Earlier today, we pointed to CNN’s headline about the Palestinian terror attack on a Jerusalem synagogue, which failed to make any distinction between the perpetrators and the victims.

CNN, we noted, eventually changed the headline from “4 Israelis, 2 Palestinians killed in synagogue attack, Israeli police say” to the somewhat more descriptive “4 Israelis killed in synagogue attack, Israeli police say.” The current headline, even more detailed but still in the passive voice, reads “Israel: 4 dead after men with knives, gun attack Jerusalem synagogue.”

To its credit, CNN has also apologized for its initial headline. According to the Jerusalem Post, the network has explained that

As CNN updated its reporting on the terrorist attack on the synagogue in Jerusalem earlier today, our coverage did not immediately reflect the fact that the two Palestinians killed were the attackers. We erred and regret the mistake.

Jon Passantino writes in Buzzfeed this morning:

Why the scare quotes? Mr. Passantino, what do you call it when Palestinian attackers wielding axes, knives and guns mow down worshippers in a crowded synagogue still wrapped in their prayer shawls and phylacteries?

As another Palestinian terrorist brutally cuts short the lives of innocent Israeli civilians going about their daily lives — in this case, the victims were Jewish worshippers carrying out their morning prayers in a busy synagogue — yet another major news source publishes a headline casting the murderers as the victims.

Last month, when a Palestinian driver slammed his vehicle into a crowd of pedestrians, killing two, the initial AP headline was:

Similarly, following the brutal terror attack this morning in which two armed terrorists massacred worshippers in their prayer shawls and phylacteries in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Har Nof, the initial headline was:

Shortly later, the relatively improved headline was:

The headline’s passive language, however, still fails to note that Palestinians killed the Israelis.
(more…)

On Nov. 16, 2014, the United Arab Emirates [UAE] published a list containing what it considers to be terrorist groups.

Notably, the list includes the Council on American Islamic Relations [CAIR], which has had relations with American law enforcement groups like the FBI and has had involvement with American schools. Also included was the Muslim America Society [MAS], which is active on college campuses.

Here is the official translated announcement and list.

It will be interesting to see how much coverage this gets in the mainstream media.

The International Business Times tripped up on this headline last week:

Yehuda Glick, the target of attempted murder, is an activist who campaigns for Jewish prayers rights on the Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest site. He has not been involved in any violence, nor does he belong to any banned or militant group which would qualify him as a “militant.” The reporter, Lewis Dean, accurately identified Glick as “Temple Mount activist Yehuda Glick.”

Here’s Glick explaining his vision, including equal access to the Temple Mount site for Muslims, Christians and Jews. Also, below is a clip of Glick praying for peace on the Temple Mount together with Muslim worshippers.

CAMERA has requested a correction. Stay tuned for an update.

In recent years, anti-Zionist radicals have schemed to transform Holocaust commemorations into occasions to demonize Israel and implicitly, most Jews. Often, as was the case several years ago with an event at Northeastern University in Massachusetts, the schemers found willing collaborators and dupes among event organizers. In Norway, where anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are two sides of the same coin, a self-described anti-racist organization, SOS racisme, used its position as an organizer of an event to commemorate Kristallnacht to demand that Zionists (a.k.a. Jews willing to show up as unabashed Jews) be barred from participating.

A letter sent to the organization’s European headquarters in Paris and published on-line from Erez Uriely, who signed as the Director of the Norwegian Israel Center Against anti-Semitism (NIS), states the following:

Dear Executives of the SOS Racisme,

We hereby ask for your kind assistance in the following matter.

During the commemoration of the Crystal Night in Oslo, 9 November this year, the Norwegian branch of SOS Racisme, as a main sponsor of the arrangement, acted to prevent a group of Jews to participate in the official commemoration arrangement the way they have done for nearly 60 years, by gathering in prayer under the Israeli flag wearing kipa and talit. To prevent these Jews and a few of their Norwegian friends (about 15 persons) from participating according to Jewish tradition, the sponsor, SOS Rasisme, told the police that this group had in mind to impair the arrangement, and thus had this group, of mainly old and partly disabled people, removed from the city centre by the police under threat of imprisonment if they did not obey. The police told them that mortally dangerous people would be in the streets during the arrangement, and that precaution therefore had to be taken also for their personal safety.It is important to underline that this group of Jews had no intention of making any kind of separate demonstration against the official arrangement; they carried no banners or slogans, and they represented no particular organizations.

SOS Racisme was founded in France and bills itself as the largest anti-racist organization in Europe. It has chapters in a number of European countries. A recent chief executive officer of the Norwegian branch, Kjell Gunnar Larsen, was arrested in April 2014 and charged with embezzling funds for the past ten years. The organization has also come under scrutiny as a result of in-fighting in which ousted members claim the organization was taken over by Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, a veritable radical-left trifecta.

It was only last year that the French branch of SOS Racisme joined with other groups to combat anti-Semitism on Twitter. What appears to be happening here is an example of far-left extremists taking over a vulnerable organization and using it to promote their anti-Zionist/anti-Jewish agenda. This is not uncommon. In the United States, an academic group, the American Studies Association, was taken over by similarly-minded radicals and used to pass an anti-Israel resolution. In this case, the organization was discredited, but far-reaching damage is done when formerly scholarly or humanitarian organizations are taken over and used for nefarious purposes by extremists.

It might be recalled that Kristallnacht was a government inspired and directed pogrom against Germany’s Jewish community. It punctuated the isolation of the Jews from German society and heralded their eventual mass murder in lands occupied by Germany several years later. The irony is inescapable that this group seeks to do to the Norway’s Jewish community what the Nazis intended to do when they organized Kristallnacht – namely to ostracize it.

The most recent reports on the controversy indicate that those in charge of the event did not agree to exclude Jews and as a result SOS Racisme boycotted it. However, a vocal critic of Israel will be speaking at it. A similar commemoration in Denmark turned into a fundraiser for Gaza. The trend here is unmistakable. Expect Holocaust commemorations to increasingly be turned into venues to express contempt towards Israel and solidarity with enemies of the Jewish people.

Hamas gunmen who control the Gaza Strip

We’ve commented before on the unquestioning acceptance by some journalists of the view that the Gaza Strip remains occupied even after Israel’s pullout, despite disagreement within the scholarly community about the question. Eugene Kontorovich, Yuval Shani, Eyal Benvenisti, Ruth Lapidoth, Elizabeth Samson, Solon Solomon, Benjamin Rubin, Avi Bell, and Justus Reid Weiner have all argued the territory is no longer under Israeli occupation.

In a piece in the Washington Post‘s Volokh Conspiracy today, Kontorovich elaborates on “Why Gaza is not remotely occupied,” as his headline puts it.

An occupation is traditionally defined as a power exercising “effective control” over the territory in a way that displaces the prior government. The occupying power is expected to provide law and order, essential services, and all the basic functions of government – and is thus required to have the kind of control that allows for that. As the ICJ has put it, occupation requires a territory to be “actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.” There has never been a finding of a such “remote” occupation, lasting nine years after the end of physical occupation and in the presence of a distinct and hostile local government. Indeed, even puppet governments are not considered occupation by the puppet master.

You can read more, including how the recent precedent of Uganda v. Congo should inform views of the Gaza situation, at the source here.

Update: And definitely don’t miss part II of Kontorovich’s argument, in which he explains how, according to the problematic logic used by some, Gaza actually occupies Israel.

Discussing Operation Protective Edge at a forum at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in New York City, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey stated:

I actually do think that Israel went to extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties.

[…]

In this kind of conflict, where you are held to a standard that your enemy is not held to, you’re going to be criticized for civilian casualties.

To their credit, Reuters reported this speech and The Volokh Conspiracy, a blog affiliated with though not under the editorial control of The Washington Post, ran a piece. It was covered in niche publications as well as the Jewish and Israeli press, but none of the major news outlets reported this remarkable admission.

Especially since it was already published by Reuters, it would have been easy for news media to report on America’s top general stating unequivocally that Israel went to extraordinary lengths to prevent civilian casualties in Gaza. But they didn’t.

The Times of Israel wrote::

Dempsey listed Israel Defense Forces measures such as the “roof-knocking” and the dropping of warning leaflets as part of their attempts to protect civilian lives.

“The IDF is not interested in creating civilian casualties. They’re interested in stopping the shooting of rockets and missiles out of the Gaza Strip and into Israel,” Dempsey argued.

The American general recounted that an American delegation visited Israel three months ago to learn lessons from the conflict, “to include the measures they took to prevent civilian casualties and what they did with tunneling.”

Dempsey’s statements stand in stark contrast to a recent Amnesty International report accusing Israel of displaying “callous indifference” in attacks on family homes in the densely populated coastal area.

Naturally, the Amnesty International report critical of Israel was widely reported in such major outlets as The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Time Magazine, Newsweek, The Guardian and many more. Yet, when it comes to something positive – and true! – about Israel… Where’s the coverage?

When it comes to double standards in coverage about Israelis versus Palestinians, The New York Times delivers without fail.

Yesterday we noted how New York Times editors modified what had been a clear headline about a fatal Palestinian attack (“Palestinian Stabs Israeli Soldier at Tel Aviv Train Station“) in order to downplay Palestinian violence. The result was:

Note the passive language (“Palestinians are suspected”) which downplays Palestinian culpability, as does the formulation that the Israelis “die,” as opposed to “are killed.” Moreover, editors inserted the word “suspected,” though Islamic Jihad and Hamas had already confirmed that the culprits were Palestinian.

Compare yesterday’s sanitized language about Palestinians stabbing Israelis to today’s straightforward headline about Israeli forces shooting a Palestinian:

Israeli forces just kill. Unlike Palestinian killers, they’re not “suspected.”

Matt Seaton, a staff editor for The New York Times opinion page, recently tweeted that the paper, which has run a series of Op-Eds charging Israeli society at large as essentially racist, would dedicate space to Palestinian racism as “soon as they have [a] sovereign state to discriminate with.”

Will Times headline writers also hold Palestinians to the same standards as Israelis only once there is a Palestinian state?