In an article published on September 13, 2013, Why Some Palestinians Want to Learn Like Israelis, The Christian Science Monitor exposes how Palestinians in east Jerusalem are torn between their commitment to an ideology that rejects any accommodation to the reality of a unified Jerusalem under Israeli control and their desire to provide a better future for their children. According to David Koren, adviser on east Jerusalem to the Jerusalem mayor, Nir Barakat:

”The Palestinian Authority, Fatah and Hamas may oppose this but parents know that the future of their children is in Israel… In a series of meetings with us, parents requested having the option of the Israeli curriculum. People were paying 12,000 shekels ($3,430 dollars) for private courses to prepare their children for Israeli universities and they asked the mayor, why not open a track within the school?”

While Palestinian officials continue to demand unswerving obedience to their political agenda, some parents place a higher priority on a better education and more prosperous future for their children.

Apparently, news wire service Agence France-Presse (AFP) didn’t get the Islamic Jihad memo. According to numerous media outlets, including the BBC, Ha’aretz and Reuters, Islamic Jihad issued a statement this morning mourning the loss of its member, Islam al-Tubasi, who was mortally shot today in an Israeli army raid in the Jenin refugee camp.

While all of these media outlets had no trouble establishing al-Tubasi’s membership in Islamic Jihad, AFP wasn’t so sure. It reported:

The [Palestinian security] sources had no information on whether he was engaged in militant activity but said that his brother, who had been active in Islamic Jihad, was shot dead by troops in 2006.

Even if Islamic Jihad inadvertently omitted AFP from its mailing list, the terror group made al-Tubasi’s membership known on its Web site.

A screen shot from the Islamic Jihad home page, which features a photo of al-Tubasi’s funeral and calls him “one [of] Islamic Jihad militants in Jenin refugee camp” (Google translate)

Does the evidence support the BBC’s touting of “less hardline Iranian stance” on nuclear issue?
The BBC continues to paint a misleading picture of a ‘moderate’ new Iranian president. (BBC Watch)

BBC regular Atwan’s week: speech at Hamas-linked conference, interview on Hizballah TV
A regular BBC guest commentator on the Middle East was recently to be found on Al Manar TV and at a Hamas-linked conference. (BBC Watch)

AP Better Than AFP on 20 Years Since Oslo
AP’s article on 20 years since Oslo mentions Palestinian terror attacks, something the AFP did not do in its egregiously skewed coverage. (Snapshots)

Glenn Greenwald’s top 5 anti-American rants
In addition to his well-documented record of antisemitism, Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald also possesses an extreme hostility towards the United States – an ideological orientation which calls into question those who take seriously his reports on U.S. national security. (CiF Watch)

The Economist’s extraordinarily misleading 12 words on why Hamas hates Israel
The Economist‘s brief explanation of why ‘Hamas hates Israel’ is, sadly, par for the course in the context of the UK media’s continuing obfuscation regarding the Islamist terror group’s theologically inspired antisemitism and commitment to jihad. (CiF Watch)

Assumptions presented as facts
Some Spanish-speaking media reproduced a Foreign Policy article stating assumptions about Israel’s alleged nerve gas stockpile as fact. (ReVista de Medio Oriente)

Northeastern’s SJP Violates School Policy
Students for Justice in Palestine protest a pro-Israel event without a permit, a violation of school policies. A Boston Globe columnist takes up their case. (In Focus)

The good, the bad and the naive
Yediot insinuates a sexist motivation for not appointing Israel’s first female governor of the Bank of Israel (Presspectiva)

Middle East headlines in the Spanish speaking press
Headlines focus on the UN report on the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but the press also emphasizes that Israel hasn’t signed the UN Convention on Chemical Weapons. (ReVista de Medio Oriente)

Problematic UN
In an Op-Ed, a CAMERA CCAP Liaison at the University of New Orleans sheds light on problems at the UN. (In Focus)

Last week we noted AFP’s egregious omission of any mention of Palestinian suicide bombings and rocket attacks in its coverage marking 20 years since the signing of the Oslo accords. The AFP’s entirely one-sided reporting in which Palestinians had zero role in the breakdown of talks stands in stark contrast to the AP’s more balanced story.

Though Karin Laub’s article, “20 years on, Oslo Accords promise rings hollow,” focuses largely on settlements, it also manages to refer to Palestinian violence.

She writes:

Many Israel, scarred by Palestinian suicide bombings and rocket fire from Gaza, are skeptical of the other sides’ intentions and believe the politically divided Palestinians cannot carry out a peace deal, even if one is reached. . . .

Over the past 20 years, both sides have traded blame over the failures. . .

Israelis say Palestinians have used violence to try to extract concessions.

AP’s references to Palestinian suicide bombings and rockets is only noteworthy due the AFP’s skewed “reporting.” Maybe if the AFP found a reporter whose other job isn’t working for a Palestinian Authority newspaper, it too could get the job done.

Update: Since major media outlets have given such scant attention to the Israeli perspective on 20 years since Oslo, readers might want to check out BESA’s “Twenty Years to Oslo” by Prof. Efraim Inbar. He writes:

The Oslo process – started between Israel and the Palestinians 20 years ago – clearly failed to bring a resolution to the conflict, and did not result in a peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians. The nearly 1,500 Israeli casualties and many more thousands of wounded during this period by Palestinian terrorist and rocket attacks testify to this failure. Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s land-for-security formula did not work. Moreover, the Palestinian Authority (PA), established within the framework of the Oslo process, now rules in the West Bank and promotes anti-Israel hatred through its education system and controlled media. Furthermore, Hamas, an Islamist organization dedicated to destroy the Jewish state, rules Gaza, continuing the armed struggle against Israel.

The current peace negotiations are unlikely to change the status quo. The chances that they will lead to the establishment of a stable, unified, and peaceful Palestinian state are nil. The differences in positions, particularly on refugees and Jerusalem, are unbridgeable. Moreover, the PA has displayed considerable difficulties in state building, and the resulting entity borders on a failed state. It failed to meet the essential test of statehood, monopoly over the use of force, and subsequently lost control over part of its territory, Gaza. It is hard to imagine the PA surviving without the infusion of billions of dollars of international aid. The PA mirrors the deep socio-economic and political crisis of several Arab states . . .

Has the BBC discovered 50,000 previously unknown Jews in Iran?
The BBC over-estimates Iran’s Jewish community by at least 50,000. (BBC Watch)

AFP’s Timeline of Bias, Redux
A lopsided AFP timeline recounting 20 years since the Oslo Accords recounts Israel’s counter-terrorism actions while completely ignoring the Palestinian violence that prompted them. (CAMERA)

BBC ignores Ramallah demonstration against talks, PA cash to released terrorists
Certain events in Palestinian society are habitually ignored by the BBC in its portrayal of the ‘peace process’. (BBC Watch)

Where is the Star?
Students at McNeese State University in Louisiana start their school’s first pro-Israel group with CAMERA’s help. (In Focus)

Where’s the coverage?
The Spanish media continues to ignore Palestinian terrorism incitement. (ReVista de Medio Oriente)

Context without context
Spanish channel Cuatro web provided biased context about the new peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians. (ReVista de Medio Oriente)

Middle East headlines in the Spanish speaking press
The press discusses Israel’s “caution” regarding the turmoil in Syria and the Russian-American talks to be held in Geneva. (ReVista de Medio Oriente).

Supporting Palestinians, Except in Syria
An anti-Israel conference starts this week at Australian National University. (In Focus)

Multiple Perspectives
Gil Troy responds to Peter Beinert: “Do gays give out literature justifying homophobia? Do feminists make the argument for sexism?” (In Focus)

Richard Falk, Europa Press, BDS and the “occupied territories”
In a vicious circle, the media chooses biased sources in order to create a biased agenda and produce biased information. (ReVista de Medio Oriente)

Failing to report
The Spanish press consistently fails to report on Palestinian incitement to violence, leading to the recurrent question: Where is the coverage? (ReVista de Medio Oriente)

The Israeli Press Continues to Use the Loaded Term “Jewish Lobby”
Why the term the “Jewish Lobby” should no longer be used by the Israeli press. (Presspectiva)

The Guardian falsely characterizes First Intifada as a “largely unarmed rebellion”
Though the First Intifada may not have been as bloody as the Second Intifada, the iconic image of rock-throwing Palestinian youths associated with the Palestinian uprising from 1987-91 is extremely misleading. The fact is that more than 200 Israelis were killed during that time, and thousands injured. (CiF Watch)

In defense of his decision to publish a controversial Op-Ed by Russian president Vladimir Putin, New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal made some high-minded claims about the newspaper’s supposedly non-judgmental and ideologically open Op-Ed pages. Those claims, however, don’t withstand scrutiny.

Although Rosenthal told the newspaper’s public editor that he doesn’t agree with many of the of the points in the Op-Ed, he goes on to insist that this is “irrelevant.”

“There is no ideological litmus test” for an Op-Ed article, he claimed.

Looking back at the newspaper’s track record, though, it’s clear that ideology does play a role in what is published and what is not.

Consider this: When Richard Goldstone, the head of a UN “fact finding mission” on the war between Hamas and Israel that began in December 2008, submitted an Op-Ed to the New York Times harshly criticizing Israel, the piece was accepted and placed in the September 17, 2009 edition of the newspaper.

A year and a half later, Goldstone approached the New York Times with a bombshell. He had repudiated the central and most slanderous finding of the anti-Israel United Nations report that bears his name, and sought to share this dramatic and important news in a new Op-Ed. But this time, the newspaper rejected his submission.

This decision to prominently highlight views that accord with the newspaper’s unsympathetic disposition toward Israel while shying away from more favorable conversation about the Jewish state fits a pattern.

CAMERA’s nine-month study of the New York Times Opinion section found a consistent bias in the newspaper’s selection of Op-Eds. As the study explains,

The newspaper’s editors have repeatedly proclaimed their commitment to presenting a diversity of opinion on the Op-Ed pages. Former Op-Ed editor David Shipley insisted that the newspaper tends to “look for articles that cover subjects and make arguments that have not been articulated elsewhere in the editorial space. If the editorial page, for example, has a forceful, long-held view on a certain topic, we are more inclined to publish an Op-Ed that disagrees with that view.” The current editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, similarly asserted that editors “are not looking for people who agree with us all the time” and are aiming for “balance over time.”

But there was no balance about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict over the study’s entire time period — not in editorials, not in columns, and not in guest Op-Eds.

• Of 7 Op-Eds discussion the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, 4 were predominantly negative toward Israel and only 1 was positive.

• There were no Op-Eds negative toward the Palestinians, and 1 Op-Ed that was positive toward the Palestinians.

The Times is certainly entitled to publish an Op-Ed by Putin. But editors should not pretend that “there is no ideological litmus test” on the opinion pages. There is.

Below are two graphs from the study.

As many around the world remember the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Pew Research released a poll showing that, among Muslim populations around the world, support for terrorism was highest in the Palestinian territories.

According to the survey, a majority –actually 62%– of Muslim Palestinian Arabs believe suicide bombings can often or sometimes be justified while only 16% believe they can never be justified. This far outpaces the support for suicide bombings in other populations surveyed, including even in Lebanon or Nigeria.

In addition, support for Al Qaeda, the terrorist group that perpetrated the September 11 attacks, was higher among Muslims in the Palestinian territories than any other group surveyed.

When UPI reported on the poll, Palestinian support for terrorism did not make the headline and rated only a mention buried near the end of the story. Only some bloggers like Elder of Ziyon covered this story as did the Israeli press. Arutz Sheva reported:

The results should not be surprising given the widespread campaigns of incitement by both Hamas and Palestinian Authority, according to Itamar Marcus, director of Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), an NGO which monitors incitement in the Palestinian media.

“The Palestinian Authority, through its religious establishments, has been presenting the killing of Jews as an Islamic imperative for many years,” Marcus said, speaking to Arutz Sheva.

“Just last year the [Palestinian Authority-appointed] Mufti of Jerusalem quoted the Hadith [Islamic teaching] which was quoted throughout the intifada period, saying that the end of days will only come when the Muslims kill the Jews.

“The constant brainwashing of Palestinians by their leadership… that killing Jews in the name of Islam is a duty, has clearly influenced them.”

Indeed, the armed wing of Fatah, the party of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, just issued a leaflet urging Palestinian Arabs to conduct terrorist attacks against Israel on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. The Jerusalem Post reported:

The group called on all its “units and sleeping cells” to start launching attacks against “the Zionist enemy.”

It said that Palestinians should regard Friday as a “green light from our consciences to all our units and sleeping cells” to launch terror attacks against Israel.

Palestinian Muslim support for terrorism should surprise no one. After all, many celebrated the World Trade Center, Pentagon and Shanksville, Pennsylvania, terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001…

By contrast, last year when anti-American riots and protests were sweeping the Muslim world, and terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Israelis rallied in support of America.

Though Palestinian Muslims support terrorism, suicide bombings and even Al Qaeda, Israel and Israelis share America’s interests and values. Yet… where’s the coverage?

Remember phonograph records, and how playing needles stuck in scratches–sometimes rendering the recording unlistenable? If so, you’ll understand the “stuck-in-the-groove” problem typified by two examples from the September 9 print edition of The Washington Post.

“In ancient Christian town, war makes sudden appearance at convent; Nuns unharmed by extremists fighters, mother superior says” appeared on page A-9. It mentioned the Syrian rebel group Jabhat al-Nusra and noted that al-Nusra “is designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. government because of its declared affiliation with al-Qaeda.” Correspondent Liz Sly filed The Post’s report.

In contrast, the front page article, “Gaza lifeline is in peril as Egypt aims at Hamas,” referred to “the Islamist movement Hamas” and reminded readers that “the group is an offshoot of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood ….” But the otherwise informative dispatch, which reported that Israel “considers [Hamas] a terrorist organization,” did not tell readers that the U.S. government does as well–not to mention Canada and other countries.

Post Jerusalem Bureau Chief William Booth, and Cairo correspondent Abigail Hauslohner paraphrased an Egyptian source as noting that “ ‘terrorist’ groups were clustered” in the Sinai desert near Egypt’s border with Israel. They also referred to “a Sinai-based militant group” that claimed responsibility for trying to assassinate Egypt’s interior minister and said “militants have launched deadly attacks on military and police positions almost daily in the north.”

If it’s worth The Post telling readers that the United States has designated Jabhat al-Nusra a terrorist group, why is it not important to remind them of the same regarding Hamas (and, in Israel-Lebanon stories, Hezbollah)? Habits, especially bad–or uninformative ones–are made to be broken.

At the end of July, CiF Watch, a CAMERA affiliated site, prompted a correction at the EPA photo agency on a July 23 caption which wrongly stated that immigrants to Israel predominantly move to West Bank settlements. The original caption was:

Following communication from CiF Watch, EPA commendably published the following correction:

Weeks later, the error still stands on the NBC photo blog, which picked up the photo and original erroneous text from EPA.

EPA, NBC’s source, long ago corrected. What’s NBC waiting for?

In the Friday, Aug. 30 edition of NPR’s “The Diane Rehm Show,” substitute host Steve Roberts allows an egregious false charge against Israel to pass without challenge. In a discussion about potential international strikes in Syria, the confounded “Frank” of Charlotte, N.C., who confuses Syria’s Basher Assad with Egypt’s Anwar Sadat, pipes in at 35 minutes, 29 seconds into the show:

Oh hi, okay. I was wondering where Sadat (sic) or the guy from Syria where he got his chemical weapons from and I’d like to make a comment. Okay, during the Israeli invasion of Gaza they used chemical weapons that actually killed children. That’s a war crime. Are we going to be bombing them too? That’s what I’d like…

Neither the host nor any of the three guests (Abderrahim Foukara, Washington bureau chief of Al Jazeera Arabic; Elise Labott, CNN foreign affairs reporter; and Howard LaFranchi, foreign affairs correspondent at The Christian Science Monitor) made any attempt to refute Frank’s false charge.

Instead, taking a page out of C-SPAN’s book, host Roberts states:

Thank you very much. What do you think, Abderrahim?

Al Jazeera’s Foukara then addresses the question about the source of Assad’s chemical weapons.

It’s unfortunate that a caller who has trouble distinguishing between Sadat and Assad made it past the show’s screeners. (Of course, it’s possible that he misled about his intended comments.) It’s also a pity that a show that promises “thoughtful and lively discussions” let a blatant falsehood stand.

As the British Observer stated in a correction Sunday (Sept. 8):

(more…)