This is a cross-post from BBC Watch. The subject matter of programmes in the BBC World Service radio history series ‘Witness‘ is often tied to an anniversary on or around the time […]
This is a cross-post from BBC Watch. The October 3rd edition of the BBC World Service radio programme ‘Newshour‘ included an item concerning that day’s meeting of the Palestinian cabinet in the […]
Buttu’s allegations in the Guardian, characterising Israel’s crackdown on incitement to terror as an ‘assault on Palestinian dissent’, are both context-free and counter-factual – essentially everything you’d expect from a PLO propagandist with such well-documented record of lying about the Jewish state.
The toxic charge that Israel (or Jews qua Jews) exercises a dangerous degree of control over US foreign policy or public opinion is sadly common within leftist discourse on the Middle East, and the fact that such invective have been published in a right-wing publication like The Spectator is another indication of the lure of such antisemitic logic among otherwise sober minds
Guardian cartoonist Martin Rowson was interviewed recently on BBC. During the interview, he revealed that, after the 2015 Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, Guardian editors wouldn’t let him draw a depiction of Muhammad out fear of jihadist violence against their staff. Rowson then immediately pivoted to (non-violent) criticism of his cartoons by pro-Israel activists – contextualising both as ‘dangerous’ examples of attacks on free expression.
Similarly, al-Abed’s apparent belief that Jews are subhuman certainly at least partially explains his motivation for entering an Israeli home and stabbing several Jews to death. By omitting this key passage in al-Abed’s Facebook post, the Indy has again obfuscated the lethal impact of Palestinian antisemitism and incitement.
the Guardian’s caption just so happened to omit the key words “following an attack on Israeli police at the site”, thus giving readers who didn’t closely follow events in Jerusalem that week no idea why the security measures, including the temporary closure of the mosque, were implemented.
What Sky News Arabia claims was “1000 settlers storming al-Aqsa” actually refers to 1000 Jews peacefully and legally visiting the Temple Mount (Judaism’s holiest site) on Tisha B’Av, the Jewish day of mourning to commemorate the destruction of the first and second Temples.
Here’s what the Guardian’s ‘largely non-violent’ Palestinian ‘campaign of civil disobedience’ looks like
The advocacy journalism practiced by Beaumont seems to demand that the Palestinian cause be framed – regardless of the evidence – as a peaceful and progressive, and so all information that runs counter to this narrative must be whitewashed and obfuscated.
The misleading Indy photo purporting to depict ‘peaceful worshipers’ is just one more example of the media’s continuing obfuscation of the central role played by Palestinian incitement in fueling violence – an ongoing lie by omission which profoundly distorts news consumers’ image of the conflict.
It’s impossible to properly understand events in Jerusalem over the past week without acknowledging the continuing pattern of Palestinian incitement, antisemitism and violence over Al-Aqsa Mosque.
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.
Palestine Solidarity Campaign: A case study in the correlation between anti-Zionism and antisemitism
Rather than asking whether opposing a Jewish state or supporting BDS is inherently anti-Semitic, London based blogger David Collier asks a more practical question: are the people who espouse these views also espousing ideas representing classic anti-Semitism?
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.
Hezbollah humiliated on streets of London as their Al Quds Day protest is blocked by pro-Israel activists.
We came we saw we conquered! While the Hezbollah Al Quds Day terror parade was allowed to take place on Sunday 18th June in the heart of London’s West End a group of 20 to 30 pro-Israel activists stepped out into the road to block the march no sooner than after it had just started.
Around the world, there are many countries who are building walls to protect their citizens. Saudi Arabia is building a 600 mile wall to keep out ISIS. India is building massive walls on its borders with Bangladesh and Pakistan. One can agree with these decisions, or disagree with them. But in the end, there is only one country who built a wall to defend its citizens from murderous attacks on its civilians that is called apartheid for doing so – and surprise, surprise the one country singled out for unfair criticism is Israel.
The Guardian’s claim regarding the putative position of “Israeli” thinktanks on the Saudi-UAE isolation of Qatar not only comes completely out of nowhere, and is seemingly irrelevant, but is also erroneous. The link embedded in the claim takes you to an article in Middle East Eye, which clearly identifies the think tank as Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a thinktank based in Washington, D.C., not Israel. We contacted Guardian editors, who upheld our complaint and revised the passage accordingly.
To be fair, the Telegraph is far from the worst UK news outlet when it comes to such media double standards. However, their omission of Palestinian car rammings within the context of the London Bridge attack seems indicative of a wider phenomenon by which Israelis are placed in a different category of victims – men, women and children whose suffering often seems to occupy a space beyond the sympathetic imagination of many journalists and editors.
We can only hope that Economist will one day engage in self-reflection on their coverage of the region, and begin to critically scrutinize Palestinians with a rigor that’s currently almost entirely reserved for Israelis.