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.
Guardian readers should – but, of course, won’t – take note: For Saeb Erekat, words and lofty, progressive rhetoric don’t have objective meanings. They mean ‘just what he chooses them to mean, neither more nor less’.
The Times article fails to note precisely why nearly 80,000 Jews left: the government’s imprisonment, torture and expulsion of Jews, anti-Jewish violence and other anti-Jewish policies that made it impossible for Jews to stay.
We contacted the journalist, Sachin Nakrani, to object the false claims that Arab Israelis are “restricted” to specific areas in Israel, and that they have “little or no political representation”.
An op-ed in the Independent (The views of the Arab citizens of Israel must be heard in the country’s latest election, Jan. 6th) included the following claim: “As the [Sept. 2019] election […]
Out of all Uri Davis’s diverse activities against Zionism and the Jewish state, carefully listed in the profile by his sycophantic interlocutor Khalil Mousa, why did Independent Arabia editors choose to put his conversion to Islam in the sub-headline, as the first detail about Davis their readers are exposed to?
As we enter a new decade, we thought it would be fun to look back at some of our more interesting and impactful posts over the past ten years.
Palestinian children never travel for treatment unaccompanied by a parent or (at least) a relative. COGAT informed us that “during the first half of 2019, over 2,700 permits were issued for children’s medical treatment, with a nearly equivalent number issued for accompanying parents”. The image evoked by the language in the op-ed, of children alone in Israeli hospitals without family members, is, as with the broader narrative of the Indy op-ed, pure fiction.
In short: Soviet Bloc countries’ fences kept their own citizens from leaving. Israel’s fence keeps hostile non-citizens from entering. Any suggestion that both of these measures are morally or politically analogous is simply absurd.
A Guardian article on a new Human Rights Watch report vilifying Israel didn’t even feign objectivity or professionalism. In the 475 word piece by their Middle-East correspondent Michael Safim there isn’t even one sentence quoting someone critical of the report – neither an Israeli official nor NGO Monitor.
We complained to Liverpool Echo editors about their publication’s decision to publish such a hateful letter – one which advances the antisemitic narrative that the Israeli intelligence agency is helping to orchestrate the entire Labour antisemitism scandal, and they responded with a clear apology.
Videos such as these help explain why 87% of British Jews believe the leader of the Labour Party is personally antisemitic, and why many of them would view his arrival at 10 Downing Street as nothing less than an existential threat to their community.
The writings of Slavoj Žižek, a defender of Lenin and foe of liberal democracy who who has attributed the attacks of 9/11 to the “antagonisms of global capitalism”, have all the markings of a socialist revolutionary intellectual trying desperately to stay relevant in an age which has rejected such historically lethal ideologies. Unsurprisingly, the Corbyn-Milne brand of neo-Marxist politics he embraces also seems intent on at least trying to hide one central component of his core beliefs – an innate hostility to Jews and Israel.
Of course, beyond ‘merely’ his hatred of Israel, the overwhelming majority of British Jews (87%) believe that Corbyn is personally antisemitic, which renders Rifkind’s suggestion, towards the end of her op-ed, that it’s the responsibility of the Jewish community to reach out to and reconcile with Labour a moral inversion of the highest order.
We sent a polite tweet to the journalist pointing out our concerns. To his credit, he thanked us for pointing it out and agreed to amend the online version of the print article.
A Guardian article (“Lawyer criticises secretive Israeli case against Gaza aid worker”, Nov. 28), by their Jerusalem correspondent Oliver Holmes, included the following claim: More than 4,700 Palestinian security detainees and political […]
Editors at the Independent upheld our complaint that an op-ed by Robert Fisk included a baseless smear of the group UN Watch, and revised the relevant passage accordingly. However, another false claim in the piece has yet to be corrected.
Last week’s round of hostilities between Israel and Islamic Jihad saw hundreds of rockets fired from Gaza at Israeli communities – the “Gaza envelope” villages and the town of Sderot, as well […]
Editors upheld our complaint after we provided evidence demonstrating that between the late 1970s and 2016, there was not one president or secretary of state who labeled the settlements “illegal”. Rather, most – other than Ronald Reagan, who explicitly rejected the view that they were illegal – have characterised them as politically “illegitimate”, or an obstacle to peace, without taking a position on their legal status.
Whilst this blog takes no position on Israeli communities across the green line, we do take a strident position on holding British media outlets accountable to the accuracy clause of the UK Editors’ Code of Practice. So, over the past several days, we’ve pushed back against multiple outlets – including the Guardian, Independent, Economist, Telegraph and Financial Times – that have misrepresented longstanding US policy on settlements in the context of reports on the new US decision that they are not illegal.