Though it took over two weeks for editors to respond to our email, they ultimately did uphold our complaint and addressed our concerns by add the following two paragraphs to the article.
Here are the endorsements by major British media outlets for tomorrow’s general election, and what they wrote about antisemitism in their editorials. The Guardian: Endorsement: Labour On antisemitism: [Corbyn’s] obdurate handling of […]
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.
Though the Telegraph is normally responsible when it comes to avoiding language that could be seen as antisemitic, this particular sentence clearly serves to legitimise the historically toxic dual loyalty trope, codified as antisemitic by the IHRA Working Definition.
Thus far, most British media outlets – including the Guardian, Independent, Telegraph and BBC – have ignored Hammad’s call for genocide, a speech, our sister site BBC Watch observed, that’s at odds with the media narrative of the Great March of Return, which has downplayed such extreme antisemitic incitement, whilst characterising the violent riots as mere “protests”.
In the Jan. 9th edition of the Telegraph’s new weekly newsletter, Letter from Jerusalem, their correspondent Raf Sanchez wrote that “only around 43 per cent of Israelis support a two-state solution today”. […]
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.
UK Media Watch prompted two corrections recently. At the Indy, we convinced editors to revise a sentence which misleadingly framed an accusation that settlers killed a Palestinian woman as if it were a fact, rather than just a claim. At the Telegraph, we prompted a correction to a sentence which claimed that the US was the only country to move its embassy to Jerusalem, neglecting to note that Guatemala also recently moved its embassy to the Israeli capital.
The journalistic axiom ‘if it bleeds it leads’ isn’t entirely true when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where selective concern for the suffering of one side is the norm – indicative of a broader pattern of double standards which continues to compromise British media coverage of the region.
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.
Though the quote is still highly problematic, we’re glad that we were again successful in convincing editors that such propaganda about ‘racist roads’, which of course serve to amplify dishonest ‘Apartheid Israel’ smears, are completely counter-factual.
The claim that it’s “totally forbidden” to carry or display a Palestinian flag in Jerusalem is simply false. We confirmed this during a conversation with Israeli Police Foreign Press Spokesperson Mickey Rosenfeld. Further, as we tweeted yesterday, the photographer himself has published photos depicting Palestinians with Palestinian flags.
The original Telegraph language, alleging that proposed Knesset legislation would allow the government to expropriate “church land”, was changed to note that the proposal relates to land sold by the church, and now owned by private (Jewish) investors.
The low lights of a diatribe against the world in Ramallah last night by the Palestinian “president”, who today celebrated the 12th year of a 4 year term, included his characterisation of Israel as a European “colonialist project, which has nothing to do with the Jews”. Thus far, among UK media outlets, only The Telegraph covered Abbas’s speech. However, their article ignored his antisemitic smear.
Palestinian leaders demanded that Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital be framed as (another) “death knell” to the peace process, one that shatters the decades long two-state dreams of Palestinians, and that’s exactly what Rafi Sanchez at The Telegraph delivered.
CST’s 2016 Antisemitic Discourse report included an example of antisemitism in the mainstream British media. The article in question, published in February 2016 in the Daily Telegraph, characterised a well-known Jew who’s the founder of Elliott Management Hedge Fund as a ‘latter day Shylock’ – a reference to the antisemitic caricature from Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice.
To be fair, the Telegraph is far from the worst UK news outlet when it comes to such media double standards. However, their omission of Palestinian car rammings within the context of the London Bridge attack seems indicative of a wider phenomenon by which Israelis are placed in a different category of victims – men, women and children whose suffering often seems to occupy a space beyond the sympathetic imagination of many journalists and editors.
Following communication with Telegraph editors, the erroneous claim was removed.
In addition to the false suggestion that there’s a concrete wall surrounding Gaza, the claim that “with few exceptions, no one has been allowed in or out since…2007” is absurd, as data from UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the occupied Palestinian territory (OCHA oPt) demonstrates.
The Guardian’s Tareq Baconi wishes us “to talk to Hamas” urging that now is the time due to Hamas’ new Document of General Principles which, he writes, “supports the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders”. As we argued, this document is a sham meant to trick the gullible and aid those desperate to push the Palestinian cause.
Recent Comments