Once again, we see how the Guardian seems to be institutionally incapable of holding Palestinian leadership even partly responsible for the misery in Gaza. It’s a pattern of coverage informed by an ideologically-driven propensity to deny Palestinians agency: the seeming belief that, as individuals, they lack the capacity to act independently of Israel and make choices of their own free will.
The Guardian doesn’t attempt to explain how Israel, where, per Freedom House, “women generally enjoy full political rights in law and in practice” can “exacerbate existing gender inequalities” in Hamas-run Gaza or Palestinian controlled cities in the West Bank. Nor do they offer a clue as to how the IDF can be blamed for Palestinian domestic violence – a bizarre charge leveled by the Guardian on at least two previous occasions.
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.
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.
UKMW prompts Irish Examiner to correct bizarre suggestion that there are Israeli settlements in Gaza
It took several days of communication between UK Media Watch and editors at the Irish Examiner, but we finally secured a correction to a sentence in a July 23rd op-ed which bizarrely suggested that there were still Israeli settlements in Gaza.
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.
When, in May, the Board of Deputies’ outgoing president Jonathan Arkush met with Jeremy Corbyn, he asked the Labour Party leader: “Why is there nothing good you can say about Israel? According to Arkush, Corbyn didn’t respond, but remained silent – a silence likely driven by the same “mythical Israel” that continues to haunt the political imagination of Guardian editors.
Most British outlets which covered the death eight-month-old Layla al-Ghandour have failed to publish allegations that Hamas paid the girl’s family to tell the media that Israeli tear gas caused her death though the real culprit was a pre-existing blood condition.
Donald Macintyre: a case study in how ‘enlightened’ British opinion can appear to empathise with Hamas
Instead of reporting facts, Donald Macintyre openly lets the narrative run over them. He appears to possess admiration and evoke sympathy for a terrorist organisation, whilst accusing the opposing army of slaughter. That he believes what he believes is upsetting – that his writing is considered enlightened, intelligent, and worthy of print is egregious.
Following communication with UK Media Watch, editors at the Daily Mail corrected an article which had falsely claimed that no terror group in Gaza claimed responsibility for the recent barrage of rockets fired at Israel.
The result of our work isn’t revolutionary change in their reporting from the region, but significantly improved coverage. In life, as in media monitoring, the perfect is often the enemy of the good.
Indy falsely claims Israeli troops “were ordered to use live fire” on 40,000 demonstrators (Updated)
This is but one extraordinarily misleading sentence within the cacophony of sensational, biased and misleading headlines, photos and articles published in the British media since late March. Yet, it aptly demonstrates how language is often chosen by reporters not with painstaking attention to the veracity of the information being conveyed but in order to serve the broader narrative of Israeli villainy and Palestinian victimhood.
If you defend Israel’s actions in Gaza, your ethical impulses are, according to the Guardian columnist, not those of an ordinary human being. It would be difficult to find a better illustration of why so many Jews believe that media coverage of Israel incites antisemitism than a column suggesting that they, by virtue of their pro-Israeli political views, are morally deranged, even sub-human.
Contrary to the Guardian Jerusalem correspondent’s claim, Hamas has not “softened” its founding charter’s rejection of Israel’s existence, nor has it abandoned its promotion of violence to achieve this end.
The Guardian once again has demonised Israel, smearing the state as one defined primarily by racism and violence – an ugly caricature which has little resemblance to reality. The notion that Jerusalem should take security advice from the Corbyn-sympathising London intelligentsia is as risible as their suggestion that its citizens should take seriously the moralizing tales of Israeli darkness by the Hollywood left.
When facts are ignored in favour of a fictitious narrative in which ‘brutal’ Israel is cowing the people of Gaza ‘into submission’, truth is sacrificed upon the altar of storytelling.
UK Media Watch prompts a correction at The Independent to a report on a video depicting the IDF shooting a Palestinian man on the Gaza border. The original Indy report failed to include the official IDF statement about the video which was available more than an hour before. The IDF statement significantly changes the story, as it provides Israel’s account of the circumstances – and context – by which the Palestinian man was shot.
Contrary to the Indy’s claims, the Knesset hearings made clear that the ‘6.5 million Arabs’ number cited does in fact include those living in east Jerusalem and Gaza – that is, it includes all the Palestinian Arabs living “between the river and the sea”. Our complaint to Indy editors was upheld, and the new language reflects the correct information.
Following our Twitter exchange with an Evening Standard journalist, an extremely misleading claim about the ‘occupation’ of Gaza was corrected.