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.
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.
Whatever Shenker’s motivations, his failure to seriously explore the tsunami of anti-Jewish racism in the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn represents a stunning journalistic abdication.
As is often the case when reporting on anti-Israel NGOs, the Guardian article reads more like a HRW press release than anything resembling professional journalism.
Written by Petra Marquardt-Bigman From my home on the southern outskirts of Tel Aviv, I hear the Muslim call to prayer every day as it issues from a mosque half a mile […]
On October 17th the Guardian published an article by its chief reporter in the US, Ed Pilkington, under the dramatic headline “Revealed: rightwing push to ban criticism of Israel on US campuses” […]
Though we haven’t read Weiss’s book and don’t know the specifics of her argument, if she was broadly asserting that Muslims in Europe are, on average, significantly more antisemitic than non-Muslims in the continent, she’s certainly on solid empirical ground.
Once again, we see that a Guardian op-ed accusing Israel of systematic racism does not hold up to critical scrutiny.
If the Independent wants to be taken seriously as a respectable anti-racist publication, they need call out antisemitic tropes advanced by extremists, world leaders…and even their own correspondents.
it’s interesting that on the same day the Indy published Barghouti’s pro-BDS op-ed, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief published a report linking BDS to antisemitism, noting, for instance, the frequent use of antisemitic tropes by BDS activists – an unprecedented report contradicting Barghouti’s narrative that the Indy naturally failed to cover.
There’s a new player within the Western Arabic-language media universe: Independent Arabia – a joint venture of the UK based Independent and the Saudi media group SRMG, with ties to the Saudi state. Unfortunately, so far it’s shown little commitment to western journalistic standards, and often prefers following Arab newspapers’ preference for parroting anti-Israel propaganda.
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.
All of the British publications we surveyed ignored the UN report criticising the Palestinian Authority, despite the fact that most of the outlets routinely report on the UN’s egregiously disproportionate reports critical of Israel.
At the end of the day, the reports all relied on the same premise: only a clear distinction between good Jews and Zionists could exonerate Tunisian Jewry and clear them of the charge of being “Zionists in Jews’ clothing”.
Those Labour activists who advocate for anti-Zionism (an opposition to the existence of a Jewish state) are doing just that by demanding that, for acceptance into their ‘progressive’ community, Jews renounce and abandon a key component of their Jewish identity.
In comparisons to other British media outlets, The Times is normally one of the more reasonable and thoughtful news outlets in their coverage of the Israel-Palestinian issue and antisemitism in the UK, a fact that makes their glorification of a pro-violence, antisemitic teen especially perplexing.
After ten years, we remain dedicated to promoting accurate coverage of Israel, and to combating antisemitic narratives and tropes which often accompany reports compromised by anti-Israel bias.
In June, journalist Melanie Phillips and former Israeli MK Einat Wilf participated in an Intelligence Squared debate in London in which proposed the motion “Anti-Zionism is antisemitism” before a largely anti-Israel audience. They were opposed by academic Illan Pappé and journalist Mehdi Hasan.
The Guardian review suggests there’s little self-criticism or reflection on display from these Palestinian writers – no evidence of stories in the anthology premised on the view that Palestinians are masters their own fate, that a distopian future is not pre-ordained and that better Palestinian decisions in 2019 will likely result in better outcomes in 2048.