The reasons why even centrist Israeli parties are hesitant to sit in a government with Tibi’s Joint List isn’t because they’re hostile to Arabs. It’s because they’re naturally hostile to any politician who supports attacks against their own citizens – parliamentarians who, while being sworn in as MKs, pledge that they will be “faithful to the State of Israel”.
Though we’re not surprised that Khalidi, who described the Balfour declaration as “a declaration of war by the British Empire on the indigenous population”, refuses to commit to supporting Israel’s continued existence, and has evoked antisemitic tropes, would peddle such historical fiction, we do find it surprising, and quite troubling, that a journalist at a serious publication would promote such agitprop.
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.
To their credit, shortly after notifying the Financial Times journalist of this error, the passage was revised, and no longer alleges that Oslo committed Israel to the creation of a Palestinian state.
It’s hard to see how we can trust the Financial Times “integrity” and “accuracy” when reporting on Israel and the Palestinians if their Mid-East editor openly sides with one side in the conflict.
Contrary to the Financial Times claim, it was Palestinian leaders who, acting on their own free will, independent of what Netanayhu or Begin did or didn’t do, “denied Palestinians a country to call their own” – a simple historical fact that’s continually obfuscated in British media reports about the conflict.
A Financial Times article (Israel’s tech expansion stokes glaring inequality in Tel Aviv, Dec. 11) echoes a common MSM narrative about the putative relationship between wealth and poverty in Israel, one that doesn’t appear […]
CST’s recently released report, Antisemitic Discourse in Britain 2017, is a comprehensive review of antisemitic rhetoric in the mainstream media, social media, politics and public debate in the UK last year. Its section on antisemitism in the mainstream media included an issue first flagged by UK Media Watch:
We contacted the Financial Times Jerusalem correspondent to express our concern that his characterisation of the change to Palestinian access to the Supreme Court is extremely misleading. A few hours later, we received a reply from the journalist thanking us for the clarification and informing us that the agreed to change the sentence.
Most British outlets which covered the death eight-month-old Layla al-Ghandour have failed to publish allegations that Hamas paid the girl’s family to tell the media that Israeli tear gas caused her death though the real culprit was a pre-existing blood condition.
Following communication with UK Media Watch, Financial Times editors amended a sentence which had erroneously suggested that permission for Gazans to cross into Israel for medical reasons was rarely given.
The only difference between Hamas and Ahmad Abu Artema, the Great Return March chief organiser, is that Hamas is a terror group founded on the idea that Israel has no right to exist, and Abu Artema is a “non-violent” activist dedicated to the idea that Israel has no right to exist.
K Media Watch and CAMERA have prompted countless corrections on the same inaccuracy – the claim that Tel Aviv is Israel’s capital. However, it’s particularly interesting that on Thursday, the day in which Donald Trump’s impending decision to officially recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital was the big story, the Financial Times joined the list of media outlets who’ve made some version of this error.
UKMW prompts Financial Times correction – editors admit there are no ‘Jews-only roads’ in West Bank.
An article in the Financial Times included the claim that there are ‘Jews-only’ roads in the West Bank. However, as CAMERA has demonstrated on multiple occasions, there are not, nor have there ever been, anywhere in Israel or the West Bank, roads exclusively for Jews.
There are not, nor have there ever been, anywhere in Israel or the West Bank, roads exclusively for Jews. False claims over the years at multiple media outlets suggesting the existence of […]
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.
It’s actually quite astonishing that a leading news outlet like Financial Times is willing to parrot propaganda on Hamas’s putative move to the centre so clearly at odds with the truth that not even the group’s top officials are sticking to the talking points.
When you look past the verbal acrobatics – within a document designed merely to improve their public relations – you can’t escape the fact that when you support “armed resistance” whilst rejecting “any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea” you are, by definition, calling for the complete destruction of the Jewish state.
Though the editorial is also notable in all but ignoring the role of radical Islam in the flight of Mid-East Christians, whilst absurdly blaming the West and Christians themselves, its obfuscation of Israel’s achievement in creating a ‘safe space’ for religious minorities represents another example of the media’s inability to re-evaluate their own narrative framing the state entirely through the prism of the Palestinian conflict.
We emailed Financial Times editors, noting that the original headline of the article misled readers into believing that Dubai leads the Middle East in start-ups. Of course, Israel leads in this category. Editors agreed, and revised the headline.