National Geographic recently ran a feature about closing down the “world’s worst zoo,” located in Gaza. Initially, the article politicized a story that was ostensibly about animal welfare and used it to take gratuitous and one-sided digs at Israel.

After editors heard from CAMERA letter-writers, however, significant revisions to the article were made. The editors said that the story “came through our digital staff, not our magazine operation” and that they “are putting into place more checks to try to ensure that such pieces do not slip through our digital editing process.”

In the original article, after describing how zoo owner Abu Diab Oweida taxidermied 50 dead animals in the zoo, author Richard Tenorio had initially quoted Oweida saying that he did it “to prove to the whole world that even animals have been affected and [killed] by the Israeli occupation after the three [recent] wars in the Gaza Strip.” The bracketed word “killed” appeared to have been inserted into the quote by the reporter. That language has now been deleted, along with Oweida’s reference to the “Israeli occupation.”

As CAMERA letter-writers pointed out to National Geographic editors, Israel completely withdrew from Gaza in 2005, removing both civilians and soldiers from the territory. A second quote from Oweida attributing his problems to the “Israeli occupation” was removed as well, and new language was added to clarify the current relationship between Israel and Gaza.

Editors also added significant background about the 2014 war between Israel and Gaza’s Hamas rulers, including Hamas’s kidnapping of three Israeli teens that ignited the 2014 hostilities, and the fact that Hamas fired into civilian areas within Israel. They clarified that although the animals died during the 2014 conflict, the zoo itself was not bombed and the precise cause of the animals’ death was unclear.

A seven-week conflict in 2014 hastened the decision to close the zoo. The conflict stemmed from the kidnapping and killing of three Israeli teenagers on the West Bank. Israel linked the crimes to Hamas, and began making hundreds of arrests in the case, including many of Hamas’ West Bank leaders. Hamas later began firing rockets at civilian areas in Israel, which retaliated by bombing sites in Gaza. The United Nations reported that nearly 2,200 people were killed in the conflict, more than 2,100 of them Palestinians.

It’s unclear precisely what led to the animals’ deaths at the zoo. The zoo itself was not bombed during the 2014 conflict, and animal-welfare groups say it had a troubled history of caring for animals. Abu Diab Oweida, the Palestinian businessman who owned the zoo, said many animals died during that conflict, and that the mummifications were an effort by the zoo’s staff “to prove to the whole world that even animals (were) affected.” Oweida previously blamed a 2009 conflict for the death of several animals in the zoo, some of which also were mummified.

Finally, editors made clear that the IDF strikes that were carried out in August of this year, while the animal rescue was being carried out, were against military targets in Gaza, and were not indiscriminate, as was previously implied.

CAMERA commends National Geographic for the corrections.

–kb

In last week’s Vice Presidential debate, Democratic nominee Tim Kaine claimed that, as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton “worked a tough negotiation with nations around the world to eliminate the Iranian nuclear weapons program without firing a shot.”

The National Review called Kaine’s claim “preposterous,” and Commentary Magazine said of Kaine’s various claims about the JCPOA, also known as the Iranian nuclear deal, that they are “not only largely false, but frightening in themselves.”

But lest those critiques be dismissed as coming from “conservative” outlets, other so-called “mainstream” media also said that Kaine’s claims simply weren’t true.

ABC News rated Kaine’s statement as “False”:

The nuclear agreement reached between six world powers and Iran last year does not completely eliminate the Iranian nuclear program. Its major achievement, as told by the Obama administration, was getting Iran to commit to reduce its stockpile of nuclear material and cease further enrichment, effectively extending the time it would take Iran to build a bomb.

The Washington Post wrote:

Kaine leans way over on his skis here. The Iranian nuclear agreement was actually negotiated by Clinton’s successor, John Kerry, though Clinton helped tee up the negotiations by increasing sanctions on the Islamic Republic. The deal, which has been sharply criticized by Republicans, did increase the amount of time that Iran would need to build a nuclear weapon by reducing its centrifuges for uranium enrichment and its stockpile of enriched uranium. But the deal expires in 15 years, and Iran’s nuclear infrastructure remains in place.

While Iran has insisted it has no interest in building nuclear weapons, the deal does not eliminate the risk that it will obtain nuclear bombs.

Even NPR denied that the JCPOA eliminates Iran’s nuclear program:

HORSLEY: Well, Tim Kaine stretched the facts in a couple of ways here – first, on Hillary Clinton’s role in the Iran nuclear deal. Certainly, she did help put in place the very tough international sanctions that helped bring Iran to the bargaining table. But the deal itself was hammered out not by Clinton, but by her successor at the State Department, John Kerry.

Secondly – and this is behind that skepticism you hear from Mike Pence – on the effect of the Iran nuclear deal, it does not eliminate Iran’s nuclear program. What it does do is put strict limits on that program and stretches out the time it would take Iran to develop a nuclear bomb. Before the deal, that so-called breakout time was estimated at around two months. It’s now at least a year, and it’s expected to stay year for at least a decade.

GREENE: OK. So we might not know the true impact of this deal for some time, it sounds like.

HORSLEY: That’s right. But not eliminated.

GREENE: Not eliminated.

The JCPOA did not eliminate Iran’s nuclear weapons program. And to their credit, media outlets are reporting this.

Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton repeated a variation on the claim in Sunday’s debate, when she said,

I’ve stood up to Russia, I’ve taken on Putin and others, and I would do that as President. I think wherever we can cooperate with Russia that’s fine, and I did as Secretary of State, that’s how we got a treaty reducing nuclear weapons, it’s how we got the sanctions on Iran that put a lid on the Iranian nuclear program without firing a single shot.

Let’s see if the media fact-check this as well.

–kb

Last week journalist Sophie McNeill published a heartrending story about Gazan babies and toddlers with cancer at the Australian Broadcasting Corp. This is a topic that is bound to stir up deep emotions on the part of readers. By omitting important information about the context within which these children are receiving treatment, however, McNeill manages to vilify Israel while writing about its humanitarian efforts.

McNeill focuses her story on four children that have traveled to Israel or the West Bank for cancer treatment accompanied either by grandparents or older family friends, and on the fact that their parents were not permitted to accompany them. She omits, however, that terrorists have, in the past, attempted to exploit entry permits granted for medical reasons. In December of 2014, for example, Israeli forces discovered and stopped a woman who planned to obtain an entry permit from the West Bank for medical reasons, and then disguise herself as being pregnant in order to detonate a suicide bomb.

McNeill does not inform her readers about Hamas actions that may contribute to the lack of available or appropriate medical care within Gaza. She fails to discuss that during Operation Protective Edge in 2014, Hamas and other terrorist groups used hospitals to launch attacks into Israel, and omits that in some cases medical facilities were damaged by misfired rockets from within Gaza. Moreover, while billions of dollars in international aid flow into Gaza, the IDF reported in July that “Hamas spends hundreds of thousands of dollars each month on tunnel infrastructure.”

These omissions are compounded by two factual errors in the story. First, McNeill claims that Israel’s blockade on Gaza is almost ten years old. The blockade was actually imposed in 2009, two years after Hamas took control of the strip, and it was found to be legal in a U.N. Report. McNeill also writes that “to exit Gaza, you need permission from the Israeli authorities.” Egypt, however, controls the Rafah crossing at one of Gaza’s borders.

Maybe more can be done for Gaza’s sick children… mostly by Hamas that rules the territory and ill-treats its residents.

–KB

In the weekend WSJ, four letters were published pointing out the hypocrisy and counter-productive nature of the BDS movement that seeks to destroy Israel. All four were written by outstanding CAMERA Letter Writers. To sign up for our letter writing team, please click here.

The Outrage of BDS Is Suspiciously Selective
The BDS movement diverts attention from human-rights abuses inflicted by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas against the Palestinian people.

Allison Brown and Patrick Connors claim that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement is part of a long, honorable continuum (Letters, Sept. 12). I beg to differ. There is nothing honorable about the BDS movement’s goal of preventing dialogue between Palestinians and Israelis who try to forge paths of mutual understanding and respect. Nor is there anything honorable about BDS’s attempts to shutter businesses in Judea and Samaria that provide good-paying jobs to Palestinians. BDS’s support of entrenched Palestinian rulers leave Palestinians with little hope of escaping the oppression of their corrupt leadership. Furthermore, the BDS movement diverts attention from human-rights abuses inflicted by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas against the Palestinian people.

Hatred for the “other” deflects responsibility away from autocratic regimes’ neglect and abuse of their people. Israel is the “other” for the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, as America is the “other” for North Korea. Supporters of BDS buttress the despots who deny their people basic rights such as freedom of the press, inclusion for the LGBTQ community and other minorities, justice for women and children and freedom to worship—or not to.

Lynn C. Koss
Fayetteville, N.Y.

The target of these New York campaigners, like the rest of the BDS advocates, is the existence of Israel itself. Omar Barghouti, a leading founder of the BDS movement, stated it with full clarity: “definitely, most definitely we oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine.” That means all of Palestine—no Israel.

Meanwhile, Palestinians have a higher standard of living in Israel than in any Arab country. And they have full democratic rights.

Barry Salwen
Wilmington, N.C.

Regarding those victims of Israel: The Palestinian Authority September elections suddenly have been scrubbed. Fatah fears Hamas’s West Bank gains. Hamas is horrified at a surging Fatah in Gaza. An increasingly despotic Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas continues in the 12th year of a four-year term.

Richard D. Wilkins
Syracuse, N.Y.

Cooperating with BDS can be illegal per the federal statutes outlawing cooperation with the Arab League boycott of Israel, namely the 1977 amendments to the Export Administration Act and the Ribicoff Amendment to the 1976 Tax Reform Act.

Daniel H. Trigoboff
Williamsville, N.Y.

Last week, two significant anti-Israel programs were blocked within 24 hours of being publicized.

The first was a pro- Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) event scheduled to take place on Friday, September 16th on Capitol Hill, with support from an anonymous congress member. The presentation was to feature speakers who are active in the notorious BDS campaign against Israel, which is considered by many to be an anti-Semitic movement.

The event was announced Monday and drew bi-partisan outrage from citizens and other congressional members. Initially, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, who had sponsored the event, refused to reveal herself publicly. But on Tuesday, after House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi got word of it, Lee withdrew her sponsorship and the presentation was canceled.

The event would have been the first forum in favor of boycotting Israel on Capitol Hill. The event was to be moderated and sponsored by the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, a known anti-Israel organization that garnered controversy after hosting democratic congressman Hank Johnson who compared Israeli settlers to “termites.” The organization has been described by the Anti-Defamation League as “a coalition of anti-Israel groups that promotes divestment from Israeli companies, organizes anti-Israel events, and lobbies the U.S.”

The second anti-Israel undertaking was a one-credit student-run course titled “Palestine: A Settler Colonial Analysis,” which was to be offered at the University of California, Berkeley. On Tuesday, 43 Jewish and civil rights groups wrote a concerned letter to Chancellor Nicholas Dirks claiming that the course was in violation of the UC Board of Regents policy on course content and amounted to political indoctrination.

That same day, Chancellor Dirks suspended the course on the grounds that it “did not receive a sufficient degree of scrutiny to ensure that the syllabus met Berkeley’s academic standards.”

The swift response on the part of Congress and the university to take action against displays of bigotry is commendable and will hopefully serve as an example for the future.

UPDATE: Unfortunately, the LA Times is reporting that the UC Berkeley course has been reinstated. Carla Hesse, executive dean of the College of Letters and Sciences and dean of the social sciences division rescinded the suspension saying her concerns have been addressed.

–Karys Rhea, International Letter-Writing Associate

In a June 14, 2016 article in Commentary Magazine, Jonathan Tobin describes the evolution in the understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict of former New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief David Shipler. Tobin writes:

As the New York Times’ Jerusalem bureau chief from 1979 to 1994, David Shipler was the focus of a great deal of justified criticism about the paper’s bias against Israel. He wrote a 1987 book titled Arab and Jew, which was the recipient both of a Pulitzer and full-throated and passionate criticism for its pure moral equivalence. But an interview with Shipler in the Times of Israel reveals a change in his thinking that tells us something about the way the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has changed since his reporting days.

The conventional wisdom about Israeli society in most of the mainstream international media holds that the Jewish population has become more intractable and opposed to peace. Shipler provides a far more nuanced view, derived from conversations with young people conducted for a new edition of his book.

[…]

After two decades of concessions and withdrawals on Israel’s part, Palestinians now routinely speak of all of Israel—including liberal, cosmopolitan Tel Aviv, where terrorists struck last week—as “occupied” territory. So, despite the emphasis on settlements and Netanyahu’s supposedly hardline personality, Israel’s willingness to do what Shipler and peace activists advised had the opposite effect on the Palestinians than they thought.

By granting legitimacy to Palestinian concerns, Israelis haven’t inspired reciprocity but have encouraged their foes to double down on their narrative in which the Jews are interlopers without rights or history. It has convinced them that the Israelis are thieves who must be forced to disgorge all of their stolen goods (i.e. all of Israel) rather than fellow humans with whom they must share land if there is to be peace. Shipler seems to have caught onto the basic conundrum of the peace process that has eluded many of his successors at the Times and elsewhere in the media.

Maybe Mr. Shipler should have a chat with the newest Times Jerusalem bureau chief.

Al-Monitor ran a piece, (“How Palestinians plan to mark 50 years of occupation,” May 15, 2016) outlining “a major Palestinian and international political and public campaign” being planned for next year to mark five decades since the Six-Day War of 1967. The theme of the planned campaign will be “enough with the occupation.”

Author Uri Savir writes:

A senior PLO official in Ramallah told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity that “50 years of military occupation spells to every single Palestinian that we, with whatever means we possess, have to end our humiliation and gain our independence. Strategically, June 2017 is an opportunity to place the Palestinian issue on the international agenda.”

[…]

The PLO official said that one cannot rule out a “50-year occupation intifada,” but that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas prefers to avoid it: “In 2017, the rules of the game will change. We have come to the end of our patience.”

Savir does not acknowledge that these comments amount to endorsements by Palestinian officials of the murder Jews and Israelis in terrorist projects. Savir, founder of the Peres Center for Peace and the NGO’s current honorary president, parrots incendiary PLO talking points and ignores the incitement of Palestinian violence which the PLO officials themselves unabashedly glorify.

Furthermore, he not only ignores the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank prior to 1967, he also fails to mention numerous offers of statehood made to the Palestinians by successive Israeli governments since. Instead, he chastises Israel:

“Enough with the occupation” should be the Israeli slogan instead. Occupation is the biggest strategic danger to Israel’s identity, to its security and its international relations. It is turning Israel into a binational, immoral state, and it carries severe ramifications for Israel’s democracy.

With pithy historical blindness, Savir places the weight of the conflict entirely on Israel’s shoulders, giving the Palestinians a free pass even as they admit to turning to terrorism. Al-Monitor, the 2014 recipient of the International Press Institute’s (IPI) Free Media Pioneer Award, eliminates any semblance of contextualize reporting, offering a biased perspective of the last half-century of events in Middle East.

–Rachel Frommer, CAMERA Intern

Blogger Elder of Ziyon (EoZ) describes this week’s Palestinian Book Fair in Ramallah, translating from the Arabic-language Feneeq News the statement of Palestinian Authority (PA) Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah, “On behalf of President Mahmoud Abbas and myself, I thank all of you, the owners of publishing houses and intellectuals, visitors and guests of Palestine, who have turned this event into a cultural gathering, challenging the occupation and its repressive practices, and breaking the siege and isolation Israel wants us to be under.”

EoZ notes that, “There is not the slightest indication that Israel did anything to stop this fair.” In fact, this year’s fair is the 10th annual Palestinian Book Fair; with a decade of fairs having been held, the claim of Israeli attempts to squelch it is absurd on its face.

In addition to the insidious statements by top Palestinian officials, books on offer—many of which cannot be authenticated as no book list is made available to the public— contain antisemitic material. One confirmed example is Ramzy El-Menyawi’s “Chaos Theory—The American Scenario to Fragment the Middle East and the Zionist Theory Adapted by America,” of which EoZ writes:

In the introduction to the book Menyawi makes an analogy between the US army invading and fragmenting the Muslim world and matzah made from the bodies and blood of the people Jews murdered.

This sort of thinking such as the blood libel is not on the margins of Palestinian society – it is mainstream.

Indeed, Palestinian Authority antisemitism is rampant, as demonstrated by PMW’s report on “Palestinian Authority Antisemitism in 2015“. In its overview, Palestinian Media Watch chronicled the hate-speech promoted in Palestinian media, children’s shows, news outlets, and educational programming. The regular stream of antisemitic language by officials of the PA government is also covered, like a Fatah spokesman referring to Jews as “sons of apes and pigs.”

Yet, the international media continues to ignore this very real problem of Palestinians indoctrinated by their leaders, teachers, books and media to hate Jews because they are Jewish. Where’s the coverage?

–Rachel Frommer, CAMERA Intern

Photo: Getty Images

In an Op-Ed published May 10, 2016, Avinoam Bar-Yosef details “The Improbable Happiness of Israelis”:

The World Happiness Report 2016 Update ranks Israel (Jews and Arabs) 11th of 158 countries evaluated for the United Nations. Israel also shines as No. 5 of the 36 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries on the OECD’s Life Satisfaction Index—ahead of the U.S., the U.K. and France.

[…]

And it isn’t just Jews. Go to any beach or shopping mall and—despite the frictions—you will see Jews and Arabs peacefully coexisting. They all can take pride in their country’s accomplishments, as when Israel faced a water crisis a decade ago and launched a desalination project that is now the envy of the world.

This despite the fact that, as Bar-Yosef notes, “Israelis live in a hostile and volatile neighborhood, engaged in an endless conflict with the Palestinians and under the threat of nuclear annihilation by Iran.” He does not even mention the constant assaults on Israel’s very right to exist, the movement to delegitimize the Jewish state in global fora, the media and at universities around the globe, or the outrageous attempts to deny the unique Jewish connection to the land of Israel and even to the Shoah.

So why are Israelis happy?

As Israel approaches its 68th Independence Day, perhaps Israelis understand that, notwithstanding these challenges—and perhaps in spite of them—they’re doing a bang-up job building a free and democratic society and contributing to the well-being of humanity. Not many countries can say that, least of all Israel’s neighbors.

Steven Van Zandt of Bruce Springsteen’s E Street Band had been a vocal activist against South African apartheid and he does not support the anti-Israel boycott, divest, sanction (BDS) movement. Some fans called him out on this supposed contradiction so Van Zandt took to his Twitter account to express his pro-Israel opinions. Ben Norton of Salon.com, whose shoddy reporting on Israel is a frequent topic on CAMERA, covered Van Zandt’s comments in a virulently anti-Israel article headlined, “Steven Van Zandt’s Israel gaffe: Musician gets basic facts wrong in Twitter rant. It is apartheid — South African activists agree”.

Unfortunately for Ben Norton, simply insisting that something “is,” does not make it fact, and the facts prove that Israel is not apartheid South Africa. Norton’s article proposes to right the erroneous statements the musician made, but does so with an inaccurate, ahistorical version of Israeli history and no acknowledgement of Palestinian antisemitic violence and terrorism.

Norton states “Palestinians have lived under illegal military occupation for almost 50 years, and Palestinian citizens of Israel face more than 50 Israeli laws that directly or indirectly discriminate against them ‘in all areas of life,’ according to Israeli human rights organization Adalah.”

In fact, Israel’s “occupation” in the West Bank is not illegal under international law. That is a claim journalists often make but it is refuted by many international legal scholars (and often exposed by CAMERA for example, here in response to the New York Times and here, regarding another Salon.com article).

CAMERA has also unmasked the fallacies riddling Adalah’s list of Israel’s allegedly “discriminatory laws,” which include, for example, the ridiculous citation of the 1949 Flag and Emblem Law that put the Star of David on the Israeli flag. Adalah claims that the presence of the Jewish Star of David on the national flag is discriminatory to other religions, even while the cross is depicted on the flags of countries across Europe and the Islamic crescent appears on many national flags around the world.

Van Zandt tweets that “The problems there have existed for a thousand years and you want the solution in 140 characters?” How does Norton rebut this? By parroting Palestinian talking points:

In 1917, the British colonial regime’s Balfour Declaration pledged the land of Palestine to the Jewish people, without consideration of the people who already lived there. From 1947 to 1948, Zionist militias waged a war of independence from the British, forming the state of Israel. In this war, Zionist militias ethnically cleansed the Palestinians, forcibly expelling roughly two-thirds of the population, as renowned Israeli historian Ilan Pappé documented in his book “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.” Today, the more than 5 million Palestinian refugees registered with the U.N. do not have the right to return to their home. One of the core demands of the BDS movement is the right to return.

The claim that “Zionist militias ethnically cleansed the Palestinians” trusts in the entirely unreliable research of Ilan Pappé, who is known for making up quotes to support his charges. Additionally, Norton’s statement that “One of the core demands of the BDS movement is the right to return” does not acknowledge that Palestinian return is meant to cause the destruction of a Jewish state. Norton also misrepresents the entirety of the Palestinian refugee issue, failing to include important context.

Norton’s description of the creation of the Jewish State of Israel suggests the destruction of an established national Palestinian people who had lived in the land for centuries. This is patently untrue. As others have done in their reporting of Israel, Norton also completely ignores the deep and long history of a Jewish presence in Israel, as well as the necessary context of antisemitic violence.

Refuting comparisons of Israel to South African apartheid does not amount to a ludicrous “Twitter rant.” The facts prove that Israeli society, which is marked by Arab doctors, lawyers, judges, and academics working alongside Jews and Christians, is nothing like racist, apartheid South Africa. Norton quotes an Israeli activist who preposterously states that “Tel Aviv is a modern day Sun City,” comparing the Israeli city known for its beaches, Gay Pride parade, and thriving cultural scene that welcomes racial diversity to the segregated South African metropolis of wealth whose only residents were white.

Ben Norton, not Steven Van Zandt, is the one who has made the “Israel gaffe.”

–Rachel Frommer, CAMERA Intern