This isn’t merely one poorly written headline. It represent an institutional pattern of reporting informed by a pro-Palestinian sympathy so pronounced that it often erases the most intuitive moral distinction between victim and perpetrator.
Fisk falsely suggests that Israel intentionally murders Palestinian journalists to prevent them from reporting the truth about Gaza. In fact, the IDF operates with the knowledge that Palestinian terrorists have, at times, posed as journalists in order to attack Israelis, and that this tactic was used frequently by Hamas during Operation Protective Edge – an intentional blurring of civilians with combatants that Israeli soldiers protecting the border must carefully navigate during the weekly riots.
Marc Lamont Hill is not merely a pro-Palestinian ‘activist’ who criticises Israel and calls for a ‘free Palestine’. He’s a radical anti-Israel propagandist who’s repeatedly justified Palestinian terror, rejected Israel’s continued existence of a Jewish state and expressed admiration for one of the more infamous disseminators of antisemitic hate.
Regardless of whether Netanyahu’s comparison between Hamas and ISIS is accurate, the point is that Hamas – like other Islamist extremist movements – can not be placated in the long-term by Western political concessions. The antisemitic extremist group’s fundamental grievance isn’t an economic one, but, rather, the continued existence of a Jewish state – and no journalist covering the region can possibly report accurately on the conflict if they fail to comprehend this most basic truth.
Sarah Helm is not a journalist. She’s more akin to a pro-Palestinian activist whose visceral contempt for Israel at times bleeds off the page, and has included tweets expressing support for Hamas violence and even justifying antisemitism.
These counterintuitive findings offer a rare honest glimpse into what Palestinians living under Hamas’s despotic rule in Gaza actually believe, providing a “compelling corrective” to an entrenched media echo-chamber which continues to mislead readers about the dynamics which represent the true root causes of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
If Lara Alqasem led a radical-right group, instead of radical-left SJP, would the media have covered her detention?
If Lara Alqasaem had been in a leadership position with a right-wing extremist group, instead of a pro-Palestinian extremist group, the media wouldn’t have batted an eye, and Alqasaem wouldn’t represent a political cause among ‘human rights’ activists.
Indy ignores deadly Palestinian terror, but rushes to pronounce settlers guilty in lethal rock-attack
The Independent was one of three British media outlets that failed to cover two recent Palestinian terror attacks that claimed the lives of three Israelis, but was quick to publish a story about a rock-throwing attack in the West Bank over the weekend that claimed the life of a Palestinian woman – an attack, relatives claim, was carried out by settlers. However, not only did the Indy jump on the story, but immediately pronounced the settlers guilty, despite the fact that the incident is still under investigation and there aren’t currently any suspects.
For 2nd time in 3 weeks, Times of London, Telegraph and Indy ignore deadly Palestinian terror attack
The journalistic axiom ‘if it bleeds it leads’ isn’t entirely true when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where selective concern for the suffering of one side is the norm – indicative of a broader pattern of double standards which continues to compromise British media coverage of the region.
You don’t need to be a journalist, Mid-East analyst or expert of any kind to come up with a list of practical steps ‘protesters’ participating in the Hamas organised Great March of Return can take to save Palestinian lives. Here are just a few:
1. Stop firing at soldiers on the border.
2. Stop throwing grenades and other explosive devices at soldiers on the border.
3. Stop attempting to damage the security fence and infiltrate into Israel in order to kill Jews.
Following communication with UK Media Watch, editors at the Daily Mail corrected an article which stated, as if it were a fact, that Israeli soldiers killed an 11 year old Palestinian boy on the Gaza border.
In smearing Israel, Jonathan Sacks and – by association – most British Jews, Steve Bell has attempted to grant Jeremy Corbyn and his cult-like band of acolytes the ultimate political get-out-of-jail-free card the times – lifetime moral impunity for expressions of anti-Jewish racism.
Yesterday, the Labour Party adopted – at least for the time being – the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism with all its examples, though with a caveat which Labour Friends of Israel claimed […]
Yet, despite Hamas well-documented history of using such putatively ‘civilian’ structures for military uses, the Guardian largely ignored the IDF’s statement, and parroted Hamas claims the IDF targeted what was merely a cultural centre. In three articles, encompassing over 2500 words of text, the Guardian devoted a mere four sentences, and 173 words, to the Israeli position.
The British Daily Mail apparently can’t be sure that Palestinians from the Gaza Strip really fired 180 rockets and mortars at Israel in a 24-hour period earlier this week. A Daily Mail article three times referred to these attacks as “alleged,” as if the fact that Hamas fired 180 rockets and mortars at Israel has not yet been confirmed.
The Guardian’s Deborah Orr was widely mocked for her bizarre argument that the Shalit prisoner swap with Hamas demonstrated Israeli racism, and she was eventually forced to offer an ‘apology’ of sorts. Corbyn’s 2012 comments on Press TV mirror Orr’s, and provide another illustration of the truly warped thinking which animates many anti-Zionist activists in the UK.
The decision by the Indy editor to promote Noam Chomsky’s charge on Israel’s putative influence on the US political system, without informing readers of the academic’s record of unhinged commentary on Jews, Israel and a host of other international issues, is extremely worrying.
The “both sides blame each other” phrasing used by the Indy Middle East correspondent is one in a long list of tropes and cliches employed by journalists to avoid reaching the morally intuitive conclusion that the violent extremist group that controls Gaza is more interested in stoking conflict than the Jewish democracy they’re trying to destroy.
Indy publishes op-ed opposing antisemitism definition by leader of group that has promoted antisemitism
It’s disappointing that Indy editors chose to legitimise duplicitous rhetoric which has the effect of providing cover to those radical voices on the British and American left who claim to be anti-racists yet are openly hostile to the Jewish community.
These headlines illustrate the failure of journalists and their editors to frame articles in a manner which focuses primarily on Hamas and Islamic Jihad violence and evokes sympathy for Israeli terror victims and the southern communities which are constantly on the receiving end of such attacks. The story they wish to tell demands that facts be molded to conform to the desired David vs Goliath narrative, operates from an assumption that Palestinians lack agency and that the only party in the conflict that matters is Israel. The facts may change, but the story remains the same.