A Dec. 28-29 national tracking poll of American public opinion by Politico asked misleading questions about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

The survey by Morning Consult and Politico asked multiple more than 60 questions, the vast majority of which had nothing to do with the Middle East, Israel or terrorism. However, two poll questions sought to ascertain the sentiment of respondents on UNSC Res. 2334, which deemed Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal. The resolution was passed under Chapter 6 of the U.N. Charter and is thus considered advisory; it does not create any binding obligations and its passage does not make settlements “illegal (“Res. 2334: Game Changer or Not?” CAMERA, Dec. 24, 2016).” \

Poll question 13 asked, “How much have you seen, read or heard about a recent United Nation’s resolution regarding Israel settlements in certain territories, including the Palestinian territory and West Jerusalem?”

In fact, there are no Israeli “settlements”—Jewish communities—in “West Jerusalem.” West Jerusalem has been under Israeli sovereignty since the Jewish state was proclaimed in 1948. The poll evidently meant “East Jerusalem” which Israel captured in the 1967 war.

Similarly, question 14 asked respondents what they thought about “Israel’s creation of settlements for Jewish people in territories such as West Bank and Gaza….”

But Israel has no settlements in the Gaza Strip, which is ruled by Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist group whose charter calls for a Jewish genocide. In fact, in the absence of negotiations with the Palestinian Authority (PA), Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005.

Commendably, Politico issued a correction on January 5 that noted the two errors above. However, the conclusions of the poll had already been broadcast. For example, The Times of Israel ran a January 4 story citing the poll’s conclusions, entitled “More Americans support UN resolution on Israel than oppose it.” That article highlighted that “while 35% or respondents back the anti-settlements Security Council resolution and 26% reject it, a plurality of 36% holds no opinion.” But given the inaccurate wording of the poll’s questions, it’s fair to question its results.

Moreover, it’s worth asking how such factually flawed questions managed to be included in a survey conducted by a leading, major publication in the first place.

The Islamic Republic of Iran planned to assassinate a German pro-Israel advocate, according to The Jerusalem Post(“Iran planned terror attacks against Israel advocates in Germany,” Jan. 7, 2017).

Journalist Benjamin Weinthal, citing German media reports, noted that German federal prosecutors indicted a 31-year-old Pakistani named Syed Mustafa on Jan. 2, 2017 for espionage. Mustafa, a German Aerospace Center employee, is accused of working for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Tehran reportedly paid Mustafa to gather information on the former president of the German-Israel Friendship Society, Reinhold Robbe. West German Broadcasting (WDR) reported, “Iran’s intelligence agency’s goal was to assassinate.” Mustafa created a “movement profile” of Robbe and collected information on the headquarters of the German-Israeli Friendship Society. German authorities called these activities a “clear indication of an assassination attempt.”

In addition to his work on behalf of the German-Israel Friendship Society, Robbe is also a former German Social Democratic Party deputy and parliamentary commissioner for the country’s armed forces.

The Jerusalem Post noted:

“The indictment states Mustafa had been in contact with a person from Iran’s intelligence agency responsible for espionage in Europe since 2011. German media said Mustafa’s espionage activity was part of a larger Iranian operation to target pro-Israel groups in France, Germany and other European countries.”

Mustafa is also accused of spying on a French-Israeli professor at a business college in Paris.

In addition to Mustafa, another Pakistani suspect was arrested. The unnamed individual was later released due to insufficient evidence—but only after he reportedly scrubbed his computer server of possibly incriminating information.

WDR reported that one theory for Iran’s targeting of European pro-Israel groups is a desire to retaliate in the event of an Israeli strike against Tehran’s nuclear facilities.

As Weinthal highlighted, “Tehran’s targeting of a German politician is the first reported case of an Iranian intelligence operation working to assassinate a government representative in the Federal Republic.”

It is, however, a sign of Iran’s increasingly active intelligence operations on European soil. Weinthal noted, “Iran has a vast espionage network in the country [Germany] which coordinates with its embassy in Berlin.” In July 2016, a 32-year old man was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison for spying on Iranian dissidents in Germany.

Iran assassinated Iranian dissidents in Germany and Austria in the early 1990s and late 1980s, as CAMERA has noted (see, for example “Iranian Agent Hides in Washington Post as U.S. Prof,” Sept. 8, 2015). Many of those attacks were both planned out of Iran’s Berlin embassy.

Henry Kissinger, the former U.S. Secretary of State, once argued that the Islamic Republic has to decide, “Whether it is a nation or a cause.” If Kissinger’s dictum is true, Iran’s decision seems clear.

On January 5, 2017, The Modern Languages Association (MLA) has voted down a resolution calling for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions. The vote was 113 against the resolution and 79 in favor (59-41 percent margin). Moreover an anti-boycott resolution passed, with 101 voting in favor to 93 opposed. This is the second defeat of pro-boycott resolutions by academic associations notable for their leftward political orientation. Last spring the American Anthropological Association also voted down a boycott resolution.

The MLA was founded in 1883. It claims 25,000 members in over 100 countries. It “promotes the study and teaching of languages and literatures through its programs, publications, annual convention, and advocacy work.”

An anonymous delegate at the MLA convention described the scene of the vote,

For the other 99% of conference attendees, on the other hand, the MLA was business as usual. The bar in the lobby of the Philadelphia Downtown Marriott was constantly packed, the atmosphere was social, festive, and gregarious. In the corridors just outside the rooms where the BDS focused sessions were taking place, you’d be hard pressed to detect that anything other than great fun. It’s not clear how many of the estimated 8,000 or so conference attendees even knew, much less cared, about the drama at the Delegate Assembly this weekend.

Inside Grand Ballroom GH, where the Delegate Assembly meeting was held, you could feel the tension, but you also couldn’t help but notice how empty the room was. The front half of the room, reserved for the actual delegates, was relatively full (although, given vote tallies, approximately two thirds were in attendance). The back half of the ballroom, reserved for the non-delegate audience, was strikingly vacant. A handful of activists and members of the press crowded the front two or three rows, followed by seven or eight rows of mostly empty seats.

This is the state of play at many of the BDS debates at student governments, faculty senates, and academic associations across the country.

Despite the press, the pomp, the social media storms, etc., the number of those invested is strikingly small. Yet the activist fringes constantly attempt to seize upon this apathy to hijack these associations with agendas of their own.

The defeat of the boycott resolution by an association that is situated within a political milieu in which anti-Israel activism is commonplace represents a significant setback for the BDS movement. Many MLA members commenting upon the vote indicated that they are tired of political grandstanding and want to see the association focus on issues directly relevant to their academic discipline.

The vote also reflects the hard work of academics opposed to anti-Israel resolutions. “Our work is not over with,” said Cary Nelson, the Jubilee Professor of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the co-editor of The Case Against Academic Boycotts of Israel. Nelson said that “it will be a challenge” to garner enough votes in support of the anti-boycott resolution to meet that 10 percent threshold.

On our main website, we recently posted an article about a poll of Palestinian public opinion conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research headquartered in Ramallah.

The poll, which hasn’t gotten much attention in the English-speaking media, offers some pretty discouraging information. It reveals that 62 percent of the respondents interviewed want to abandon the peace process as enunciated by the Oslo Accords and that 53 percent of respondents support an armed intifada against Israel.

The report also shows that more than 70 percent of the respondents want Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, to step down. Palestinians do not want Abbas as their president. This raises serious questions about the prospects for peace at least in the near term. Palestinians have apparently given up on a two-state settlement, support violence against Israel and do not support the presidency of the man Israel is supposed to negotiate with.

For one reason or another, this poll has not gotten much play in the international media, probably because it highlights the problems in Palestinian society that hinder the prospects for peace. Problems such as incitement, a refusal to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist, corruption in the Palestinian Authority, and a crisis of legitimacy suffered by Mahmoud Abbas, contradict the “It’s all Israel’s fault” narrative that has taken root in many newsrooms and think tank offices.

Just to get a sense of how taboo the subject of Palestinian intransigence and hostility is, take a look at the image posted above. Yes, it’s kind of grainy and disorienting, but it documents just how deep the denial goes.
(more…)

The Palestinians are trying to change history by outlawing the term “Temple Mount.”

First they simply denied that there had ever been any Jewish Temples on the Temple Mount.

Then they sent out media advisories to journalists telling them that the term “Temple Mount” was illegitimate.

They brought resolutions to UNESCO that verbally erased the term “Temple Mount” and described it only in Muslim terms.

And now they’ve cracked down on an archaeologist who used the term during a tour he guided for university students on the Temple Mount. As the Jerusalem Post reports:

Jerusalem Prize winner and Temple Mount Sifting Project cofounder Dr. Gabriel Barkay said he was guiding an interfaith group of 22 undergraduates from UCLA when he was interrupted by an Arab guard for making the seemingly innocuous reference.

“I was lecturing about the history of the Temple Mount to the students, some of whom were Muslim and Christian, and one of the Wakf guards tried to listen to my explanations, and when he heard the words ‘Temple Mount,’ he got upset,” Barkay said.

The guard then consulted with nearby police officers stationed on the compound, who told Barkay to cease using the term for the duration of the visit.

What next? Will they burn all books that mention the Temple Mount? Destroy all historical accounts?

Read more about the battle over Jerusalem and the Temple Mount here.

After an Israeli military court today convicted Israeli soldier Elor Azaria of manslaughter for fatally shooting a wounded Palestinian assailant in Hebron last April, several media outlets published incomplete and misleading headlines, ignoring the fact that Fatah al-Sharif was an assailant while noting only that he was wounded.

Clearly, obscuring the fact that the wounded Palestinian subsequently shot dead is an assailant who just carried out an attack is a gross distortion of the facts surrounding the case. Several months ago, Presspectiva, CAMERA’s Hebrew department, called out Haaretz‘s English edition for repeated headlines failing to identify the wounded Palestinian as an assailant while the Hebrew edition did commendably note the key fact that he was an attacker. Since then, Haaretz‘s English edition has significantly improved and has routinely identified the wounded Palestinian whom Azaria shot dead as an assailant.

Today, several international media outlets are guilty of publishing similarly misleading headlines. The New York Times’ original headline , for instance, was: “Elor Azaria, Israeli Soldier Who Shot Wounded Palestinian, Guilty of Manslaughter.”

Following CAMERA’s communication with The Times, editors promptly revised the headline to reflect the fact that the Palestinian was an assailant. The amended headline reads: “Israeli Soldier Who Shot Wounded Palestinian Assailant Is Convicted of Manslaughter.”

Similarly, AFP’s original headline noted that al-Sharif was “prone,” but ignored the fact that he was an attacker:

After CAMERA objected to the misleading headline, AFP editors implemented a marginal improvement. Instead of adding the information that the Palestinian was an attacker, they opted for less information, removing the fact that he was prone. As of press time, the most current AFP headline is:

CNN, too, originally went with the skewed headline, as the following early screen shot shows:

As of press time, CNN improved its headline, which now states:

Al Jazeera’s headline likewise refers to the fact that Al-Sharif is wounded and ignores that he was an attacker:

The story was much the same at The International Business Times:

In addition, CAMERA’s UK Media Watch has flagged the same misleading headlines at The Guardian and The Telegraph.