Tag: Mahmoud Abbas

Indy falsely claims Fatah was founded by Arafat to merely ‘create a Palestinian state’.

The claim by the Indy journalist that Fatah as founded to promote the creation of a Palestinian state shouldn’t be seen as merely a one-off factual error, but, rather, an example of a larger media pattern of casting Palestinians as the reasonable party in the dispute by obfuscating undeniable evidence demonstrating their long history of terror, extremism, and rejectionism.

UK media ignore Abbas’s howler at the UN that Palestinians ‘foster a culture of peace’

If foreign journalists covering the region held Palestinian leaders to the same level of critical scrutiny that they consistently hold Israeli leaders to, the ten seconds of Abbas addressing the UN would cause nothing less than a media storm – with reports, analyses and commentaries informing readers that Abbas’s claim that Palestinians “are committed to fostering a culture of peace and a rejection of violence” is simply the opposite of the truth.

Guardian cites ‘leaked EU report’ warning that Israel is promoting ‘Jewish narrative’ of Jerusalem

The suggestion in the EU report that the Jewish “narrative” is being promoted “at the expense of other religions” represents the opposite of the truth, as Israel continues to safeguard Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem, whilst Palestinian leaders continually deny Jewish history in the holy city and incite their people to view any Jewish presence on Judaism’s holiest site as an intrusion onto an exclusively ‘Muslim’ site.   

Guardian’s Ian Black covers for Mahmoud Abbas’s assault on historical truth.

There seems to be no limit to the lengths the Guardian will go to ignore, obfuscate or excuse Palestinian extremism, incitement or historical revisionism.  Their former Middle East Editor, Ian Black, provided his take on Mahmoud Abbas’s recent speech in Ramallah and characteristically airbrushed the most indefensible parts in order to maintain the narrative of a ‘moderate’, even “principled” Palestinian President.

UK media airbrush Abbas’s anti-Jewish remarks from report on PLO conference.

The low lights of a diatribe against the world in Ramallah last night by the Palestinian “president”, who today celebrated the 12th year of a 4 year term, included his characterisation of Israel as a European “colonialist project, which has nothing to do with the Jews”. Thus far, among UK media outlets, only The Telegraph covered Abbas’s speech. However, their article ignored his antisemitic smear.

Mahmoud Abbas’s Guardian op-ed illustrates the dishonesty of the ‘Palestinian narrative’

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. 

What did the Economist erase from its picture of ‘occupation’?

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

British media ignore Mahmoud Abbas’s antisemitic ‘poisoning the wells’ libel

Palestinian antisemitism is one of the more under-reported political pathologies within the region, and the failure of journalists and editors to deal honestly with the injurious impact of this enduring hatred contributes to the British public’s egregious misunderstanding of both the root cause of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and the endemic backwardness and underdevelopment within Palestinian society.

What the Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland gets wrong about Rabin and Israel’s search for peace

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?