In a recent post on errors in a March 26th Economist article (“Gaza, already under siege, imposes lockdown”, March 26), blaming Israel for Gaza’s coronavirus-related health woes, we neglected to address one […]
Contrary to the Economist’s claims, the medicine shortage in Gaza has nothing whatsoever to do with the the Israeli blockade – a fact we proved in a previous post which included a definitive statement from COGAT that there are NO restrictions on medicine and medical equipment.
The Palestinian sermon highlighted above is important because history has surely shown that bad ideas almost always result in bad choices and, often, horrible individual and societal consequences – and we ignore them at our peril.
If we were to conceive of the Private Eye article as a person, we’d be forced to say that he didn’t have a honest bone in his body.
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.
Independent Arabia, operating under the imprimatur of a presumably “Western” media outlet, recently published a report from Gaza that parroted Hamas propaganda .
One of the leading factors behind the Guardian’s institutional pro-Palestinian bias is their refusal to take Palestinians seriously as agents of their own fate – a failure to grant Palestinians agency which invariably leads to a mono-causal, Israeli focused explanation which is fundamentally ahistorical, thus grossly misleading readers on the root cause of the conflict
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.
Thus far, most British media outlets – including the Guardian, Independent, Telegraph and BBC – have ignored Hammad’s call for genocide, a speech, our sister site BBC Watch observed, that’s at odds with the media narrative of the Great March of Return, which has downplayed such extreme antisemitic incitement, whilst characterising the violent riots as mere “protests”.
Once again, the Guardian has done what it does best: deceive readers by whitewashing the extremism and terror ties of pro-Palestinian “activists” in omitting widely available open-source information that definitively contradicts their desired narrative.
Written by Jonathan Hoffman (See important update at the bottom of this post.) Dr Rosena Allin-Khan – a Labour MP and a medical doctor – has criticised Israel’s permit regime for those […]
The fact that there’s still a blockade after 12 years is not the result of Israeli malevolence, but the consequences of Hamas’s extremist ideology and their refusal to meet these reasonable conditions – an incredibly intuitive cause and effect that somehow manages to elude putatively intelligent and well-informed journalists.
Though, especially in recent years, Hanan Ashrawi has often expressed support for non-violence, at least during interviews with Western media outlets, her claim that she’s “always” supported only non-violence is clearly not accurate.
We complained to the Daily Mirror over an article in their print edition that provided an estimated number of Gaza civilians killed during recent violence, but omitted the fact that all four Israelis killed by Hamas and Islamic Jihad rockets were civilians.
Ian Black, the Guardian former Middle East editor, managed to blame Israel for the latest round of violence with Hamas, despite the fact that his own paper reported the sequence of events accurately.
The Guardian’s secular dogma, which rests on a confidence in the the inherent superiority of their own virtue and the assumption that anyone who disagrees with them on how to create a more just Mid-East is not just wrong but evil, has inevitably led to the simply delusional belief that they, and they alone, posses insight into Israel’s security needs that has managed to elude millions of actual Israelis.
The cruel and inhumane treatment of Palestinians by Palestinian leaders, and the misery they impose upon the population by their strict adherence to an extremist ideology which prioritises the hatred of Jews and Israel over all else, isn’t the story the Guardian wants to tell. To tell such a story would require viewing Palestinians as not just victims, but as moral agents whose decisions impact their society’s economic and political outcomes, a story that those in thrall to the facile and reductive victimological explanations for complex problems are loath to tell.
Once again, we see how the Guardian’s malign obsession with Israel manifests itself in the decisions made each day by their editors.
The bottom line is that there is literally no real evidence to support The Independent’s assertion that Israel’s wars with Hamas were launched for the purpose of improving the governing party’s electoral results.
BBC audiences are told that Hamas is ‘cash-strapped’ – but not why.