A Guardian article, about warnings by Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahatir Mohamad, that Australia’s decision to consider moving its embassy to Jerusalem said about the 92-year old leader that he’s known for his outspokenness. However, what the Guardian didn’t tell you is that he’s also well known for expressing classic antisemitic rhetoric.
Contrary to Robert Fisk’s claim, Yasser Arafat was offered was a contiguous state encompassing Gaza, east Jerusalem and considerably more than 90 percent of the West Bank. And, it’s not the “American media” making this “claim”. It’s three of the principle players during negotiations – Bill Clinton, his chief peace negotiator Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk, then the US Ambassador to Israel.
On some issues, there aren’t two sides. You don’t have to be ‘pro-Israel’ to acknowledge that antisemitism – whether in Charlottesville or ‘Palestine’ – is never morally defensible, and – most of all – is always a path to ruin.
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.
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”.
If the Guardian journalist had done some fact checking, he would have easily found such evidence clearly contradicting the WCC spokesperson’s claims that they have “no connection to BDS”.
Indy readers interested in learning about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict are informed that Israel destroys Muslim graves, shoots innocent Palestinian children, breaches Palestinian rights to development and violates the academic freedom of pro-Palestinian Britons.
Once again, the Indy has shown its propensity – at least regarding their coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict – to favor propaganda over anything resembling professional journalism.
Headlines have enormous power in shaping news consumers’ immediate impressions of a news story. While pursuing a print or online newspaper, or browsing news sites on your Twitter feed, the headline chosen by editors not only sets the tone for how the article is framed, but often represents the primary source of information on a given issue for those who either quickly skim the article, or don’t read it at all.
Let’s begin by stating what should be obvious: Israel, like all countries, should not of course be immune to criticism. However, those of us who comment on the disproportionate criticism the Jewish […]
Here’s the latest installment in our monthly round-up of BDS fails: Economic BDS Fails The Boycott Israel Movement May be Failing After crunching a lot of statistics, Bloomberg News concludes that the BDS movement […]
When you come across a Guardian article about healthcare issues in Gaza, you pretty much know for certain what to expect. Regardless of the details, the story will ignore Hamas’s role completely, and […]
A recent article by Harriet Sherwood (Palestinian Global Teacher victor: ‘My students are the true prize winners’, March 18) had that quintessentially Guardian feel – replete with “peaceful” Palestinian protagonists turning the other […]
Prolonged use of Guardian goggles causes chronic selective blindness. And one can only marvel at the number of issues that the Guardian, and its broadcasting wing, the BBC, two self-labelling “liberal’ media organizations, have turned a blind eye to in recent years.
Cross posted from the blog of David Collier During these weeks across the UK, universities are holding ‘Israeli apartheid week’. I have sat and viewed with revulsion as images have emerged of […]
What’s the role of a journalist while conducting an interview about a charged political topic? In the UK, it seems that the accuracy clause of the Editors’ Code likely demands that questionable claims […]
Our post yesterday, comparing UK media outlets’ coverage of an Education Ministry decision not to include a book depicting an Israeli-Palestinian love affair on the literature curriculum, named a Times of London article by […]
The reason why such journalists always look for an Israeli root cause when explaining such acts of terror – whether it’s the settlements, “threats” to al-Aqsa, hopelessness, etc. – is that they immediately discount any explanation (no matter how grounded in empirical data) suggesting that attacks have a racist (antisemitic) motive – an ideological orientation which has fed anti-Jewish violence in the region for well over a century.
Most Israelis – even those who don’t support the settlement enterprise – don’t believe that continued construction across the green line (the overwhelming majority of which is located in areas which will likely become part of Israel in any future peace deal) is as important as the answer to one question: What will happen the day after a ‘peace deal’ is signed?
On Oct. 25, The Sunday Times did what few mainstream British papers would do: they published a story – documented and relentlessly pursued by blogger Elder of Ziyon – about antisemitism and incitement by employees […]