Sarah Helm is not a journalist. As we’ve revealed previously, she’s more akin to a pro-Palestinian activist whose visceral contempt for Israel at times bleeds of the page, and has included tweets […]
Contrary to claims by Sky News Arabia that the Jordan-Israeli peace agreement grants Jordanian custody over Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, the text of the agreement makes clear that Jordan’s special role only involves Muslim shrines in the city.
Such shoddy journalism again indicates that Sky News Arabia appears more interested in joining its brethren in the Arab media by parroting anti-Israel propaganda than in engaging in well-sourced, professional reporting – a disregard for basic journalistic standards that also casts a shadow on its London-based parent
For the 5th time in less than a year, UK Media Watch has prompted a correction in the British media to the false claim that there are “settler-only roads” in the West Bank. The latest such claim was in an op-ed at the Independent by Sophia Brown, a London-based academic.
Do Israeli police raid and break up dance parties in PA controlled Palestinian cities in the West Bank? That’s what an interview in the The Observer (sister site of the Guardian) with Palestinian rapper Muqata’a, focusing on Ramallah’s dance culture, initially claimed, before a tweet by UKMW pointing out that this was erroneous.
On Oct. 7th, we complained to Daily Express editors about an article that misleadingly used Tel Aviv as a synonym for Israel’s capital twice in the same article. It took nearly two weeks, but editors upheld our complaint and corrected the two sentences.
the Guardian cartoonist wasn’t content with merely going after the prime minister. Rather, he deemed it necessary to demonise Australian Jews who Morrison was presumably appealing to in suggesting the embassy be moved, labeling them ‘apartheid enthusiasts’ putatively indifferent to ‘Palestinian children who die after falling on IDF bullets’, a smear – suggesting the Israeli army targets kids – the cartoonist employed previously in a Guardian cartoon during the 2014 War.
If Lara Alqasem led a radical-right group, instead of radical-left SJP, would the media have covered her detention?
If Lara Alqasaem had been in a leadership position with a right-wing extremist group, instead of a pro-Palestinian extremist group, the media wouldn’t have batted an eye, and Alqasaem wouldn’t represent a political cause among ‘human rights’ activists.
The myth that there are ‘Jews-only’ or ‘settler-only’ roads in the West Bank has been debunked numerous times over the years by CAMERA and its affiliates – prompting corrections at news sites such as CNN, Associated Press, Washington Post, The Economist, The Financial Times and The Telegraph.
The BBC presenter, in his final thoughts on the problem, opines that for Palestinians, living in camps in Lebanon and Jordan, their refugee status is the only thing they possess. However, a Palestinian hope based on a right (of return) they don’t have, and on a future vision of life (in Israel) that will never be brought to fruition, is not a possession. It’s a handicap, and a cynical formula for perpetuating Palestinian victimhood that continues to be amplified and legitimized by media outlets like the BBC.
Following communication with UK Media Watch, editors at the Daily Mail corrected an article which stated, as if it were a fact, that Israeli soldiers killed an 11 year old Palestinian boy on the Gaza border.
In over 1200 words of text in Shlaim’s column, there isn’t even once sentence so much as suggesting even the possibility that some Palestinian actions since 1993 may have been injurious to the peace process, illustrating another example of the one-sided, distorted and agenda-driven commentary on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict that Guardian editors consistently promote.
Corbyn and his supporters – including those on the Guardian editorial board – wish to remain free to assert, in some form or another, that “Zionism is racism” and that “Israel has no right to exist” with moral impunity – a fact which explains why the overwhelming majority of British Jews will continue to see the current Labour Party (as well as the pages of the Guardian) as a “hostile environment” antithetical to their values.
In smearing Israel, Jonathan Sacks and – by association – most British Jews, Steve Bell has attempted to grant Jeremy Corbyn and his cult-like band of acolytes the ultimate political get-out-of-jail-free card the times – lifetime moral impunity for expressions of anti-Jewish racism.
Yesterday, the Labour Party adopted – at least for the time being – the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism with all its examples, though with a caveat which Labour Friends of Israel claimed […]
Despite a brief moral throat-clearing, in his Guardian op-ed, on the need to fight ‘real’ antisemitism, by impugning the motives of those calling for the full definition’s adoption, and using dog whistles about ‘Zionist power’ in the UK, Ash Sarkar appears to be as committed to fighting anti-Jewish racism within Labour as the party leader his publication so enthusiastically supports.
Let’s remember that Zionism is the simple recognition that Israel has a right to exist. Anti-Zionism is the belief that Israel doesn’t have a right to exist and shouldn’t exist. It’s not a theoretical discussion, but a radical campaign which seeks the destruction of an actually existing nation-state. Further, anti-Zionists such as Khalidi don’t say nation-states shouldn’t exist. They say that only the Jewish state shouldn’t exist.
British Jews, according to an op-ed endorsed by Sarah Helm, have too much power in Britain, and are using this power to subvert democracy with a well-coordinated smear campaign alleging that Jeremy Corbyn is antisemitic – a charge they know to be untrue.
The real ‘irony’ is that Corbyn’s own words vindicate the work of Millett, which is premised upon the understanding – based on sound empirical evidence and their first person reports over the years – that there’s a strong correlation between antisemitic and anti-Israel attitudes in the UK.
Yet, despite Hamas well-documented history of using such putatively ‘civilian’ structures for military uses, the Guardian largely ignored the IDF’s statement, and parroted Hamas claims the IDF targeted what was merely a cultural centre. In three articles, encompassing over 2500 words of text, the Guardian devoted a mere four sentences, and 173 words, to the Israeli position.