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 […]
Whilst it would be wrong to blindly accuse journalists and editors of being personally antisemitic, some within the top echelons of media group – though at times condemning antisemitism in the abstract – seem, much like Corbyn himself, to hold the values and concerns of the mainstream British Jewish community – united in the belief that Labour Party leader represents, as The JC phrased it, “an existential threat to Jewish life in the UK” – in utter contempt.
The British Daily Mail apparently can’t be sure that Palestinians from the Gaza Strip really fired 180 rockets and mortars at Israel in a 24-hour period earlier this week. A Daily Mail article three times referred to these attacks as “alleged,” as if the fact that Hamas fired 180 rockets and mortars at Israel has not yet been confirmed.
The Guardian’s Deborah Orr was widely mocked for her bizarre argument that the Shalit prisoner swap with Hamas demonstrated Israeli racism, and she was eventually forced to offer an ‘apology’ of sorts. Corbyn’s 2012 comments on Press TV mirror Orr’s, and provide another illustration of the truly warped thinking which animates many anti-Zionist activists in the UK.
The “both sides blame each other” phrasing used by the Indy Middle East correspondent is one in a long list of tropes and cliches employed by journalists to avoid reaching the morally intuitive conclusion that the violent extremist group that controls Gaza is more interested in stoking conflict than the Jewish democracy they’re trying to destroy.
These headlines illustrate the failure of journalists and their editors to frame articles in a manner which focuses primarily on Hamas and Islamic Jihad violence and evokes sympathy for Israeli terror victims and the southern communities which are constantly on the receiving end of such attacks. The story they wish to tell demands that facts be molded to conform to the desired David vs Goliath narrative, operates from an assumption that Palestinians lack agency and that the only party in the conflict that matters is Israel. The facts may change, but the story remains the same.
We surveyed hundreds of tweets, spanning three years, by British journalist Sarah Helm and uncovered what we suspected all along: Helm is a pro-Palestinian activist. Not a journalist.
The Daily Express journalist did nothing more than copy and paste crude Palestinian propaganda alleging that Israel shoots kids and sell it as real news. Even for a tabloid, this is gutter journalism.
Donald Macintyre: a case study in how ‘enlightened’ British opinion can appear to empathise with Hamas
Instead of reporting facts, Donald Macintyre openly lets the narrative run over them. He appears to possess admiration and evoke sympathy for a terrorist organisation, whilst accusing the opposing army of slaughter. That he believes what he believes is upsetting – that his writing is considered enlightened, intelligent, and worthy of print is egregious.
Following communication with UK Media Watch, editors at the Daily Mail corrected an article which had falsely claimed that no terror group in Gaza claimed responsibility for the recent barrage of rockets fired at Israel.
COGAT, the Israeli authority tasked with processing such travel requests, flatly denied the Guardian claim that a young Palestinian suicide victim had been denied a travel permit to study at Hebrew University. In fact, they said he had never applied for permission in the first place.
It is becoming increasingly clear that Hamas pushes Gaza’s people into harm’s way because it knows their suffering will strike a chord across the West. Because it knows images of their hardship will be shared widely, wept over, and held up as proof of the allegedly uniquely barbarous nature of the Jewish State.
The result of our work isn’t revolutionary change in their reporting from the region, but significantly improved coverage. In life, as in media monitoring, the perfect is often the enemy of the good.
Indy falsely claims Israeli troops “were ordered to use live fire” on 40,000 demonstrators (Updated)
This is but one extraordinarily misleading sentence within the cacophony of sensational, biased and misleading headlines, photos and articles published in the British media since late March. Yet, it aptly demonstrates how language is often chosen by reporters not with painstaking attention to the veracity of the information being conveyed but in order to serve the broader narrative of Israeli villainy and Palestinian victimhood.
If you defend Israel’s actions in Gaza, your ethical impulses are, according to the Guardian columnist, not those of an ordinary human being. It would be difficult to find a better illustration of why so many Jews believe that media coverage of Israel incites antisemitism than a column suggesting that they, by virtue of their pro-Israeli political views, are morally deranged, even sub-human.
UKMW prompts Times of London correction to claim 1st Hamas suicide bombing was retaliation for Cave of Patriarchs massacre.
Last week, following communication with UK Media Watch, Times of London editors corrected a false claim, in an article by David Aaronovitch, that the first Hamas suicide bombing was an act of retaliation in response to Baruch Goldstein’s massacre of 29 Muslim worshipers in 1994.
Contrary to the Guardian Jerusalem correspondent’s claim, Hamas has not “softened” its founding charter’s rejection of Israel’s existence, nor has it abandoned its promotion of violence to achieve this end.
Guardian accuses Israel of “war crimes” in shooting “protesters” who “posed no credible threat”.
However, in what world do thousands of rioters attempting the breach the border of a sovereign democratic state, at the behest of a proscribed terror group, not represent a “credible threat”?
the Channel 4 News presenter wasn’t interested in providing relevant context, nor investigating the real cause of poverty, suicide and child abuse in Gaza – or the wider issue of Hamas’s role in Gaza’s isolation and misery. His sole objective was to produce a segment consistent with the desired media narrative of cruel Israelis inflicting suffering upon innocent Palestinians.
Here is the basic question: Why is the Guardian more concerned about the possible future instability caused by Washington’s pullout from the Iran Deal than the actual death and destruction that Tehran is causing today in the Middle East?