BBC airbrushes Hizballah, Iran from feature on 1983 Beirut bombings
A BBC article on the bombing of the US Marines barracks in 1983 omits any mention of the perpetrators. (BBC Watch)

BBC double standards on paramilitary murals
BBC reporting on paramilitary murals in Northern Ireland meets different standards than those displayed in reports from PA controlled areas. (BBC Watch)

El Pais: Palestine, BDS and other issues
False rumors about support for the BDS movement is helping boycott campaigns against Israel. (ReVista de Medio Oriente)

BDS in El Universal of Mexico
A group of radical activists criticize an invitation to Israel by the organizers of Latin America’s largest book fair. (ReVista de Medio Oriente)

Less Hamas, More Humus Event Featuring Anat Berko at Florida State University
Dr. Berko discussed suicide terror as perpetrated by Hamas and other groups at CAMERA sponsored event. (in Focus)

University of Central Florida Hosts Dr. Anat Berko
30-40 students attend CAMERA sponsored event titled “The Smarter Bomb: Women and Children as Suicide Bombers”. (in Focus)

Israel returns to the UN Human Rights Council
After 18 months Israel agrees to return to the Council, but demands objectivity and non-biased resolutions. . (ReVista de Medio Oriente)

This post, by Adam Levick, is cross-posted from CiF Watch

In 2005, following several years which saw a disturbing rise in antisemitic violence across Europe, the European Union Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) reached a Working Definition of Antisemitism.

Later in the year, the Working Definition of Antisemitism was prominently referenced at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Cordoba Conference. And, since then, many other bodies have advocated its usage. The one-page Working Definition of Antisemitism (below) evolved as a result of the efforts of a large number of European institutions and human rights experts.

The stated goal of the Working Definition of Antisemitism was to provide a guide (to EU members states) for identifying incidents, collecting data and supporting the implementation and enforcement of legislation dealing with antisemitism.

Here it is:

Recently, a commentator who has expressed sympathy for antisemites, and routinely calls for the end of the Jewish state, used his platform at a site notable for endorsing terrorism and equating Zionism to Nazism, to falsely characterize the Working Definition of Antisemitism as “an abandoned draft text.”

While it is narrowly true that the website of Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), the successor to the EUMC, doesn’t include the text of the Working Definition of Antisemitism – due to the fact that its mandate differs from EUMC – here are the facts:

• The State Department report on Global Antisemitism in 2008 included the following: “The EUMC’s working definition provides a useful framework for identifying and understanding the problem and is adopted for the purposes of this report.”

• The Working Definition of Antisemitism was cited by the US State Department’s Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism in testimony given to the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (in Helsinki) in 2011, and is currently endorsed on the State Department’s “Monitoring and Combating Antisemitism” page.

• The Working Definition of Antisemitism was endorsed by the London Declaration of the Inter Parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism in 2009.

• In 2010, the UK All-Party Inquiry into antisemitism recommended that the Working Definition of Antisemitism should be adopted and promoted by the Government and law enforcement agencies.

• The UK National Union of Students renewed their support for the Working Definition of Antisemitism in 2013.

• An official document published by the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) recommends the Working Definition of Antisemitism as a valuable hate crime data collection tool for law enforcement agencies, and for educators.

• The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly has formally recognized the Working Definition of Antisemitism.

Though most manifestations of antisemitism included in the Working Definition of Antisemitism shouldn’t even need to be pointed out (such as ‘calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion’), many who oppose it do so for the following reasons:

1) It defines as antisemitic the equating of Zionism with Nazism.

2) It defines as antisemitic calls for the end of the Jewish state.

It is of course no coincidence that this recent attack on the Working Definition of Antisemitism was leveled by a commentator who continually promotes the second charge at a site which has endorsed the first.

Yet, despite the protests from a few marginal, extremist voices, the Working Definition continues to represent a widely respected, useful tool for understanding modern manifestations of antisemitism, and this blog will continue to use it in our continuing fight against such racism at the Guardian and ‘Comment is Free’.

The popular press has been reporting on the recent release of 26 Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails, the second round of prisoners released as a “goodwill gesture” from the Israelis to the Palestinian Authority as part of the ongoing negotiations. By definition, these prisoners are terrorists. Terrorism is defined as the use of violence and intimidation to achieve some political goal and popularly understood as violence against civilians to achieve political ends.

Yet Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, considers these actions “the duty of resistance.” He said so in a 2005 interview on PA television. Palestinian Media Watch reports:

PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas gave an interview to PA TV in 2005, just as the PA’s terror campaign (the Intifada) was ending. In that interview, Abbas explained that the PA sees all Palestinian prisoners, including those who targeted and murdered civilians, as legitimate fighters who should be released because when they committed their attacks, they were only following orders:

Abbas: “I demand [the release of] prisoners because they are human beings, who did what we, we, ordered them to do. We – the [Palestinian] Authority.”

Even when they killed – which Abbas refers to as “the duty of resistance” – they were fulfilling the PA leadership’s orders.

Here is the video of Abbas’ interview:

By Abbas’ own admission, then, the Palestinian Authority sent murderers to kill civilians, and he defended those terrorists as legitimate “fighters.”

This sort of doublespeak — condemnation of terrorism to a Western audience while legitimizing terrorism to a Palestinian audience — is glossed over or ignored by the media. Where is media coverage of Abbas’ legitimization of terrorists?

Nor has there been reporting on the victims of the grisly murders committed by the 26 prisoners who were released.

However, CAMERA has reported all the details, including the story of Isaac Rotenberg’s murder:

Holocaust survivor Isaac Rotenberg was born in Poland. Most of his family was murdered in the Sobibor death camp, but Isaac managed to escape and joined the partisans. After the war he tried to make his way by ship to mandate Palestine, but was interred by the British and sent to a detention camp in Cyprus until 1947. After his release Isaac arrived in pre-state Israel and fought in the War of Independence. He continued his work as a plasterer even after pension age and in March 1994 was at his place of work in Petah Tikva when he was attacked by two Palestinian labourers with axes. He died, aged 67, two days later.

In addition, the press hasn’t shown you pictures of the victims like:

Murdered by terrorists: Revital Seri, Isaac Rotenberg, and Ian Sean Feinberg

Instead, a lot of the photos that accompany the stories feature jubilant Palestinians celebrating the release of the murderers such as this one from The New York Times…

And this one from the Associated Press..

Only the Israeli, Jewish or niche press has reported that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas declared that “there will be no peace agreement with Israel until all prisoners are freed from Israeli jails. I will dedicate my life to releasing the prisoners.” In other words, a peace agreement depends on the release of murderers.

This is the context in which Israel’s “goodwill gesture” should be reported.

Student, busy lay person, concerned but misinformed news junkie — anyone who would benefit from learning about the Arab conflict with Israel, and not only with the Jewish state but also other minorities in what is often referred to indiscriminately as “the Arab world” — could benefit from reading The Quest for Justice in the Middle East: The Arab-Israeli Conflict in Greater Perspective.

By Gerald A. Honigman (disclosure: a long-time friend of CAMERA’s and of this writer), The Quest for Justice in the Middle East brings the conflict’s fundamentals to life in several dozen short, breezily written but nevertheless appropriately sourced chapters. Whether read straight-through or in brief installments, chapter-by-chapter, the book gives those who didn’t know, or mistakenly thought they did, historical, legal, diplomatic and military basics with which to decipher today’s often misleading news coverage.

Honigman did doctoral studies in Middle Eastern affairs at New York University’s Kevorkian Center for Near East Studies and worked full-time as a consultant on the Middle East and antisemitism before a long career as an educator in Florida. He’s lectured on numerous university campuses and published on Middle Eastern subjects in dozens of newspapers, magazines, academic journals and Web sites. In The Quest for Justice (Creation House, Lake Mary, Fla., 2009, 279 pages) he distilled this information to make it accessible for a broad readership.

Want to know a little more about the murderous Sheik Izzedine al-Qassam, Syrian-born “patron saint” of Hamas’ “military wing” than one normally gets in media reports? Curious how Arab imperialism has underlain attitudes and actions toward not only Jews but also Kurds, Assyrian, Copts, Imazighen (Berbers) and other indigenous Middle Eastern peoples? Need a refresher on the connection between the ancient Roman effort to expunge Jewish ties to eretz Yisrael and Vladimir Jabotinsky’s 20th Century formulation of stateless Jewish “starvation” versus landed Arab “appetite”? If so, The Quest for Justice in the Middle East provides it.

Honigman’s work is not “political correct.” It will singe anti-Zionists, intentionally. As the late comedian Jack E. Leonard used to challenge audiences, a minute or two into his acerbic routine, “Is there anyone here I haven’t offended yet?” But for those who insist on the facts and take their defense of Israel’s legitimacy straight up, with a dash of pepper, The Quest for Justice hits the mark. – Eric Rozenman

CAMERA’s nine-month study of The New York Times Opinion pages found a dramatic slant toward anti-Israel material.

“Three quarters of all opinion pieces about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict during the study period were negative toward Israel. None were negative toward the Palestinians,” the study found. Looking at pieces by Times-employed columnists specifically, it found passages critical of Israel overwhelmingly dominating (the newspaper’s version of) the conversation.

So how did The New York Times redress this imbalance? By hiring a new columnist who argues that a “massive Zionist organization rules America,” of course!

Read about Alaa Al-Aswany’s radical and conspiratorial views at The New Republic.

Yesterday, CAMERA published on its main website an article about The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Tough Questions, Direct Answers published by the InterVarsity Press as part of its “The Skeptic’s Guide (TM) Series.”

Today, the book’s author Dale Hanson Bourke graciously replied to this article with a tweet:

The main thrust of her response is that as a primer, her text was too short to include everything. This is excuse is simply too convenient. Properly educating neophytes about the problem of Muslim antisemitism — a main driver of the conflict — does not require a long entry. Following Bourke’s format, it could be done as follows:
(more…)

The good news is that Al-Jazeera America (AJAM), a television news network that started broadcasting on Aug. 20, 2013 financed by the oil-rich Arab state of Qatar (pictured above is chief of state Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani), so far has been superior to the satellite-cable news channels and over-the-air networks in terms of substantive news reports and analyses. This is especially so concerning those dealing with the Middle East. The bad news is the same: Al-Jazeera America’s coverage appears to be deeper than that of its TV competitors, meaning Islamist inspired anti-American, anti-Israel propaganda might subtly or otherwise creep in to what the new channel offers American viewers.

In fact, this has already happened as reported by CAMERA here and here. These examples suggest a continuation of the type of sometimes blatant, sometimes more subtle anti-Israel propaganda film aired by AJAM’s predecessor and sister network Al-Jazeera English.

The seemingly superior news coverage can be attributed largely to these factors:
• A number of skilled experienced hosts and a large roster of skilled, experienced on-site correspondents reporting and conducting interviews.
• News reports not interrupted or foreshortened by having to give way to frequent and at times lengthy commercials as is the case with the other news networks.

As we’ve noted previously, Al-Jazeera should be asked to answer this question: Why would Qatar’s rulers – who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to launch Al-Jazeera America – want to compete with other American cable networks such as CNN, Fox News and MSNBC and over-the-air networks including ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS? To give Americans yet another choice for television news, or to gain a platform for Qatari foreign policy?

Among the Turmoil, Israel Can Be a Model For Stability
Our CAMERA Supported group at the University of Minnesota, Students Supporting Israel, publishes a letter to the editor in their campus paper educating their campus about Israel’s democracy. (in Focus)

Rihanna, Haaretz and Palestine
Did Rihanna sing about Palestine in her Israeli concert? Only in Ha’aretz. (Presspectiva)

Missing: The Facts
Why did Amnesty International Israel not mention the facts about UNHRC anti-Israel bias in his op-ed? (Presspectiva)

A potpourri of errors
The Mexican newspaper El Universal misinformed its readers about the “Rihanna affair”. (ReVista de Medio Oriente)

Where’s the coverage?
A bomb hurled at an Israeli school bus is not deemed newsworthy for Spanish media. (ReVista de Medio Oriente)

Why report well when you can do some harm to Israel?
The Spanish state owned Radio Television Corporation managed to overshadowI srael’s goodwill gestures in releasing Palestinian prisoners. (ReVista de Medio Oriente)

Middle East headlines in the Spanish speaking press
The Latin-American press focuses on the Israel-Gaza tension and on the release of 26 Palestinian prisoners. (ReVista de Medio Oriente)

It’s been a rough few days for Ha’aretz‘s English edition. First, there was the page-one headline and article last week which falsely claimed that Rihanna changed lyrics of her song to reference Palestine. (Ha’aretz quickly corrected.) Today’s front-page error is the result of yet another mistranslation from the original Hebrew article.

In the latest “Ha’aretz, Lost in Translation,” the page-one article, also online, erroneously reports:

The Prime Minister’s Office stated that all of the prisoners slated for release were involved in attacks before the Oslo Accords were signed, and all received sentences of between 17 and 27 years in prison.

All of the prisoners slated to be released tomorrow received sentences longer than 27 years. While prisoners slated to be released served 19 to 28 years, almost all received at least one life term. The exceptions were Mukbal Mahmed Badawi Najach (38 years), Ashur Masabach Khalil Mhamed (30 years), and Karan Azzat Musa Musa (28 years, the shortest sentence). Thus, even the shortest sentence received was longer than the 27 years reported in the English edition. (The Israel Prison Service released a list, in Hebrew, of all of the prisoners to be released tomorrow, and their sentences.)

As for the statement from the Prime Minister’s Office, it stated:

All of the prisoners slated for release perpetrated offenses before the Oslo accords and served prison sentences of 19-28 years. (Emphasis added.)

Finally, the more accurate Hebrew edition reported:

מלשכת ר?ש הממשלה נמסר כי כל ה?סירי? המשוחררי? ביצעו ?ת הפיגועי? שבגינ? נכל?ו לפני החתימה על הסכמי ?וסלו וריצו תקופות מ?סר של 17 עד 28 שני? בכל?

CAMERA’s translation:

According to the Prime Minister’s Office, the released prisoners carried out the attacks for which they were imprisoned before the signing of the Oslo Accords and served 17 to 28 years in prison.

CAMERA’s Israel office has notified editors about the error, and they have promised to look into it.

Oct. 29 Update: Ha’aretz on Prisoners: A Correction, And An Error

The Huffington Post was one of the few major mainstream media outlets to run with Amy Klein’s erroneous — and now corrected — Oct. 24 report in Ha’aretz that singer Rihanna swapped the lyrics of her song “Pour it Up” to state “All I see is Palestine.”

On Thursday (Oct. 24), Ha’aretz removed the unfounded assertion from its online headline and article, and appended a clear correction. On Friday, in its print edition, the newspaper ran a correction on page 2.

And what about the Huffington Post, which ran with the initial incorrect story? Three days later, as of press time, the Huffington Post still features a completely false headline alongside an update.

Following an update at the top of the page noting that Ha’aretz has retracted the claim that Rihanna sang about Palestine, readers are told that “The original article continues below.” Indeed, it does. With the false claim about the lyrics intact.

To sum up: The Huffington Post runs an update which makes clear that their earlier headline and article were based on a false report. The Post leaves those incorrect headline and article in place, as if they have not received information to the contrary.

Is somebody asleep at the helm of the Huffington Post? Or this what now passes for accountability at the sixth-leading English news site?