The Irish Times journalist could have responded civilly to our tweet, but instead chose snark, a complete non-sequitur designed to divert from the topic at hand, representing another example of how journalists who demand accountability from politicians and government institutions when gathering information for their reports often fail to hold themselves to the same standards when questioned by news consumers – and watchdog groups like ours.
It’s difficult to know which is worse about this Daily Mirror photo essay: the fact that they completely obfuscated the terror dimension of Gaza’s tunnels, glorified Hamas’s abuse of children or unethically used four-year old photos while presenting them as current.
Though most articles which refer to the 2006 Gaza beach incident now refer to the cause as ‘disputed’, an article in The Independent written by Bethan McKernan published on August 1st reported that the girl, now 23, has graduated college, and provided background on the incident which takes practically as a given that Israel was to blame.
The Guardian’s Sarah Helms erroneously suggests that Israel is responsible for the recent death of newborns in Gaza, while all but ignoring the role of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority in the current humanitarian crisis.
With antisemitic incidents in the UK at an all time high, news outlets with even the most strident pro-Palestinian editorial lines – such as the Guardian and Independent – should avoid amplifying toxic anti-Zionist agitprop that doesn’t edify or inform, but only inflames those most likely take their anger over Israel out on Jews
Can the Good Friday Agreement can be used as a template for advancing Israeli-Palestinian peace? Though many like to link the Republicans’ struggle for independence to the Palestinian movement, the differences are actually quite stark.
The Independent uncritically quoted an NGO claim that Gaza doctors are prevented by Israel from traveling abroad for training. However, we contacted a spokesperson from the Israeli agency responsible for coordinating such travel and they flatly denied the claim, citing hundreds of such crossings for Gaza doctors each year.
The Lancet has demonstrated over the course of many years that it has little interest in exploring the impact on Gaza’s healthcare of Palestinian factional disputes, as well as Hamas’s decision to use limited resources to fund rockets and terror tunnels rather than medicine and hospitals. It prefers instead to impute causality to Israel for all conceivable Palestinian health deficiencies – those real and imagined.
Shlaim claimed that the “intrusion of a foreign entity in the shape of the Zionist movement showed a total disregard (by the British) for the indigenous population”.
Guardian columnist Zoe Williams actually compares Israel’s defenders – whom she characterises as defenders of “killing children” – and climate change deniers. This bizarre analogy is indicative of a view of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, held by many in the media, which sees it as a binary tale of ignorance vs truth, good vs evil.
By citing just three seemingly damning words within a longer, more nuanced interview with the head of Israeli Electric about the power shortage in Gaza, the Indy journalist did what the Indy does best: taking the comments and actions of Israelis and Israeli leaders out of context to impute maximum malevolence.
The Guardian’s failure to challenge Ismail Patel’s claim that the government was “acting on hearsay from a pro-Israeli lobby group” is classic Guardian: failing to reveal the well-documented evidence demonstrating that individuals and groups they cover – who claim to be merely ‘pro-Palestinian’ – are compromised by extremism, support for terror and antisemitism.
This attacker had just watched a film with multiple scenes of Israeli soldiers committing acts of violence against Palestinian children and wanted someone (preferably a Jew) to take it out on.
The Economist is currently promoting a seven-part “special report” titled “Six days of war, 50 years of occupation”. The online version of the unattributed sixth installment goes under the title “The half-life on an occupied Palestine”. The article, quite predictably, solely blames Israel for the occupation and suggests that Palestinians have no responsibility for the ongoing conflict
I do understand Sarah Helm’s desire to paint Hamas in a positive light in her May 19 article at the Guardian. I too wish that their intentions were as positive as she seems determined to present them as being; peace between Israel and the Palestinians – the magical goal that every politician yearns for – would be so much more easily attainable.
Love is in the air at the Guardian. With summer approaching in the UK, down at Guardian towers (soon to be moving out of London to try to cut their dreadful financial losses) they continue wooing one of the most anti-Jewish outfits since the Nazis: Hamas.
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.
The Guardian’s Tareq Baconi wishes us “to talk to Hamas” urging that now is the time due to Hamas’ new Document of General Principles which, he writes, “supports the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders”. As we argued, this document is a sham meant to trick the gullible and aid those desperate to push the Palestinian cause.
Reports that appeared on the BBC News website on May 2nd clarified to audiences that Hamas itself had said that their new document launched in Qatar does not replace the terror group’s 1988 Charter. Nevertheless, the BBC World Service radio programme includes the inaccurate heading “Hamas Presents New Charter”.