It’s difficult to know which is worse about this Daily Mirror photo essay: the fact that they completely obfuscated the terror dimension of Gaza’s tunnels, glorified Hamas’s abuse of children or unethically used four-year old photos while presenting them as current.
The toxic charge that Israel (or Jews qua Jews) exercises a dangerous degree of control over US foreign policy or public opinion is sadly common within leftist discourse on the Middle East, and the fact that such invective have been published in a right-wing publication like The Spectator is another indication of the lure of such antisemitic logic among otherwise sober minds
The hypocrisy of a PA official lecturing the US ambassador on factual or historical accuracy was no doubt lost on Peter Beaumont, as the veteran Guardian journalist has consistently ignored the continuous Palestinian denial of Jewish history in Jerusalem and the existence of the Jewish Temple
After UK Media Watch alerted the Independent that a police investigation over the tragic death of a young Palestinian girl had cleared the Israeli driver of negligence, they updated their article on the incident accordingly.
The word “bellicose” is defined by Merriam Websters as “favoring or inclined to start quarrels or wars”. Yet, a recent Guardian article bizarrely characterised Israeli accusations – based on satellite photos – that Iran is building sites to produce missiles in Syria and Lebanon as “BELLICOSE” rhetoric. Of course, the article doesn’t even allude to ongoing “bellicose” Iranian threats to annihilate Israel.
Though reasonable people can of course disagree with Netanyahu’s response to Charlottesville, to characterise the prime minister of the Jewish state as an “appeaser” of anti-Semites who needs lessons in courage from a Guardian journalist is a breathtaking display of hubris.
The Economist made a pretty serious charge against Israel’s prime minister and offered literally zero proof to back it up.
Guardian cartoonist Martin Rowson was interviewed recently on BBC. During the interview, he revealed that, after the 2015 Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, Guardian editors wouldn’t let him draw a depiction of Muhammad out fear of jihadist violence against their staff. Rowson then immediately pivoted to (non-violent) criticism of his cartoons by pro-Israel activists – contextualising both as ‘dangerous’ examples of attacks on free expression.
The Working Definition of Antisemitism (adopted by the British government, European Parliament and the US State Department) includes, in its list of contemporary examples of antisemitism, “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination”.
Truly a new low for the Guardian: Their veteran columnist Giles Fraser has actually compared white supremacism to Zionism. “The parallels with Charlottesville” Fraser said, “are sometimes difficult to avoid”.
Similarly, al-Abed’s apparent belief that Jews are subhuman certainly at least partially explains his motivation for entering an Israeli home and stabbing several Jews to death. By omitting this key passage in al-Abed’s Facebook post, the Indy has again obfuscated the lethal impact of Palestinian antisemitism and incitement.
On some issues, there aren’t two sides. You don’t have to be ‘pro-Israel’ to acknowledge that antisemitism – whether in Charlottesville or ‘Palestine’ – is never morally defensible, and – most of all – is always a path to ruin.
The Guardian has again demonstrated its unique capacity to impute pathos to nearly every aspect of Israeli life. A photo story about Israeli bomb shelters in today’s Guardian managed to deride the security precaution, born of decades of cross border attacks by enemies sworn to its destruction, as reflecting Israel’s “siege mentality” – a term which evokes ‘unwarranted fears’ or even ‘paranoia’.
The Independent reported that former Pink Floyd front man Roger Waters complained that his pro-Palestinian views have been ‘silenced’ in the US by what he suggests is some sort of ‘media conspiracy’ by top editors, producers and executives.
the Guardian’s caption just so happened to omit the key words “following an attack on Israeli police at the site”, thus giving readers who didn’t closely follow events in Jerusalem that week no idea why the security measures, including the temporary closure of the mosque, were implemented.
An article in the Financial Times seems to legitimise charges by “critics” that senior White House adviser Jared Kushner’s Jewish faith should render him unfit for his role brokering peace in Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
Though most articles which refer to the 2006 Gaza beach incident now refer to the cause as ‘disputed’, an article in The Independent written by Bethan McKernan published on August 1st reported that the girl, now 23, has graduated college, and provided background on the incident which takes practically as a given that Israel was to blame.
What Sky News Arabia claims was “1000 settlers storming al-Aqsa” actually refers to 1000 Jews peacefully and legally visiting the Temple Mount (Judaism’s holiest site) on Tisha B’Av, the Jewish day of mourning to commemorate the destruction of the first and second Temples.
For the sixth time in a little more than a year, UK Media Watch has prompted a UK media correction to a false claim or suggestion that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel.
Carlstrom’s egregiously misleading tweet, reinforcing the dominant far-left view that Israeli society is lurching dangerously ‘right’, is a perfect example of the bias and advocacy journalism which informs British media’s coverage of the region.