On Dec. 6, we tweeted a journalist at The Independent about a story which falsely suggested that Israel occupied all of Lebanon from the early 80s to 2000.
This isn’t merely one poorly written headline. It represent an institutional pattern of reporting informed by a pro-Palestinian sympathy so pronounced that it often erases the most intuitive moral distinction between victim and perpetrator.
Most years around this time, the British media resurrects some variation of the desired Palestinian narrative on Israel’s putative role ruining Christmas in Bethlehem, and this year is no different, with the opening salvo coming from Raf Sanchez at the Telegraph.
Fisk falsely suggests that Israel intentionally murders Palestinian journalists to prevent them from reporting the truth about Gaza. In fact, the IDF operates with the knowledge that Palestinian terrorists have, at times, posed as journalists in order to attack Israelis, and that this tactic was used frequently by Hamas during Operation Protective Edge – an intentional blurring of civilians with combatants that Israeli soldiers protecting the border must carefully navigate during the weekly riots.
A Financial Times article (Israel’s tech expansion stokes glaring inequality in Tel Aviv, Dec. 11) echoes a common MSM narrative about the putative relationship between wealth and poverty in Israel, one that doesn’t appear […]
Here’s UK Media Watch’s latest post documenting the fact that (despite the disproportionate coverage given to BDS by the media) the campaign to economically and politically isolate Israel continues to fail miserably.
CST’s recently released report, Antisemitic Discourse in Britain 2017, is a comprehensive review of antisemitic rhetoric in the mainstream media, social media, politics and public debate in the UK last year. Its section on antisemitism in the mainstream media included an issue first flagged by UK Media Watch:
Tlaib’s evocation of race and Jim Crow into the Israeli-Palestinian debate is clearly not motivated by the desire to build bridges, promote social justice or achieve a lasting peace, but, rather, represents a cynical misappropriation of the US Civil Rights Movement to demonise Israel and undermine its very legitimacy as a state.
On Nov. 14th we posted about a piece at The Independent by Sarah Helm, who, as we’ve noted, is one of the more biased reporters we’ve come across in years. Within Helm’s […]
Anti-Israel propagandists-cum-journalists from around the world attended a “journalism” conference in Turkey last month designed to help participants develop skills to more effectively push the Palestinian narrative and delegitimise Israel in the international media. Among the “journalists” who attended was the Guardian’s veteran columnist Jonathan Steele.
Marc Lamont Hill is not merely a pro-Palestinian ‘activist’ who criticises Israel and calls for a ‘free Palestine’. He’s a radical anti-Israel propagandist who’s repeatedly justified Palestinian terror, rejected Israel’s continued existence of a Jewish state and expressed admiration for one of the more infamous disseminators of antisemitic hate.
Jerusalem correspondent Oliver Holmes has offered something akin to a master class in how the Guardian – by use of selective, distorted and at times outright false information – skews what are ostensibly ‘straight news stories’ to promote the pro-Palestinian agenda and paint Israel in the worst possible light.
A Nov. 26 story in the Scotland Herald maintained that the paper’s Jerusalem correspondent interview with Israeli Deputy Minister Michael Oren took place at the Knesset – in Jerusalem.
A Guardian article, about warnings by Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahatir Mohamad, that Australia’s decision to consider moving its embassy to Jerusalem said about the 92-year old leader that he’s known for his outspokenness. However, what the Guardian didn’t tell you is that he’s also well known for expressing classic antisemitic rhetoric.
We listened to the NY Times podcast the Guardian contributor is likely referencing, and, contrary to his claim, the NY Times journalist never makes anything resembling the claim that Netanyahu’s “racial policies” have made Israel a “model” for the alt-right on how to construct an “ethno-state”.
Helm concludes by expressing exasperation at the most “disturbing” part of all of this – how the “outside world has always been to buy into [Israeli] version of events”, showing that Helm inhabits a truly fantastical world – an alternative reality someplace far, far away where Israeli ‘hasbara’ has an iron grip on the world, and is therefore subjected to little if any real criticism by the media and international bodies.
Regardless of whether Netanyahu’s comparison between Hamas and ISIS is accurate, the point is that Hamas – like other Islamist extremist movements – can not be placated in the long-term by Western political concessions. The antisemitic extremist group’s fundamental grievance isn’t an economic one, but, rather, the continued existence of a Jewish state – and no journalist covering the region can possibly report accurately on the conflict if they fail to comprehend this most basic truth.
Sarah Helm is not a journalist. She’s more akin to a pro-Palestinian activist whose visceral contempt for Israel at times bleeds off the page, and has included tweets expressing support for Hamas violence and even justifying antisemitism.
We can only hope that, during subsequent interviews with Tlaib, journalists hold her accountable and critically scrutinise her radical positions – such as her apparent opposition to a Jewish state within any borders – and the uninformed, grossly ahistorical political underpinnings which inspire these views.
The Guardian doesn’t attempt to explain how Israel, where, per Freedom House, “women generally enjoy full political rights in law and in practice” can “exacerbate existing gender inequalities” in Hamas-run Gaza or Palestinian controlled cities in the West Bank. Nor do they offer a clue as to how the IDF can be blamed for Palestinian domestic violence – a bizarre charge leveled by the Guardian on at least two previous occasions.