court is extremely misleading. A few hours later, we received a reply from the journalist thanking us for the clarification and informing us that the agreed to change the sentence.