British newspaper amplifies extremist message of Israel’s Islamic Movement

Up until now, the most egregious distortion, within the UK media’s coverage of the proposed ‘Jewish nation-state’ legislation, was represented by Times of London headlines suggesting that the law, if passed, would render Arab-Israelis “second-class citizens”.  

Through communication with Times of London editors, they agreed to add quotes around the term “second-class citizens” to reflect the fact that that charge merely represents the hyperbole of a few political figures in expressing their opposition to the law. (See this good backgrounder on the proposed bill, which would not erode the individual rights of non-Jews in Israel, yet alone result in ‘transfer’.)

However, the British newspaper The Telegraph has published an even more inflammatory and misleading article on the possible ramifications of the proposed law (Meet the Arab-Israelis living in fear of expulsion, Dec. 1). The article, written by their Middle East correspondent Robert Tait, amplifies the ludicrous charge by some Arab extremists that the legislation would result in the forced expulsion of Arab-Israelis.

Continue reading

Guardian erases “Palestinians” from Reuters story on Jerusalem terror attack

At least five Israelis were killed and eight wounded Tuesday morning when Palestinian terrorists armed with knives, axes and guns began attacking Jews in a Jerusalem synagogue during morning prayers.  The terrorists, who were reportedly shouting “Allahu Akbar” during the attack, were eventually shot and killed by police.

The Guardian’s first report on the incident was a Reuters story which they posted at roughly 9 AM Israeli time.

First, here’s a snapshot of the original story, as it appeared on Reuters’ website, titled ‘Up to five dead in suspected Palestinian attack on Jerusalem synagogue‘.

reuters

However, as you can see, the Guardian’s version (Deadly attack in Jerusalem synagogue) deleted the word “Palestinian” from the headline.

Continue reading

The Guardian misrepresents Netanyahu’s comments on rioters

A Nov. 9th article by the Guardian’s Jerusalem correspondent, Peter Beaumont, on recent Arab protests in response to the deadly police shooting of a man in the Galilee town of Kufr Kana (Violence spreads across Israel after shooting in Galilee, Nov. 11) included a clear distortion of recent comments by Israel’s prime minister.

Here are the relevant passages from Beaumont’s report:

Amid calls for protests in Israeli Arab towns and a general strike, Israeli police raised their alert to the second highest level of preparedness. The police’s internal investigations department is looking into the shooting to determine whether proper protocol was followed.

The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, in comments before the weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday, said he has ordered officials to examine whether citizenship could be removed from those participating in demonstrations.

However, as official transcripts from Netanyahu’s cabinet meeting clearly indicate, he was asking to examine whether citizenship could be removed from those specifically calling for the destruction of Israel.

cabinet

Beaumont’s text, regarding who precisely Netanyahu was referring to when he spoke of ‘revoking citizenship’, would lead readers to believe that the prime minister of Israel is seeking a draconian response to those merely participating in benign “demonstrations”  –  a significant mischaracterization of his cabinet meeting remarks. 

Economist deceives in citing partial quote by Israeli MK about the Temple Mount

Mount of Troubles‘, published in the print edition of The Economist on Oct. 18th, included the following claim (underlined in red):

economist

However, that sentence only includes part of what Feiglin said, and omits important context.
According to a report on Feiglin’s visit to the Mount by Israel National News, he was talking specifically about Sukkot, and protesting the police decision to ban Jews from visiting the site during that Jewish holiday – due to a recent surge in Arab riots and attacks on police and Jewish worshippers.
 
Here are the relevant passages.

Deputy Knesset Speaker Moshe Feiglin (Likud) attacked the Israeli police’s decision to close the Temple Mount to Jewish worshipers on Sukkot.

Sukkot is one of the three Jewish pilgrimage holidays that in ancient times required Jews to travel to the Temple in Jerusalem – a practice maintained today.

The decision to bar Jewish worshippers comes following an onslaught of violent Arab riots against police and Jewish visitors to the mount.

“The person responsible for this is the Prime Minister (Binyamin Netanyahu). I call on the prime minister to order an immediate removal of all Muslims from the Temple Mount during Sukkot. This would allow Jews to visit freely and safely on the holiday.” 

Unless they have another source that we weren’t able to find, the passage in The Economist is extremely misleading as it fails to include a key part of the quote, as well as vital context about the scope and motivation of Feiglin’s demands.  He evidently was referring to visiting rights for Muslims during Sukkot, and only in reaction to the police decision to ban Jews during the holiday due to Muslim riots.

(Alternately, according to his Facebook page, Feiglin was even more narrowly calling for the removal of only Muslim rioters from the site.)

To be clear, Feiglin’s views regarding the Temple Mount (and many other issues) are in fact extreme and morally indefensible. Nonetheless, The Economist – as with all serious newspapers, magazine and journals – has the responsibility to report accurately on even those public figures their journalists don’t view sympathetically, or whose opinions they find offensive.

Economist’s Nicolas Pelham continues to mislead about Christians in Israel

4879009

Nicolas Pelham

As we’ve noted previously, a pattern in which the ongoing persecution of Christians in Muslim states is downplayed, and the freedom enjoyed by Israel’s Christian community is ignored, continues to taint UK media coverage of the Middle East, and prevents news consumers from accurately understanding the vast freedom divide in the region.

Yesterday, we cross-posted a piece by Tamar Sternthal (Director of CAMERA’s Israel office) responding to a commentary (published in Ha’aretz) by Economist journalist Nicolas Pelham (‘Christians in Israel and Palestine, May 11) which accused Israel’s lobbyists of deceiving the world about the state’s treatment of Christians.  As we noted, Pelham not only claimed that Christians are mistreated in Israel but, even more risibly, suggested that there’s something akin to harmony between Christians and Muslims in the Palestinian territories.

On the very same day the Ha’aretz piece ran, an Economist article titled Christians in Israel-Palestine: Caught in the Middle, authored by N.P. (presumably Nicolas Pelham), which continued to mislead on an issue of serious concern to millions of Christians in the world.  Pelham begins his piece by criticizing the state for the tight security planned for the Pope’s upcoming visit:

Israel is taking no chances. It is planning a strict permit regime, insisting that the Holy Father travels in an armoured car, with the public kept at arm’s length behind a security cordon. Thousands of police are to be drafted in. “The pope wants to see the people,” protests a papal spokesman. “But Christians won’t be able to see him…Israel is turning the holy sites into a military base.” 

Then, Pelham attempts to buttress his narrative by citing Israeli security procedures used during Easter celebrations in Jerusalem’s Old City last month.

Tensions rose in the Old City over Easter, as Israel’s police set quotas for access to Jesus’s burial site, the Holy Sepulchre. They issued wristbands and badges to let Christian groups through the gates of the Old City at allotted times, and set up barriers in the Christian quarter. “Move back,” Commander Golan told pilgrims, as thousands sought to attend the rite of the Holy Fire on Easter Saturday, when believers say fire erupts from Jesus’ tomb, setting thousands of church candles aflame. 

After acknowledging that Israeli security measures during Easter were effective, and that this year’s Holy Fire ceremony (at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher) “flared without injury”, he then legitimizes the suggestion that there may have been special treatment for Jews during the Passover and Easter holidays.

Whereas the police held back Christian pilgrims, say the priests, the gates for Jews celebrating Passover, which coincided this year with Easter, were opened wide

However, as CAMERA senior researcher Ricki Hollander (a part-time Jerusalem resident) told us recently, security procedures during Passover for Jews were similarly stringent:

Hollander:

I and the people I was with were not allowed in to the Old City to go to the Jewish Quarter or Kotel yesterday [Saturday, April 19] afternoon during the fire ceremony. One friend I was with who lives in the Old City was prevented from returning to his house until the ceremony was over.  Another elderly friend with a cane who was prevented from entering the barriers as well.  We saw dozens of Jews being turned away. As it happens, we went to another gate and managed to take a very long way around to reach the Jewish quarter.

 Pelham then cites the recent example of UN Middle East Peace Envoy Robert Serry:

Robert Serry, a Dutch diplomat who is the UN’s Middle East envoy, whose way was briefly barred, protested against what he said was Israel’s hindrance of religious freedom. 

This is deceptive.  

As we demonstrated in a post about a Guardian story which advanced the same narrative, there was no “hindrance of religious freedom” for  Christians during Easter, and thousands of pilgrims were able to freely attend the Holy Fire ceremony (and other Easter events in the Old City) without incident.  Further, Serry was merely delayed for 30 minutes before he and his delegation were able to attend the ceremony – a delay likely based on concerns about possible trampling if too many people surged to the ceremony at the same time.

Testifying to the overall success of the day’s events, Christian officials reportedly thanked Israeli police for their professional handling of the event.  

The suggestion that there was any hindrance of Christians’ religious freedom on Easter in Jerusalem is pure fiction.

Pelham continues:

The Israelis say that the number of Christians in Israel is growing, whereas in the Palestinian territories (and elsewhere in the Arab world) it is shrinking

“Israelis say”?  Wasn’t the Economist journalist able to fact check the Israeli “claim”?

He could have of course referred to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, where he would have learned that there were approximately 34,000 Christians living in Israel in 1949, whereas 161,000 Christians were living in the state by the end of 2013.  By contrast, “Christian communities in the West Bank and Gaza”, according to a report based on statistics provided by the World Christian Database, “have been declining for several decades.”  To cite just one example, since Hamas took power in Gaza in 2007, the Christian population has reportedly shrunk by half to about 1,500. (In the mid-90s, there were reportedly 5,000 Christians in Gaza.)

Pelham ends thusly:

In a move heralded by the Israelis as encouraging the integration of Christians in Israel, the army is planning to call up young Christians. It will be voluntary, says an army spokesman, noting the endorsement of a priest in Nazareth, Father Nadav. But most churchmen have condemned the move, saying it will sow sectarian strife between Israel’s 150,000 [sic] Arab Christians and its ten-times bigger number of Muslims. Last year, only 40 of some 2,000 Palestinian Christians who reached conscription-age enlisted. 

Pelham got the number wrong.  Though the number of Christians who enlist is indeed small, it is increasing.  In the 6 month period between June 2013 and the end of December alone (based on multiple reports), there were 84 Christians who enlisted – a three-fold increase from the previous year.

More broadly, as anyone who lives or has spent serious time in the state would surely understand, Israel is, by far, the country with the best record on religious freedom in the Middle East.  No matter how egregious the obfuscations by journalists like Pelham, nobody can plausibly deny that (as the latest report by the human rights group Freedom House documented) while Israel defines itself as a ‘Jewish and democratic state,’ “freedom of religion is respected“.

Enhanced by Zemanta

CiF Watch prompts Guardian correction. Robert Serry DID attend Easter ceremony in Jerusalem

Last week we posted about an extraordinarily dishonest article in the Observer (sister publication of the Guardian) by Peter Beaumont, the paper’s new Jerusalem correspondent.  Beaumont pulled off quite a feat. He managed to turn a few security delays which occurred in the midst of thousands of Christian pilgrims freely attending Easter celebrations in Jerusalem last weekend into a story suggesting that Israel was abrogating the rights of Christians to freely worship.

The brief delays were caused by security and crowd control measures designed by Israeli security personnel to keep masses of worshipers from surging into the church.  Indeed, such measures are likely the main reason why there were no reports of violence despite the incredibly large number of visitors, and why Christian officials reportedly thanked Israeli police for their professional handling of the event.

Undaunted by the broader fact that Israel remains the only country in the Middle East where Christian aren’t being persecuted for their beliefs, Beaumont had a tale of Israeli oppression to tell, and was no doubt heartened when he ‘learned’ of reports that the UN’s peace envoy to the Middle East, Robert Serry (and his delegation), were ‘denied’ entry to one of the Easter-related ceremonies at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.

Beaumont made the following claim which, in fairness, was evidently based on reports originally published by Reuters:

On Sunday morning it emerged that Israeli police had prevented the UN’s peace envoy to the Middle East, Robert Serry, other diplomats and a crowd of Palestinians from attending the Holy Fire ceremony on Saturday.

Beaumont then quoted Serry’s complaint that Israeli authorities engaged in “unacceptable behavior” and noted his demand that all parties “respect the right of religious freedom”.

However, there was one big problem.  As we reported in our initial post on Beaumont’s article, Serry and his party, after a 30 minute delay, were indeed permitted to pass, and in fact attended the Holy Fire ceremony.

We based our conclusion on reports in the Washington Post which we later confirmed with Israeli Police Spokesperson Micky Rosenfeld.

After contacting editors at the Observer, the paper acknowledged that Serry did attend the ceremony, and revised the passage accordingly.

It now reads:

On Sunday morning it emerged that for 30 minutes Israeli police had prevented the UN’s peace envoy to the Middle East, Robert Serry, other diplomats and a crowd of Palestinians from attending the Holy Fire ceremony on Saturday.

Additionally, there is this addendum:

update

So, one of the main ‘incidents’ used by Beaumont to suggest that Israel was oppressing Christians on Easter never actually occurred.

Though we commend Observer editors for revising the passage in question, the broader narrative of the day’s events in Jerusalem advanced by Beaumont again demonstrates the Guardian’s capacity to frame almost any event in the Jewish state in a manner consistent with their rigid anti-Zionist ideology. 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

CiF Watch post prompts second correction to Guardian story about Bab al-Shams

As always, a h/t to the team at CAMERA 

On Jan. 14 we reported on a Guardian correction (prompted by an earlier CiF Watch post) to a story written by Harriet Sherwood on Jan. 13 about the removal of Palestinian protesters from a tent city named Bab al-Shams – located in an area between the cities of Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim known as E-1.

correctThe Guardian corrected Sherwood’s false claim that Palestinians were “arrested” by Israeli police during the evacuation.

Today, following a post published on Jan. 15 – as well our communication with the Guardian – they made another correction to the same story, removing text falsely suggesting that Prime Minister Netanyahu ordered the evacuation of Palestinian protesters from the tent city in violation of a Supreme Court ruling.  

As we noted, the Supreme Court order in question only referred to the removal of the tents, not the evacuation of the protesters.

The article by Harriet Sherwood now includes this at the bottom of the piece.

“This article was amended on 14 January and 17 January 2013. Activists were detained but not formally arrested. In addition a sub-heading and text were amended to make clear the Supreme Court injunction referred to tents rather than the protesters. This has been corrected.”

 

Following CiF Watch post, Guardian corrects story on protest at Bab al-Shams

H/T CAMERA

On Jan. 13, we criticized a story by Harriet Sherwood (‘Israel evicts E1 Palestinian peace camp activists) about Palestinian protesters who set up a tent city named Bab al-Shams – in the area between Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim known as E-1 – and who were removed by Israeli police.  

We noted that Sherwood’s report included the false information that “all” of the Palestinians were arrested when, in fact, nobody was arrested.

Here are the two relevant passages in Sherwood’s report:

According to activists, a large military force surrounded the encampment at around 3am. All protesters were arrested and six were injured, said Abir Kopty.”

Palestinian legislator Mustafa Barghouti, who was among those arrested, said the eviction was “proof that the Israeli government operates an apartheid system.

The strap line for the story also reported that protesters were “arrested”.

We noted that Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld confirmed that there were no arrests made — a statement (which he later confirmed to CAMERA) accurately reported by several Arab media outlets. According to Rosenfeld, a few activists were detained briefly, and then released.

We asked our blog’s followers to contact the Guardian’s readers’ editor to request a correction and, sure enough, less than 24 hours after our post, the story was revised, and the language about “arrests” removed (including in the strap line).

Sherwood’s report now includes this footnote:

This article was amended on 14 January 2013. Activists were detained but not formally arrested. This has been corrected.

As always, many thanks to our loyal readers for working with us in our ongoing efforts to keep the Guardian accountable to basic standards of accuracy.