Economist corrects article alleging ’40 year US policy’ that settlements are “illegal”

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.

Financial Times corrects editorial alleging ’40 year US policy’ calling settlements “illegal”

Whilst this blog takes no position on Israeli communities across the green line, we do take a strident position on holding British media outlets accountable to the accuracy clause of the UK Editors’ Code of Practice. So, over the past several days, we’ve pushed back against multiple outlets – including the Guardian, Independent, Economist, Telegraph and Financial Times – that have misrepresented longstanding US policy on settlements in the context of reports on the new US decision that they are not illegal.

Guardian falsely asserts 40 year US position that settlements are “illegal”

Contrary to the Guardian’s claim that the new US declaration rejects the US legal position on the issue since 1978, the 1978 US State Department Hansell Memorandum they’re referring to, which maintained that settlements are illegal, was not the basis of 40 years of U.S. policy, a time period which includes Ronald Reagan’s policy which held that the settlements are not illegal. 

Yahoo News UK op-ed on Gaza amplifies Hamas talking points

Alashqar’s article was written with the sole objective of vilifying Israel by amplifying Hamas talking points. Every action or hardship is Israel’s fault no matter what the truth states. Mr Alashqar – alongside so many others – can continue to blame Israel and indemnify Gazans, but this only serves to make peace an ever more distant dream for both Israelis and Palestinians.

Bernie Sanders’ Guardian op-ed on antisemitism has one big blind spot

Though we should be careful not to overstate the political commonality between the two politicians, both Sanders and Corbyn certainly do seem to share the astonishingly dense and self-serving view that since those on the left are, by definition, anti-racist, those who identify as such should – regardless of what they actually say or do – often be granted moral impunity against charges of antisemitism.