Editors at The Independent upheld our complaint that the headline accompanying a February 5th article falsely suggested that there’s an Israeli “wall” which completely surrounds Gaza.
The sole source for the alleged quote appears to be a book by Hirsh Goodman published in 2005, which purports to recall a radio broadcast by Ben-Gurion on June 10th, 1967, day five of the Six Day War. We could find no other evidence to back up Goodman’s claim.
Once again, the Indy fails to include information that would undercut their desired narrative about the UK debate over Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, mischaracterising sincere efforts to no-platform extremism as a cynical effort to stifle criticism of the Jewish state.
Whilst we commend Indy editors for removing the article, the fact that one of their Middle East correspondents respects and was willing to amplify the views of such an anti-Zionist extremist serves as a troubling reminder of institutional anti-Israel bias which informs so much of their coverage of the region.
Here are recent corrections prompted by UKMW to articles at the Guardian, Daily Mail and Independent.
Whilst nobody familiar with Banksy would be surprised by his use of imagery associated with classic antisemitism, it’s troubling that journalists who pride themselves on critically scrutinising every Israeli claim didn’t challenge the pro-Palestinian artist when he floated the risible claim that his latest project was benignly designed to promote dialogue.
Indy editors upheld our complaint and amended the passage, which now at least includes Erdan’s unequivocal denial of Masot’s alleged affiliation with his ministry.
An op-ed published today at the Indy is characteristically strong on propaganda and weak on facts – which is not surprising given that the author, Ryvka Barnard (Senior Campaigns Officer at War on Want), contributes to both Electronic Intifada and Mondoweiss.
The White House expressed the view that the overwhelming majority of settlement construction is not an impediment to peace. However, most UK media reports on the announcement instead focused on the muted condemnation of new settlements and construction beyond existing settlement boundaries.
Trump’s ban on citizens of seven foreign countries from entering the US represents a completely different dynamic than what he’s trying to describe in the Palestinian territories. There’s no Israeli “ban” on Palestinians. There are checkpoints and other security measures erected to prevent terrorism on both sides of the green line, but tends of thousands of Palestinians pass into Israel each day to work, visit family and receive medical care.
The putative ‘erosion’ of Israel’s democracy is one of those NGO and media-driven narratives that has developed into something akin to conventional wisdom among the state’s critics – despite the dearth of […]
Are Israeli homes built across the green line only considered “illegal settlement construction” when the homes are built for Jews?
CAMERA and other watchdog groups have refuted Adalah’s claims that there are 50 “racist laws” in Israel – a term used so carelessly by the NGO that even an Israeli public health law requiring that parents vaccinate their children is bizarrely included on their list of “racist laws”.
The fact that Rafsanjani was relatively more liberal than his contemporaries in Iran should not be used to cover up the uncomfortable truth – that anti-Israel hatred pervades all elements of the Iranian leadership, “moderates” and conservatives alike.
By turning a complex and vexing political dispute into a binary moral paradigm, reducing the historical and diplomatic complexities of a more than 100 year-long conflict to one territorial dispute, and dismissing authentic, historically-informed Israeli fears of Palestinian intentions as nothing more than a failure of empathy and imagination, Emily Hilton is certainly not “challenging narratives”.
Yesterday, most major UK news outlets were quick to report on the guilty verdict of Israeli soldier Elor Azaria, convicted in a military court for shooting to death a wounded Palestinian attacker, Abdel […]
The wording of the Indy’s poll is extremely misleading, as it suggests that the mere criticism of Israel is defined as antisemitic by the WD. However, as the WD adopted by Theresa May makes perfectly clear, mere criticism of Israel is absolutely NOT considered antisemitic.
Indy op-ed on UK position that ‘Opposing Israel’s existence = antisemitism’ penned by guy opposed to Israel’s existence
Criticism of the Jewish state becomes antisemitic when it holds the state to a moral standard no other state is held to, and when it evokes historic antisemitic tropes and narratives – such as the view that Jews (individually or collectively) represent a uniquely malevolent force in the world, an “organic obstacle [to] peace and progress”.
This morning, multiple news outlets reported that the British government will adopt the Working Definition of Antisemitism. Downing Street said that the WD would assist “in efforts to fight hate crimes and incitement targeting Jews” and by ensuring that “culprits will not be able to get away with being antisemitic because the term is ill-defined, or because different organisations or bodies have different interpretations of it”.
Even if you are not convinced that the Zionism = Racism canard is not antisemitic in intent, it is undeniably antisemitic in effect, because such a characterization necessarily means that Jews (the overwhelming majority of whom are Zionists) support a racist ideology.