To omit the “Curse/Damnation Upon the Jews” slogan whitewashes the Houthis’ antisemitism and presents them as merely anti-American and anti-Zionist.
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.
Though the idea of a ‘thaw’ in Arab antisemitism may sound good and seem attractive to editors as a good counter-intuitive regional analysis, it has little relation to reality.
The decision by The Economist to leave the false impression that a leading Holocaust historian evoked such a comparison does not reflect well on the seriousness of editors in upholding their own editorial standards, which includes a pledge to “consider whether the context and presentation of the facts are fair”.
Economist falsely suggests Israeli historian compared African detention centers to “concentration camps”.
We contacted Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer by email, to ask him if, as The Economist claimed, he’s used the term “modern concentration camps”, to characterize the detention of African migrants. Bauer promptly replied to our email and flatly denied ever using any version of the term.
The Economist’s claim that the Palestinian Authority President has rejected violence since 2005 fails to pass even minimum critical scrutiny.
The Economist has been gushing about what it calls ‘Morocco’s little idyll of Jewish-Muslim coexistence’. Yet, the Nov. 2nd article it admits that only three Jews still live in Essaouira – a city which used to have as many Jews as Muslims before the great exodus to Israel.
An Oct. 6th review of the play ‘Oslo’ published in The Economist included the following paragraph: …there are glimpses of a shared humanity as the characters warm to each other, sprint around […]
The Economist made a pretty serious charge against Israel’s prime minister and offered literally zero proof to back it up.
We contacted The Economist over a claim that a controversial book (featuring a Jewish-Palestinian romance) by an Israeli writer was “removed” from the school curriculum, and editors ultimately upheld our complaint.
We can only hope that Economist will one day engage in self-reflection on their coverage of the region, and begin to critically scrutinize Palestinians with a rigor that’s currently almost entirely reserved for Israelis.
In fact, the suggestion that the country is moving to the far right couldn’t be further from the truth. Despite a few bills of questionable merit which many on the left here disagree with, and which have little actual impact, fundamentally Israel remains – as the respected human rights group Freedom House reports each year – a bastion of liberal, democratic values.
The Economist is currently promoting a seven-part “special report” titled “Six days of war, 50 years of occupation”. The online version of the unattributed sixth installment goes under the title “The half-life on an occupied Palestine”. The article, quite predictably, solely blames Israel for the occupation and suggests that Palestinians have no responsibility for the ongoing conflict
Yesterday, we posted about an article titled: ‘The Economist Explains: The status of Arabic speakers in Israel‘, included the bizarre claim that “Arabic songs were banned from Israeli radio for several decades.” We contacted the editor responsible for the article, who promptly responded to inform us that they upheld our complaint and removed the sentence in question.
A Nov. 27th article in The Economist titled ‘The Economist Explains: The status of Arabic speakers in Israel’, included the claim that “Arabic songs were banned from Israeli radio for several decades.” However, evidence suggests there couldn’t possibly have been such a ban (“for several decades”) on Arabic songs.
A serious journalist who wished to provide analysis to Economist readers on the recent Olympic scandal involving an Egyptian judoka who refused to shake the hand of his Israeli competitor may have contextualized the incident by noting widespread antisemitism in Egyptian society. Indeed, though Cairo and Jerusalem signed a peace agreement in 1979, and ties between the two countries (on the governmental level) have never been closer, there is little if any sign that Egyptian animosity towards Jews – not just Israelis, but Jews qua Jews – has waned.
Though Economist editors (and cartoonists) no doubt fancy themselves sophisticated and progressive, and part of an elite group of opinion leaders not prone to voicing “astoundingly stupid” ideas, the textual and graphic depiction of Palestinians in the article parrots the same regressive racism of low expectations which, as much as any other factor, embodies the mindless sloganeering of the radical left.
It’s actually quite extraordinary that a publication which seems to pride itself on peeling off the superficial layers of a story to reveal to readers the story behind the story, published a review of a book featuring the Tamimis without giving readers even the slightest inclination that the family, and the protests they stage, represents something akin to Palestinian street theater, a Pallywood production packaged as real news.
What are the obligations of citizens in a democracy? For many, so accustomed to the media’s ‘rights-based’ discourse, the question would likely not even register. However any social contract within the parameters […]
A 2012 Economist article claimed that Israelis and their Prime Minister fears Iran because they suffer from Auschwitz complex – a “ghetto mentality” evidently based on obsessing over past suffering and reinforced by the Jewish […]