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?
Why do you hate Israel more than any other nation? Why does Israel anger you more than any other nation does? Why do Israel’s military activities aggravate you and disturb your conscience and provoke you to outbursts of street protesting or Twitter-fury in a way that no other state’s military activities do? These are the questions that hang darkly over today’s so-called progressives. Which eat away at their self-professed moral authority, at their claims to be practitioners of fairness and equality. They are the questions to which no satisfactory answer has ever been given. So they niggle and fester, expertly avoided, or unconvincingly batted away, a black question mark over much of the modern left: why Israel?
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.
In a mere one minute and twenty seconds, the Sky News clip accurately capsulizes the media’s continuous credulity when faced with Palestinian soundbites that echo the narrative of proscribed terror groups – representative of a broader institutional failure to contextualise coverage of events in the region by reminding news consumers of the malevolent aims of the Hamas tyrants who rule Gaza.
The fact that 10 out of the 16 Palestinians killed since Friday have been verified by the IDF as members of terrorist groups, or that the border protests have included the throwing of Molotov cocktails, the planting of EIDs and – in at least two cases – shots fired at Israeli forces hasn’t hampered the desired media narrative: a ‘disproportionate’ Israeli response to ‘peaceful’ Palestinian protesters.
This month, the New Statesman published an article by Sarah Helm entitled “How Donald Trump provoked a Palestinian refugee revolt” which is inaccurate on two levels – it makes false assertions and misleading statements about specific details, and presents a very selective version of the overall story.
UKMW prompts correction to Daily Mail article accepting Hamas claim “Israel killed” Ibrahim Abu Thuraya
UK Media Watch prompted a correction to a Daily Mail article which reported, as if it’s a fact, Gaza Health Ministry claims that Israel killed Ibrahim Abu Thuraya during violent protests on the Gaza border last month. The new article has several additional sentences outlining the IDF statement which casts serious doubt about these Palestinian claims.
Given the IDF statement, and the fact that the Hamas health ministry refused to cooperate with the IDF investigation, at the end of the day, media reports that Abu Thuraya was killed by an IDF sniper are based entirely on unsubstantiated Hamas claims.
The Dec. 19th article in The Independent failed to provide the Israeli response to the incident, leaving readers with a take on the the death of Ibrahim Abu Thuraya informed entirely by the unsubstantiated claims of Hamas officials.
Beyond the specific lies and distortions in Abbas’s Guardian op-ed lay a broader one: that Palestinians are victims who possess no moral agency and that Palestinian leadership shares no responsibility for their people’s suffering. It’s not merely unfair to assigned exclusive blame to Israel for every conceivable Palestinian failure, but also suggests a fundamental flaw in the Palestinian national movement.
Following our complaint to Times of London over an Oct. 13th article by Bel True and Anshel Pfeffer which erroneously suggested that only Israel considers Hamas a terror organisation, editors revised the sentence to note that the UK, US and EU also official designate Hamas a terror group.
UKMW contacted Observer readers’ editor Stephen Pritchard (by email and twitter) to express our concerns over their contributor’s failure to acknowledge that he was the author of the book he was quoting, The text was changed, and additional information added at the end of the article to make this fact clear.
By Richard Millett, London. It seems the Guardian is resorting to favouriting its own journalism. Maybe there aren’t many objective commentators who will do it for them? First, it endorses its own […]
By Richard Millett, London. What a nasty, bigoted, ahistorical piece Donald Macintyre wrote for yesterday’s Guardian. Macintyre is upset that while there is a Jewish state in light of the 1917 Balfour Declaration […]