Update Appended to Bottom of Post: AFP Removes Misleading Reference to ‘Smuggling’ Tunnels
A series of Agence France Presse photo captions earlier this week misleadingly identified the tunnel discovered under the Kerem Shalom crossing, extending from Gaza into Israeli territory, as “smuggling tunnels” [sic], despite the fact that the Israeli army has said it is an offensive attack tunnel.

According to Haaretz:

In contrast to Hamas’ claims that the tunnel was used for smuggling goods, the IDF unequivocally stated that it was an attack tunnel used to smuggle in weapons, terrorists and other operatives into Israel in order to carry out terror attacks.

A sampling of the captions with the misleading reference to “smuggling tunnels,” as if the tunnel was intended to illegally move flour, livestock or other harmless goods across the border, follows.

Palestinian security forces loyal to the Palestinian Authority (L), walk at the Kerem Shalom crossing, the main passage point for goods entering Gaza, after is was closed by Israel following the discovery of smuggling tunnels underneath the crossing, in the southern Gaza Strip town of Rafat on January 14, 2018.
SAID KHATIB / AFP

A Palestinian security man closes the gate of the Kerem Shalom crossing, the main passage point for goods entering Gaza, after it was closed by Israel following the discovery of smuggling tunnels underneath the crossing, in the southern Gaza Strip town of Rafat on January 14, 2018.

Palestinians ride a donkey and cart near the Kerem Shalom crossing, the main passage point for goods entering Gaza, after is was closed by Israel following the discovery of smuggling tunnels underneath the crossing, in the southern Gaza Strip town of Rafat on January 14, 2018.
SAID KHATIB / AFP

But as AFP itself reported (“Israel destroys tunnel from Gaza it says intended for attacks“):

Israel said Sunday it used a combination of air strikes and other means to destroy a tunnel stretching from the Gaza Strip into the country and continuing into Egypt.

Israeli military spokesman Jonathan Conricus said the tunnel belonged to Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas, which runs the Gaza Strip, and was intended for attacks as opposed to smuggling.

Such tunnels have been used to carry out attacks in the past.

In particular, in 2014, Hamas used a similar tunnel to infiltrate into Israeli territory and kill five soldiers.

As of this writing, AFP has failed to clarify its captions which echo Hamas’ dubious claim that the tunnel’s purpose was to smuggle goods.

See also: AFP Last to Correct Its Own Arabic Mistranslation

Update, 6:20 a.m. EST: AFP Removes Misleading Reference to ‘Smuggling’ Tunnels

AFP has amended all of the captions, removing the misleading reference to “smuggling tunnels.” The captions still erroneously refer to the discovery of tunnels (in plural), though the discovery of just one tunnel was announced this week.

Palestinians ride a donkey and cart near the Kerem Shalom crossing, the main passage point for goods entering Gaza, after is was closed by Israel following the discovery of tunnels underneath the crossing, in the southern Gaza Strip town of Rafat on January 14, 2018.

BBC and The Guardian, clients of Agence France Presse photo service, along with Getty Images, a distribution partner of AFP, have all corrected an AFP photo caption which mistranslated an Arabic sign about the boycott of Israeli good. Only AFP has failed to answer CAMERA’s call to correct.

Though the inaccurate captions in question date to 2015, last week they again appeared on numerous news sites due to the Israeli Strategic Affairs Ministry publication of a list of 20 BDS organizations whose key activists will be denied entry into Israel. The captions wrongly state that the pictured sign is “calling to boycott Israeli products coming from Jewish settlements.” In fact, the Arabic writing on that sign makes no reference whatsoever to a selective boycott of “Israeli products coming from Jewish settlements.” The sign actually states: “Boycott your occupation…support your country’s produce.”

Moreover, the sign is credited to “the national campaign for boycott of the occupation and its goods” along with two other groups.

A tourist photographs a sign painted on a wall in the West Bank biblical town of Bethlehem on June 5, 2015, calling to boycott Israeli products coming from Jewish settlements. The international BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) campaign, that pushes for a ban on Israeli products, aims to exert political and economic pressure over Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories in a bid to repeat the success of the campaign which ended apartheid in South Africa. AFP PHOTO / THOMAS COEX

Palestinians walk past a sign painted on a wall in the West Bank biblical town of Bethlehem on June 5, 2015, calling to boycott Israeli products coming from Jewish settlements. The international BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) campaign, that pushes for a ban on Israeli products, aims to exert political and economic pressure over Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories in a bid to repeat the success of the campaign which ended apartheid in South Africa. AFP PHOTO / THOMAS COEX

In response to communication from CAMERA’s BBC Watch, BBC commendably corrected the caption on its site, which now accurately says the sign is “calling for a boycott of Israeli products.”

Also as a result of BBC Watch’s communication, Getty Images, which is a distribution partner with AFP, also amended its caption to accurately refers to a “boycott of Israeli boycotts.”

In addition, in response to communication from CAMERA’s UK Media Watch, The Guardian also corrected the AFP caption which it had used. The Guardian also commendably appended a note alerting readers that on January 12 “the picture caption which contained a mistranslation” was amended.

Only AFP has failed to correct its own caption in violation of the news agency’s Editorial Standards and Best Practices, which states:

Particular vigilance is needed during translation and proofreading of graphics, with regard to both the text and graphic elements. Good proof reading comprises three phases: the coherence and general relevance of the graphic, the text content (form and shape, spelling, font,) and the graphic content (accuracy, choice of colours).

Update, 8:10 am EST: For Second Time, Haaretz English Edition Corrects on Abu Thuraya’s Leg Injury

Despite the fact that Haaretz‘s earlier this month corrected a photo caption which inaccurately reported on the unclear circumstances regarding the death of double amputee Ibrahim Abu Thuraya, along with the circumstances in which he lost his legs, the Israeli daily’s English edition continues to get the facts wrong.

Thus, in the English edition, Amira Hass’ Jan. 8 Op-Ed (“One Palestinian More or Less, What Does It Matter to the Israeli Army?”), misleadingly refers to “Abu Thuraya, whose legs had been amputated after an Israeli air strike nine years ago.”

Abu Thuraya injured his legs in a clash with soldiers, and not in an air strike. Haaretz ran this AP story last month stating:

While relatives have claimed Abu Thraya lost his legs in an Israeli airstrike while trying to rescue people, AP records show that he was wounded on April 11, 2008, in a clash between Israeli forces and Palestinian militants in the Bureij refugee camp in central Gaza. AP television footage from that day shows Abu Thraya identifying himself as he is taken away on the back of a pickup truck. He is also seen being taken on a stretcher.

The Hebrew version of Hass’ Op-Ed does not claim that Abu Thuraya lost his legs in an Israeli air strike. It states (CAMERA’s translation):

Less than two weeks after he wrote this, the army’s criminal investigation unit announced that it would investigate the circumstances of the death of Ibrahim Abu Thuraya, a double amputee.

In a Dec. 28 article (“Israeli teens refuse to serve in military, take part in occupation“), Newsweek’s Jack Moore errs, stating:

The majority of the international community considers Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem to be illegal under international law.

Occupations are legal under international law and the majority of the international community has not dubbed the occupation itself illegal. Other that other leading media outlets have corrected this very error, including The New York Times (twice). A March 21, 2016 New York Times correction stated:

An article on Jan. 13 about a divestment action against Israeli banks by the United Methodist Church pension board referred incorrectly to the Palestinian territories, where, the board said, the banks help finance Israeli settlement construction. While most of the world officially considers the territories to be occupied, and the settlements illegal, there is no consensus that the occupation itself is illegal. The error was brought to the attention of editors only this week.

Previously, The New York Times had corrected on Oct. 14, 2015:

An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to the Golan Heights. While most of the world officially considers it to be occupied, and the settlements there illegal, there is no consensus that the occupation itself is illegal. The same error appeared in an earlier version of a caption with the accompanying slide show.

Similarly, The Independent corrected the same point last month.

CAMERA has contacted editors. Stay tuned for an update.

What do Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz have to do with the deaths of 10 Iranian protesters demonstrating against their regime? That’s what Twitter users were wondering after Reuters TV used a photograph of the pair conspiratorially huddling to accompany a video about the Iranian deaths.

In response to Reuters TV’s tweet, this writer mused:

(TheMossadIL is a satirical account.)

Reuters later pulled the photograph and tweet, which is no longer available.

What is the crux of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? According to a New York Times headline in yesterday’s print edition, and online here, it is religious settlers encroaching on Palestinian land (“An Israeli Settler, A Dead Palestinian, and the Crux of the Conflict”).

The article itself addresses tension surrounding land between Palestinians and Israelis living in the West Bank, but does not describe this friction as the “crux” of the conflict:

This is the story of one Palestinian village and an adjacent settlement in the hills south of Nablus — formerly friendly communities now tinged with hostility and suspicion. The deterioration reflects the broader strife from a volatile mix of populations, 50 years of Israeli occupation and a competition over the same land that is only intensifying.

Indeed, just six months ago, The Times cited a different issue as the “crux” or core of the conflict. The The Times reported in June:

For Israel, the capture of the Old City, with its ancient holy sites, from Jordanian control was the emotional pinnacle of its swift victory in 1967. It is the nucleus of the city that Israel has declared its sovereign and eternal capital. It is also the hotly contested core of the conflict.

In a lengthy 2015 feature (“Netanyahu and the Settlements“), The Times quoted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who rejected the notion that the settlements sit at the crux of the conflict:

Mr. Netanyahu now explains his building initiatives as an inevitable accommodation to natural growth and says they have not materially affected the map, only added, as he put it, “a few houses in existing communities.” He rebuts any suggestion that settlements are the core of the conflict, noting that Arabs and Jews were fighting in this land long before they existed.

“From 1920, when this conflict effectively began, until 1967, there wasn’t a single Israeli settlement or a single Israeli soldier in the territories, and yet this conflict raged,” he said in a May interview with Bloomberg View. “What was that conflict about? It was about the persistent refusal to recognize a Jewish state, before it was established and after it was established.”

So, while The New York Times promises holiday readers facts “in abundance all year” and urges them to “[g[ive the gift of understanding, with on the ground reporting from more than 140 countries,” it fails to deliver understanding on the crux of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Deutsche Presse Agentur (DPA) published photo captions yesterday which incorrectly imply that an Israeli strike was responsible for the deaths of two Islamic Jihad members in Gaza. The photos and captions, distributed by major photo agencies including Agence France Presse (AFP) and Associated Press, note the funeral procession for the Islamic Jihad men “follow[ed] an Israeli strike in Beit Lahia, Northern Gaza Strip.”

ATTENTION/GRAPHIC CONTENT: Palestinians carry the body of one of two Islamic Jihad militants, during a funral procession following an Israeli strike in Beit Lahia, Northern Gaza Strip, 12 December 2017.Wissam Nassar.

ATTENTION/GRAPHIC’CONTENT: Palestinians mourn and shout slogans as they carry the body of one of two Islamic Jihad militants, during a funral procession following an Israeli strike in Beit Lahia, Northern Gaza Strip, 12 December 2017.Wissam Nassar.

But as DPA reported today (“Israeli air force bombs Gaza Strip after rocket attacks”):

Also on Tuesday, two Palestinian militants were confirmed dead after an explosion in the Gaza Strip, the Gaza Health Ministry said.

The Palestinian Islamic Jihad group said that the two militants – Hassan Ghazi Nasrallah and Mustafa al-Sultan – were preparing rockets when the explosion occurred. (Emphasis added.)

In addition, Haaretz reported yesterday (“Gaza-based Islamic Jihad Drops Claim of Israeli Drone Strike“):

The Islamic Jihad militant group in Gaza now says the blast that killed two of its members was an accident.

The group earlier Tuesday accused Israel of killing the men in an airstrike. But it has issued a new statement saying the men had mishandled explosives.

Ealier [sic] reports from Gaza’s Hamas-controlled Health Ministry said Tuesday that two Palestinians were killed in what was described as an assassination by an Israeli military drone. Palestinians say the two killed were members of the Al-Quds Brigade, the military wing of Islamic Jihad.

The Israeli army denied any role in the incident and said that contrary to the Palestinian report, the military had not carried out any such drone strike in Gaza. Israeli army officials said that the explosion was believed to have been the result of a “work accident,” the term generally used when explosives intended to be used by militants against Israel explode prematurely.

CAMERA has contacted DPA to request a clarification. Stay tuned for an update.

What were the motives of Ayaked Ullah, the Port Authority bomber in yesterday’s attack? There are many news headlines that address the issue, and they advance differing theories, each of them presented as fact.

Thus, Haaretz‘s English print edition page-one headline states as fact: “N.Y. bomb suspect sought revenge for Israel’s Gaza actions.”

The accompanying article, however, is more cautious about determining the motive. It qualifies:

The suspect in a failed suicide bombing in New York City on Monday told police he was motivated by Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip, CNN reported. (Emphasis added.)

Haaretz‘s headline for the digital version of the same article was also more careful, likewise attributing the Gaza claim to a “report,” as opposed to presenting it as fact: “New York City Bomber Tells Police He Carried Out Attack Due to Israeli Actions in Gaza, Report Says.”

Meanwhile, others are equally certain that it’s Jerusalem that motivated Ullah to strap a bomb to his body in hopes of killing as many commuters as possible. Thus, for example, The Times of London proclaims as fact:

The article itself, however, is much less certain that Jerusalem was a factor. It reports:

Akayed Ullah, 27, is thought to have been inspired by Islamic State, but without having been in direct contact with the jihadist group. According to some reports he shouted that he was acting in the name of Isis. Others said he shouted the word “Jerusalem” — a reference to President Trump’s decision last week to recognise it as the Israeli capital.

Still a third theory — again depicted as fact in headlines — is that the ISIS-inspired terrorist was angered by the Christmas decorations in Port Authority. Business Insiderposits: “The ISIS-inspired NYC bomber chose to attack Port Authority because of its Christmas posters.”

Is it possible that a combination of the above factors could have motivated Ullah? Yes, but until the facts are established, media outlets would do well to present theories as just that.

A screen shot from Lebanon’s Al Liwaa, which had erroneously used Gal Gadot’s photograph to illustrate a story on alleged Mossad agent Collette Vianfi. Al Liwaa apologized, but The International Business Times lags far behind (Image via Times of Israel)

Update: After communication from CAMERA staff, the International Business Times corrected its article and added a notice explaining that the story “has been updated to reflect that Al Liwaa apologized for using Gal Gadot’s photo to illustrate a story about an alleged Mossad agent.”

Starring as “Wonder Woman,” Israel’s Gal Gadot has grossed more than any other super-hero origin film, capturing the imagination of untold numbers of fans. She has also captured the imagination of an International Business Times reporter, who, based on an embarrassing photographic error on the part of a Lebanese newspaper, spun her own fantasy tale about the Israeli actress.

Leaving the facts behind, Lauren Dubois wrote yesterday (“Lebanese Newspaper Claims To Reveal Gal Gadot’s Alleged Alternate Identity As Mossad Agent“):

However, at least according to a Lebanese newspaper, Israeli actress Gal Gadot also has another secret identity—as a Mossad agent.

The paper, a daily known as Al Liwaa, published an image of Gadot on their front page Monday, claiming in an unsubstantiated report (via The Times of Israel), that she was actually Collette Vianfi, an agent from Israel’s international spy agency who was allegedly recruited to work with Lebanese actor and playwright Ziad Itani, who was arrested on Friday on charges of “collaborating” with Israel and gathering information about political figures.

The report included an image of Gadot from 2011’s “Fast Five” movie, and the report allegedly claimed the photo of her had “circulated” on social media, and hours before the report was published, the image had been shared online with some claiming that Gadot was Vianfi, who was reportedly meant to visit Itani in Beirut this week, before canceling the trip after his arrest.

But Al Liwaa never claimed that Gal Gadot was an Israeli agent or that her alter ego is someone called Collette Vianfi. Rather, it accidentally used a picture of Gadot to illustrate a story covering purported Israeli agent Vianfi. As The Arab News reports:

Israeli ‘Wonder Woman’ star Gal Gadot was pictured as a Mossad agent on the front page of a Lebanese newspaper yesterday.

Beirut-based Al Liwaa newspaper used a picture of the actress to illustrate a story about Colette Vianfi, an alleged Israeli Mossad officer accused of recruiting Lebanese comedian and playwright Ziad Itani as a spy.

A senior newspaper executive described the incident as “embarrassing” in a telephone interview with Arab News.

Tareq Damlaj, one of the managing editors at the newspaper, said: “People were spreading the photo of actress Gal Gadot on social media, especially through WhatsApp, believing it was a photo of the Israeli officer.

“But after receiving a phone call today from cinema enthusiasts, and not security services, we learned this was the photo of an Israeli actress.”

Furthermore, an editor’s note yesterday on the very Times of Israel story to which Dubois linked spelled out that the Lebanese paper didn’t accuse Gadot of being a spy, but rather misused her photograph (“Lebanese paper uses photo of Gal Gadot for tale of ‘Mossad agent,’ apologizes“).

Meanwhile, not only does The International Business Times falsely claim that Lebanon’s Al Liwaa supposedly accused Gadot of being a Mossad agent, it also egregiously fails to inform readers that the paper has already apologized about the “embarrassing” misuse of Gadot’s picture. Al Liwaa apologized. Will The International Business Times?

Nov. 21 Update: NBC Corrects About ‘Ongoing Occupation’ of Gaza

NBC’s Vivian Salama seems to be stuck some dozen years in the past. In her Nov. 15 news story (“‘An open secret’: Saudi Arabia and Israel get cozy“), she writes:

An Israeli-Saudi alliance would also be vastly unpopular on the Arab street given the ongoing occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. (Emphasis added.)

In 2005, Israel withdrew every last one of its citizens, both living and dead (having exhumed remains from the cemeteries), as well as all of its soldiers, from the Gaza Strip in 2005, ending its occupation of the territory.

Following the 2005 withdrawal, then Secretary of State Rice said in a May 1, 2006 briefing:

And in fact, the Israelis do not any longer occupy Gaza; it is Palestinian territory. And that is in no small part thanks to the tireless efforts of Jim Wolfensohn, who worked day and night to make certain that that could happen. (Emphasis added).

While the United Nations and Human Rights Watch regard Gaza as still occupied, Hamas’ Mahmoud Zahar disagrees, stating in 2012: “Against whom could we demonstrate in the Gaza Strip? When Gaza was occupied, that model was applicable.”

In addition, a number of legal scholars disagree with the NGO position that Gaza is still occupied.

Indeed, after similarly stating that Gaza is occupied, The Los Angeles Times last year commendably published the following correction, the paper’s second correction on this topic:

In addition, last month The Evening Standard also corrected this point.

CAMERA has contacted NBC to request a correction.