Contrary to the Economist’s claims, the medicine shortage in Gaza has nothing whatsoever to do with the the Israeli blockade – a fact we proved in a previous post which included a definitive statement from COGAT that there are NO restrictions on medicine and medical equipment.
Moreover, the apparent credulity of the journalist and his editor in the face of Samara’s wild claim that soldiers considered shooting him for no particular reason – or that the army would have blown up his family’s house if he complained – is staggering, and provides another example of how the caricature of Israeli malevolence is ingrained in the Guardian imagination.
The reporter’s apparent anger towards the IDF, as is evident in her reaction to the video, that “this is mad”, would only be apt if the narrative advanced by Palestinian protesters – and pro-Palestinian outlets – had any relationship with reality.
Much like the maps recently being paraded by Palestinian leaders purporting to show how much of “Palestine” their leaders have been willing to compromise, Private Eye has peddled a historical fiction, obfuscating the simple fact that there has never been – at any time in history – a sovereign Palestinian state.
In short: Soviet Bloc countries’ fences kept their own citizens from leaving. Israel’s fence keeps hostile non-citizens from entering. Any suggestion that both of these measures are morally or politically analogous is simply absurd.
A Guardian article on a new Human Rights Watch report vilifying Israel didn’t even feign objectivity or professionalism. In the 475 word piece by their Middle-East correspondent Michael Safim there isn’t even one sentence quoting someone critical of the report – neither an Israeli official nor NGO Monitor.
Whilst this blog takes no position on Israeli communities across the green line, we do take a strident position on holding British media outlets accountable to the accuracy clause of the UK Editors’ Code of Practice. So, over the past several days, we’ve pushed back against multiple outlets – including the Guardian, Independent, Economist, Telegraph and Financial Times – that have misrepresented longstanding US policy on settlements in the context of reports on the new US decision that they are not illegal.
Contrary to the Guardian’s claim that the new US declaration rejects the US legal position on the issue since 1978, the 1978 US State Department Hansell Memorandum they’re referring to, which maintained that settlements are illegal, was not the basis of 40 years of U.S. policy, a time period which includes Ronald Reagan’s policy which held that the settlements are not illegal.
Written by Petra Marquardt-Bigman From my home on the southern outskirts of Tel Aviv, I hear the Muslim call to prayer every day as it issues from a mosque half a mile […]
What do Tibetans, Kurds & Uighurs have in common? All are marginalised by media’s Palestine fixation
A recent op-ed by The Independent’s Mid-East correspondent has the air of an expose on the tragic plight of an obscure tribe in some under-covered part of the globe. But, in fact, quite the opposite is true. As we’ve documented continually, the Palestinians are the source a grossly disproportionate coverage by foreign journalists.
Providing a voice for: demonisation of Israel and ‘right wing’ Jews; defence of anti-Zionists; gaslighting of Jews who complain of antisemitism; and the legitimisation of even the most indefensible pro-Palestinian claims – all in a days work for Guardian editors.
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.
For the 5th time in less than a year, UK Media Watch has prompted a correction in the British media to the false claim that there are “settler-only roads” in the West Bank. The latest such claim was in an op-ed at the Independent by Sophia Brown, a London-based academic.
The myth that there are ‘Jews-only’ or ‘settler-only’ roads in the West Bank has been debunked numerous times over the years by CAMERA and its affiliates – prompting corrections at news sites such as CNN, Associated Press, Washington Post, The Economist, The Financial Times and The Telegraph.
Following our tweet, we contacted Daily Mail editors, who similarly amended the quote to remove the “settlers-only” roads claim.
In short, Zonshein’s op-ed on the planned eviction of illegal Bedouin encampments employ all the tools within the Guardian’s delegitimisation playbook: lies, half truths, the use of hyperbolic language and completely unsubstantiated accusations of criminality to characterize Israeli policy.
Though the quote is still highly problematic, we’re glad that we were again successful in convincing editors that such propaganda about ‘racist roads’, which of course serve to amplify dishonest ‘Apartheid Israel’ smears, are completely counter-factual.
On April 8th 2018, Sky News Arabia published an item with the headline: “A Palestinian injured by a settler in the West Bank”. Camera-Arabic researchers noticed that the headline was inaccurate, as it creates the impression that the injured Palestinian was an innocent man who was shot by a settler without justification.
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.
Foreign journalists covering the region are so careful not to amplify or accept at face value the “hasbara” disseminated by the Israeli government or pro-Israel groups, yet seem perfectly willing to report (as real news) such staged protests and other forms of political street theatre.