Tag Archives: Ma’ale Adumim

Jan 17 2013

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.”

Related articles

 

Jan 15 2013

Guardian story on Bab al-Shams falsely suggests Israeli PM violated court order

Yesterday, 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 recent 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.

Less than 24 hours after our post, which challenged claims made in the story that Palestinians were arrested by Israeli police during the evacuation, Guardian editors removed the inaccurate information and noted the correction in the ‘Corrections and clarifications‘ section of their website.

However, there’s one additional substantive mistake in Sherwood’s story which requires correction.

Note the language used in the strapline:

strapline

So, is Sherwood suggesting that the eviction carried out, under the orders of the prime minister, in violation of an Israeli Supreme Court ruling and thus not in accord with the rule of law?

Here are the relevant passages from the report which mention the Supreme Court:

On Saturday evening, Netanyahu demanded the Israeli supreme court overturn an injunction preventing the removal of the protesters, and ordered the area to be declared a closed military zone.

…

The activists sought legal protection from the supreme court, which granted an injunction against eviction and gave the state of Israel up to six days to respond.

…

Palestinian legislator Mustafa Barghouti, who was among those detained, said the eviction was “proof that the Israeli government operates an apartheid system. Firstly it decided that supreme court decisions do not apply to Palestinians.

A reasonable person reading the strapline and subsequent text would likely conclude that Netanyahu, furious at a court’s decision explicitly forbidding the removal of Palestinian protesters from the tent city, decided to simply ignore the court order. 

However, such a conclusion would be erroneous.

As CAMERA reported, “the court injunction, issued Friday (Jan. 11) by Justice Neal Hendel, and available in Hebrew on the High Court’s Web site, merely forbade the removal of the tents that the Palestinian activists had set up”, and not the protesters themselves.

Further, per the Supreme Court ruling, even the tents could be legally removed “so long as the state replied to the court within six days that there was a security need”.

Here’s the text from the ruling:

“After studying the petition I hereby impose a temporary injunction according to clause 1 — preventing the evacuation or destruction of tents that were erected by the petitioners on a-Tur lands, east of Kfar al-Azeem, unless an urgent security need arises.

The respondents [the state] will respond to this temporary injunction within six days.”

The bottom line is that, contrary to the clear suggestion in Harriet Sherwood’s report that Palestinians were removed from the protest site illegally (a narrative also parroted by Ali Abunimah at Electronic Intifada), the court order pertained to the tents, not the people.  

Any way you parse it, the Guardian clearly needs to make another correction to the story.

Related articles
Jan 14 2013

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.

Related articles
Jan 13 2013

Harriet Sherwood falsely reports on alleged arrests of Palestinians at ‘Bab al-Shams’

Harriet Sherwood’s latest report, ‘Israel evicts E1 Palestinian peace camp activists‘, Jan. 13, 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 were recently removed by Israeli police, began as follows:

“The Israeli state has swung into action against a group of Palestinian activists who established a tent village on a rocky hillside east of Jerusalem, with hundreds of security officials carrying out an eviction under the orders of the prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, in the early hours of Sunday morning.

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

Further in the report, Sherwood added the following:

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

However, according to police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld, there were no arrests made — a statement which was accurately reported by several Arab media outlets and which Rosenfeld confirmed today to CAMERA. According to Rosenfeld, a few activists were detained briefly, then released.

Today, CAMERA prompted a speedy correction to a CNN report which also included false allegations about protester arrests.

As CAMERA noted in their post about the original CNN error, even  Al Jazeera, “hardly a source known for reporting skewed in Israel’s favor” reported the story accurately, writing the following:

“Several activists were detained during Sunday morning eviction, including Mustafa Barghouthi, Secretary General of the Palestinian National Initiative, Al Jazeera’s correspondent, reporting from Jerusalem, said.

Al Jazeera’s Jane Ferguson, reporting from Jerusalem, said the activists who were detained were driven to Qalandiya checkpoint and then released.”

Additionally, here’s how the Arab News reported it:

“Hundreds of Israeli police came from all directions, surrounding all those who were in the tents and arresting them one by one,” Palestinian legislator Mustafa Barghouti told AFP.

But police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld told AFP that no arrests had been made.

And, here’s the relevant passage from a report by the Egyptian site, Ahram Online:

“Hundreds of Israeli police came from all directions, surrounding all those who were in the tents and arresting them one by one,” Palestinian legislator Mustafa Barghouti told AFP.

But police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld told AFP that no arrests had been made.

“They were told they were trespassing and carefully escorted from the site one by one,” he said. “Nobody was hurt on either side.”

It appears as if Sherwood merely took the statements by Palestinian activists at face value without even attempting to corroborate their claims.

Please consider writing a respectful email to the Guardian’s readers’ editor, Chris Elliott, asking for a correction to Sherwood’s false claim.

reader@guardian.co.uk

Related articles
Jan 13 2013

How big is E-1? The geographic reality of an alleged “impediment to peace”

A guest post by AKUS

There’s been a lot of talk at the Guardian – and in the mainstream media - about the tiny area of land (known as ’E-1′) outside Jerusalem (encompassing a mere 12 square kilometers of land out of more than 5,600 square kilometers of territory in the West Bank), so I thought it might be worth putting it in perspective:

Here’s a map showing E-1 taken from Ha’aretz (Q&A: What is area E-1, anyway?) which has the advantage of showing E-1 in bright red:

1

Here is the same image overlaid on a true map of Jerusalem and surroundings.  The guide in the bottom left hand corner gives a better idea of the distances and area involved – about 2 miles/4km from central Jerusalem, and between Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim:

2

For clarity, here is the E-1 area extracted from the map provided by Ha’aretz and overlaid on the same map of Jerusalem and surroundings:

3

By way of comparison, here is the E-1 area overlaid on a map of Manhattan – it is less than 4 times larger than Central Park:

4

To make the scale of E-1 a little more obvious, let’s zoom out to include most of Manhattan and surroundings:

5

And here is E-1 overlaid on a portion of the map of Israel to the same scale:

6

Is the world-wide fuss over an area between Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim, less than four times the size of Central Park, and a fraction of the size of Manhattan, that the Palestinians know will be included in the area of Israel if an agreement is ever reached, really worth making?

Related articles
Dec 18 2012

My appearance on Tamar Yonah’s show: Building in E-1, poll on Israeli Arabs & my banning at CiF

I was interviewed by Tamar Yonah yesterday on her Israel National Radio show, discussing the Guardian’s misrepresentation in reports on Israel’s plan to build homes between Jerusalem and Ma’aleh Adumim, the results of a poll about Arab citizens of Israel, and my banning at ‘Comment is Free’.

Dec 10 2012

Guardian’s obsessively critical coverage of E-1 construction proposal, by the numbers

News that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu announced the start of planning for home construction in the area known as E-1, between Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim, received saturation coverage at the Guardian.

Between Dec. 1 and Dec. 4, the Guardian’s coverage included an official editorial, analysis by Middle East editor, Ian Black, reports by Harriet Sherwood, a ‘Live Blog‘ on the announcement and political fallout, a photo story and a video.

The coverage almost exclusively advanced the narrative that plans to eventually build homes in E-1 would represent a death knell to the Two State Solution, would literally cut the West Bank in two, and would deny access to eastern Jerusalem to West Bank Palestinians.

(Most of of these arguments were proven to be demonstrably false.)

westbank-e1

E-1 in (yellow), between Jerusalem (light gray) and Ma’ale Adumim (purple)

Here’s a statistical and narrative summary of the Guardian’s coverage of E-1

  • Total number of words in Guardian reports, analyses and commentaries on E-1 : Nearly 8,000
  • Total number of separate reports or commentaries on E-1: 14 
  • Number of reports or commentaries which were mostly or entirely negative towards Israeli plans: 13*
  • Number of false allegations suggesting that E-1 construction would cut the West Bank in two, or would cut off eastern Jerusalem from the West Bank: 7
  • Number of times the above allegations, suggesting that E-1 would cut the WB in two, and cut eastern Jerusalem from the WB, were refuted by someone sympathetic to E-1: 1
  • Number of times it was argued that E-1 construction would make the creation of a viable and contiguous Palestinian state impossible or undermine the ‘Peace Process’: 30
  • Number of times the above allegations, suggesting that E-1 jeopardizes the ‘Peace Process’, were refuted: 1 
  • Number of times it was noted that E-1 construction represented an Israeli consensus: 1

*Harriet Sherwood’s Dec. 3 report was somewhat balanced.

Related articles
Dec 4 2012

Does the Guardian own a map? Op-Ed falsely claims E-1 would cut West Bank in two

On December 3, we demonstrated that Harriet Sherwood’s allegation that proposed Israeli construction in the area of land (known as E-1) between Jerusalem and Ma’aleh Adumim would cut off eastern Jerusalem from the West Bank is simply untrue.

Sherwood wrote:

“The development of [land east of Jerusalem known as] E1 has been frozen for years under pressure from the US and EU. Western diplomats regard it as a “game-changer” as its development would close off East Jerusalem – the future capital of Palestine – from the West Bank.” [emphasis added]

As CAMERA noted:

[It is not true that] construction [in E-1] would cut off Palestinian areas from Jerusalem. Access to Jerusalem through Abu Dis, Eizariya, Hizma and Anata is not prevented by the proposed neighborhood, nor would it be precluded by a string of neighborhoods connecting Ma’aleh Adumim to Jerusalem.”

In an official editorial today, Dec. 4, ‘Israel-Palestine: Concreting over the solution‘, the Guardian repeats Sherwood’s erroneous claim that the E-1  construction ”would sever the Palestinian state from its capital in East Jerusalem” and takes the false charge even further, arguing thus:

“Having spun the line that European governments had misunderstood Israel‘s plan to create a settlement that would cut the West Bank in two and separate it from East Jerusalem, the prime minister’s office vowed that nothing would alter their decision.” [emphasis added]

The Guardian was under no obligation to consult Israel before making allegations that the proposed construction would cut the West Bank in two, but when making a specific geographical claim it does seem reasonable that (as “journalists”) they consult a map which could empirically prove or disprove their assertion.

So, would construction connecting Jerusalem to  Ma’aleh Adumim cut the West Bank in two:

No.

Here’s a map created by HonestReporting completely disproving the Guardian’s allegation:

westBank-E1

As HR observed:

“The Palestinian waistline — between Ma’ale Adumim and the Dead Sea, is roughly 15 km wide. That’s a corridor no different than the Israeli waistline. Indeed, that has never caused a problem of Israeli territorial contiguity.”

We will be in contact with Guardian readers’ editor Chris Elliott over this egregious error, and we suggest that you consider doing the same.

reader@guardian.co.uk

Related articles
Dec 3 2012

Harriet Sherwood falsely claims Israeli construction will cut E. Jerusalem off from West Bank

H/T Tamar

Harriet Sherwood’s Dec. 3 report, ‘UK summons Israeli ambassador over settlement plan’, repeats a disproven allegation concerning the alleged injurious impact to Palestinians of proposed Israeli construction near Jerusalem.

Sherwood writes the following:

“Britain is furious at Israel’s decision to take punitive measures, including the authorisation of the new homes and the development of land east of Jerusalem known as E1 for settlement construction.

…

The development of E1 has been frozen for years under pressure from the US and EU. Western diplomats regard it as a “game-changer” as its development would close off East Jerusalem – the future capital of Palestine – from the West Bank.” [emphasis added]

However, as CAMERA has demonstrated, the allegation that E-1 development would “close of East Jerusalem…from the West Bank” (also recently advanced by Ha’aretz and the NYT) is simply not true.

Here’s a map CAMERA used in their post highlighting the area in question.

e1 continguity

CAMERA explained, thus:

“The black X marks the approximate location of the new neighborhood near Ma’aleh Adumim. To the west of the X is Jerusalem. The red line surrounding the X is the planned route of the security barrier, which will encircle Ma’aleh Adumim and Jerusalem.

Those who charge that Israeli building in Ma’aleh Adumim severs north-south contiguity disregard the fact that Palestinian-controlled areas would be connected by land east of Ma’aleh Adumim (marked on the map) that is at its narrowest point ~15 km wide.

Moreover, Israel proposes to build tunnels or overpasses to obviate the need for Palestinians to detour to the east through the corridor.

Ironically, many of those who argue for greater contiguity between Palestinian areas, at the same time promote Israeli withdrawal to its pre-1967 boundaries, which (even with minor modifications) would confine Israel to a far less contiguous territory than that of the West Bank. As shown on the map above, there is a roughly 15 km wide strip of land separating the Green Line (and the Security Fence) from the Mediterranean Sea (near Herzliya). Also shown is the circuitous route necessary to travel via this corridor between northern and southern Israel. (e.g. from Arad to Beit Shean.)”

Finally, CAMERA added the following:

“Nor is it true that the construction would cut off Palestinian areas from Jerusalem. Access to Jerusalem through Abu Dis, Eizariya, Hizma and Anata is not prevented by the proposed neighborhood, nor would it be precluded by a string of neighborhoods connecting Ma’aleh Adumim to Jerusalem.” [emphasis added]

Please consider contacting the Guardian’s readers’ editor, Chris Elliott, to seek a correction to Sherwood’s false allegation.

reader@guardian.co.uk

Related articles
Dec 3 2012

Paul Harris misleads on Israel’s commitment to freeze settlements under 2002 ‘Roadmap’

Paul Harris’s Dec. 1 Guardian piece, ‘Clinton and Hague attack Israel decision to build new settlements‘, reported on Netanyahu’s decision to approve the planning process for construction of 3,000 homes on land East of Jerusalem.

Harris, in an effort to contextualize Israeli plans to proceed with new construction, included the following claim, near the end of his report:

“Israel agreed to freeze settlement construction under the Roadmap For Peace plan in 2002. But it has failed to comply with that commitment despite repeated and widespread international condemnation.”

Harris’s claim is, at best, highly misleading.

Originally, Israel, under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, specifically rejected the elements of the Road Map (proposed by President Bush in 2002) which required Israel to halt settlement construction – a fact widely reported in the media at the time.

However, even when Israel announced, later than month, that they accepted, in principle, the goals of road map, they added a list of reservations. One of these reservations stipulated that, while they would “discuss” the issue of a settlement freeze and removing illegal outposts, any such Israeli concessions would be contingent upon the Palestinians combating terror, putting an end to incitement and educating their people for peace.  

Specifically, regarding the “settlement freeze”, the Israelis also explicitly asserted their continued right to settlement development within the existing communities - a partial freeze measure, again, only to commence when the Palestinians began fighting terror and working to end incitement.  

In 2004 the 2nd Intifada was still raging, and there was indication that the Palestinian requirement was being fulfilled.

So, the settlement freeze was part of a larger ‘road map’, implemented by a U.S. President no longer in office, was only partial to begin with and was contingent upon reciprocal Palestinian behavior in honoring their commitment to end terror – a relevant factor given that the Intifada didn’t end until February, 2005.

It’s also odd of Harris to cite a peace proposal from 2002, the terms of which were, at best, unclear, in light of President Obama’s more recent request, in 2009, which Netanyahu agreed to, for a 10 month freeze in construction to advance the peace process.

So, Harris’s claim, that Israel agreed to the freeze, and that they failed to comply with it, is, at best, extremely misleading.

…

One final note: A Sky News report published on Dec. 1, more than an hour before Harris’s piece was originally published at the Guardian, includes some of the same exact language about Israel’s alleged failure to abide by an agreement to freeze construction in 2002:

Sky News, 17:05, Saturday December 1, 2012:

“Israel agreed to freeze settlement construction under the Roadmap for Peace plan in 2002 but has failed to comply with that commitment.”

Paul Harris at the Guardian, 18.28, Saturday 1 December 2012:

Israel agreed to freeze settlement construction under the Roadmap For Peace plan in 2002. But it has failed to comply with that commitment…

Is it a coincidence that both Harris and the (uncredited) Sky News report used the precise same 22 words in a row in similar stories filed within an hour and  half of one another?

Perhaps. 

Dec 6 2011

The Guardian: Geographically Clueless

This is cross posted by Pesach Benson at the blog of Honest Reporting

In the middle of an article about a plan to relocate Bedouins, The Guardian‘s Harriet Sherwood worries that Maale Adumim might one day bisect the West Bank:

Many Palestinians see this as part of a strategic plan to close a ring of Jewish settlements that would cut East Jerusalem off from the West Bank. By stretching down to the Jordan valley, an expanded Ma’ale Adumim would also bisect the West Bank, making a contiguous Palestinian state impossible.

I’m not going to address the Bedouin issue – thats a separate discussion (which Sherwood and The Guardian have muddied before).

But as for her sense of geography, we heard the same hot air in 2005 over a parcel of land known as E-1.

The inconvenient fact for Sherwood and her Palestinian fixers is this: Even if Maale Adumim morphed into a sprawling metropolis up to the borders of its designated area, the Palestinians would still have a waistline of nine miles (15 km) connecting their north and south. Our colleagues at CAMERA published this useful map making the very point.

Map courtesy of CAMERA. Text and graphics added by CiF Watch.

To put it in perspective, the narrowest point of Israel’s waistline is the roughly nine km distance between Netanya and the Palestinian city of Tulkarm.

But who worries about Israel’s contiguity?

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta