Aug. 29 Update, 7:45 am EST: Al Jazeera English Corrects: Haifa Not in ‘Northern Occupied Palestine’

In an Aug. 20 article, Al Jazeera English places the Israeli coastal city of Haifa in “northern occupied Palestine” (“UK: Palestine activists face prison over Elbit protest“). Shafik Mandhai redraws the map:

Based in the city of Haifa in northern occupied Palestine, Elbit produces military and civilian-use equipment, including drones, aircraft, weapon control systems, and artillery. (Emphasis added.)

This is a completely false characterization of Haifa. According to the United Nations (as well as an “Oslo status quo” map published by Al Jazeera) the Israeli northern coastal city of Haifa is not in the “Occupied Palestinian Territories,” which include the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and by some definitions eastern Jerusalem.

See also: Reuters Uses Ellipses to Downplay Al Jazeera Journalist’s Quote

In a series of captions earlier this week regarding the observance of Tisha B’Av, a Jewish day of mourning marking the destruction of the First and Second Temples as well as other catastrophes that fell on that day, Agence France Presse errs on the Western Wall, wrongly identifying it as “the last remaining vestige of the Second Temple.” Examples of the erroneous captions follow:

The Western Wall, a retaining wall of the Temple Mount, (not a wall of the Temple itself,) is not the last remaining vestige of the Temple complex. In fact, there are many extant remains of the Temple complex. The southern, eastern and northern retaining walls are also still extant. Surviving features abutting the southern walls include a broad stairway leading up to the Temple Mount’s entrance and two gates, known as the Huldah Gates, which provided access to the Temple Mount (Hershel Shanks, Jerusalem: An Archeological Biography, p. 143.) Some of the interior part of the Herodian Double Gate (which is one of the Huldah Gates) is also still intact. There are also surviving underground remnants of the Temple complex, including the area known as Solomon’s Stables. In addition, an area called Robinson’s Arch, in the south-western corner of the Temple complex, still remains. In his book, Shanks provides details concerning numerous other vestiges.

Multiple media outlets have corrected this same error in the past, including most recently The Los Angeles Times and Associated Press.

CAMERA has contacted AFP about the errors, but editors have yet to correct.

Jordanian officials agree with Israeli officials that Jordanian carpenter Mohammed Jawawdah attacked Israeli embassy guard Ziv Moyal with a screwdriver before Moyal shot him dead. But Reuters refuses to report the Jordanian confirmation. In story after story, rather than reporting Jawawdah’s attack on Moyal as fact, the influential wire service attributes the information to Israel, as if Jordan has not confirmed the attack, and as if the facts are not known.

Here’s what Jordan’s Public Security Directorate concluded last week, and what Reuters refuses to tell readers:

Based on statements by eyewitnesses, Two persons came at the apartment located inside the compound to furnish the bedroom.

during [sic] the work inside the apartment, a dispute has erupted between carpenters as one of them is the son of carpentry owner, a verbal arguments delayed the completion of work. the [sic] son of carpentry owner attacked the Israeli diplomat who responded by shooting the carpenter the apartment owner. Injuries of both wounded led to instantaneous death upon arrival to the medical hospital.

Testimonies of eyewitnesses revealed that during the verbal argument between the carpenter and the son of carpentry owner, the carpenter attacked the Israeli diplomat who responded by shooting. The owner of the apartment was shot and pronounced dead. The testimony of the door man was the same of other eye witnesses.

The fact that multiple Jordanian eyewitnesses concur that Jawawdeh attacked the Israeli guard has not prevented Reuters from attributing the information only to Israel. Today, for example, in an article about an averted face-off between a Jordanian and an Israeli lawmaker (“Netanyahu calls off fistfight between Israeli, Jordanian lawmakers“), Reuters qualifies:

The July 23 shooting to death of two Jordanians by an Israeli embassy guard who said he was acting in self-defense has outraged Amman, stirred up pro-Palestinian sentiment in the kingdom and prompted U.S. mediation efforts.

In a July 28 article (“Jordanian protesters at Israeli embassy call for ending peace treaty“), Reuters likewise concealed the Jordanian finding that Jawawdeh attacked Moyal:

Israel said the guard had been defending himself after Jawawdeh assaulted him with a screwdriver in a “terrorist attack”.

On July 27 (“Jordan’s king demands Israel put guard on trial for killing Jordanians“) as well Reuters attributed the information only to Israel, ignoring the Jordanian confirmation that Jawawdeh attacked the Israel:

Israel said the guard had been defending himself after Jawawdah attacked him with a screwdriver in a “terrorist attack”.

CAMERA contacted Reuters about the failure to note that a Jordanian investigation found that the Jordanian worker attacked the Israel embassy guard, but the wire service stands by its reporting and continues to churn out the skewed account.

In contrast, the Associated Press has explicitly reported that Jordanian authorities confirmed that Jawawdeh attacked the Israeli:

Jordanian authorities have said the guard opened fire Sunday after a 16-year-old attacked him with a screw driver during a furniture delivery to the embassy.

See also: How Reuters Twists a Fistfight That Never Was

Aug. 7 Update: New York Times “Journeys” Corrects on Gaza Area “Settlements”

In an illuminating and ironic gem, The New York Times markets its “Journeys” tour to Israel and the West Bank as follows:

On this nine-day itinerary, travel with experts from The New York Times, a leader in its evenhanded coverage of Israel, Palestine and the Middle East.

Referring to the West Bank as “Palestine” contravenes standard New York Times style. References to a modern “Palestine” in the West Bank and Gaza are inaccurate, and those areas should be referred to the West Bank and Gaza or, where appropriate “Palestinian Authority territories.” National Geographic, The Los Angeles Times, and Voice of America have commendably corrected this very same point in recent weeks.

By inaccurately referring to the West Bank as “Palestine,” The New York Times unintentionally tips off perceptive and informed readers that far from being “a leader in its evenhanded coverage,” the Gray Lady has a longstanding tilt against Israel. As Margaret Sullivan, then public editor exhorted in 2014:

Strengthen the coverage of Palestinians. They are more than just victims, and their beliefs and governance deserve coverage and scrutiny. Realistic examinations of what’s being taught in schools, and the way Hamas operates should be a part of this. What is the ideology of Hamas; what are its core beliefs and its operating principles? What is Palestinian daily life like? I haven’t seen much of this in The Times.

(The Times recently eliminated its public editor positon. Not a promising sign for those concerned about “evenhanded coverage.”)

The “Journeys” promotional material also refers to “settlements surrounding the Gaza Strip.” But the term “settlements” in The New York Times (and in common usage) is used specifically to denote communities built in disputed territory, and in the Western milieu it is not used in reference to villages inside Israel. This usage is especially problematic in light of the fact that the newspaper often raises questions about the legal legitimacy of “settlements.” The inaccurate message to readers, then, is that these towns in Israel near the Gaza Strip are somehow controversial or disputed.

So while The Times gears up for an “evenhanded” tour around “Palestine” and the “settlements surrounding the Gaza Strip” to mark “Seventy Years of the State of Israel,” we invite readers to a discovery journey of over 80 New York Times errors — all of them tilted in one direction (against Israel) — and all of them corrected after CAMERA’s intervention.

The Wall Street Journal is the latest media outlet to err on the Western Wall, misidentifying it as Judaism’s holiest site. The July 14 article by Nancy Shekter-Porat (“Israeli Police Officers Shot Dead in Jerusalem Temple Mount Attack“) erred:

Temple Mount, in Jerusalem’s Old City, was the location of an ancient Jewish temple. It is bordered on one side by the Western Wall, considered the holiest site in Judaism. Al Aqsa mosque, which sits on the esplanade, is the third holiest site in Islam, after Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia. (Emphasis added.)

The Western Wall is not Judaism’s holiest site; the Temple Mount, the site of the first and second temples which housed the Holy of Holies (the inner sanctuary where the Ark of the Covenant was located), holds that distinction. The Western Wall, a retaining wall of the Temple Mount compound, obtained its holy status due to its proximity to the Holy of Holies. It is the holiest site where Jewish prayer is permitted, as Jews are prohibited from praying at the Temple Mount, their holiest site.

Multiple media outlets including The New York Times and The Washington Post, The Telegraph, BBC and many more, have corrected this identical error.

CAMERA has contacted The Journal to request a correction. Stay tuned for an update.

Members of the Slonim family, murdered in the 1929 Hebron massacre

When it comes to two brutal massacres in Hebron, one in 1929 and the other in 1994, Agence France Presse coverage displays an egregious double standard.

Today’s article, “Palestinians, Israelis square off on UNESCO vote on Hebron,” fails to give even the most basic information about the 1929 massacre, stating only:

There had been a Jewish community there for decades earlier, but they were forced out by attacks in British mandatory Palestine.

AFP fails to note who carried out the attacks (local Arabs). It fails to note the outcome of the attack: 67 murdered Jews and 60 wounded. And it fails to note the nature of the attack: an enraged Arab mob wielding knives, axes and iron bars killed all of the Jewish students in the local yeshiva and the mob slaughtered a delegation of Jewish residents on their way to the police station. The mob also broke into the home of Rabbi Ya’akov Slonim, where Jews were seeking refuges, and murdered him, his family and all those sheltering there. Dutch-Canadian journalist Pierre Van Passen described the scene at Rabbi Slonim’s house:

we found the twelve-foot-high ceiling splashed with blood. The rooms looked like a slaughterhouse . . . I intended to gather up the severed sexual organs and the cut-off women’s breasts we had seen lying scattered over the floor and in the beds.

Regarding the 1994 Hebron massacre, on the other hand, AFP provides all of the critical information, identifying the perpetrator (“Israeli-American Baruch Goldstein”), the outcome (“killing 29”) and the means “opened fire on Muslims praying at the site.” AFP reports:

In 1994, Israeli-American Baruch Goldstein opened fire on Muslims praying at the site, killing 29, before being beaten to death by survivors.

Why does AFP fail to note how many Jews were killed in the 1929 massacre? Indeed, the article doesn’t even indicate that there were any fatalities in the “attacks.” Why does it fail to identify the perpetrators (Arabs from Hebron) and their means of murder (knives, axes and iron bars used to kill and mutilate), while the key facts do appear with respect to the 1994 massacre?

In addition, in a separate problem in the very same sentence, the AFP inaccurately reported that there had been a Jewish community in Hebron “for decades” before the 1929 “attacks.” In fact, Jews had been living consistently in the city for centuries before the massacre. Jews who survived the murderous rampages of the Ottoman Turks in 1517 fled to Beirut, but returned to Hebron in 1533 and the Jewish presence in the city remained unbroken from that time until the 1929 massacre.

This post was updated on July 9 to note that Jews lived in Hebron for centuries prior to 1929, not decades, as AFP had reported.

July 9 Update: Subsequent Article Includes Key Info on 1929 Massacre

A July 7 AFP article (“What is the Hebron row?) included key information about the 1929 massacre that had been omitted from the July 6 article. The more recent article noted:

Jews had been living in Hebron decades before 1967 but were forced out after violent attacks by Palestinians during the British Mandate – the most violent of which saw 67 Jews killed in a 1929 massacre.

Notably, AFP uses the passive voice for the 1929 attacks (“violent attacks by Palestinians . . saw 67 Jews killed”) versus the active voice in which Israeli-American Baruch Goldstein “opened fire . . .killing 29,” but the very fact that the news agency included the information at all is a step forward.

In an article about Hamas banning dog-walking in the Gaza Strip, NBC News believes it’s important for readers to know that Israel blockades the Gaza Strip. On the other hand, NBC would prefer that readers not know that Egypt also blockades the Gaza Strip, even though the Egyptian blockade is much more restrictive than the Israeli blockade by any measure (“Hamas bans dog-walking in the Gaza Strip“).

The article, a collaborative effort by NBC’s Wajjeh Abu Zarifa , Dave Copeland , Lawahez Jabari and F. Brinley Bruton reported:

Hamas — the militant group that runs the poor, Israeli-blockaded Gaza Strip — recently decreed dogs can’t be walked in markets, roads and along beaches.

Israel allows in virtually all products aside from weapons and items defined as dual-use items (ie can be used for military purposes), a fact confirmed by the Israeli NGO Gisha, which is highly critical of Israel’s policies with respect to Gaza. Both goods and people can much more easily pass through the Israeli blockade of Gaza than through the strict Egyptian blockade.

That Egypt’s blockade, ignored by NBC, is significantly more restrictive than the Israeli blockade (which NBC singled out), is confirmed by recent UN data. The UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported that this past May, for example, (the most recent UN data available), the Israeli crossing for people (Erez Crossing), was open for 25 days, enabling 6,328 times in which people crossed from Gaza to Israel. In contrast, the Egyptian crossing for people (Rafah Crossing), was open for just four days, enabling just 3,068 times in which people crossed in either direction (Egypt to Gaza and the reverse). (Graphic below from OCHA’s report.)

More than 200 trucks exited Gaza into Israel via the Kerem Shalom crossing over the course of 17 days in May. Zero trucks exit Gaza for Egypt.

As for the entry of goods into Gaza, the Kerem Shalom Crossing from Israel operated for 19 days in May, enabling over 10,000 trucks carrying goods to enter from Israel. In contrast, Egypt’s “Rafah crossing exceptionally opened on four days, allowing 381 truckloads of goods to enter Gaza, the largest volume through this crossing since June 2015.”

In 2015 Reuters, which had likewise initially ignored the Egyptian-blockade in a graphic entitled “Gaza blockade,” commendably added the information when the omission was pointed out.

CAMERA has contacted NBC to request that they likewise amend their report to include the more severe Egyptian blockade. Stay tuned for an update.

June 28 Update: DPA Corrects: Jerusalem in Israel, Not Palestinian Territories

DPA, the German news agency, has relocated Jerusalem to the Palestinian territories. Today’s photo caption, which appears on the photo sites of leading news agencies Associated Press and Agence France-Presse, states:

Gilad Grossman, spokesman of the human rights organisation Jesch Din, in Jerusalem, Palestinian Territories, 26 June 2017. The Israeli government has approved the first state-sanctioned settlement in the occupied West Bank since the beginning of the Oslo peace process. The settlements are widely regarded as illegal under international law. Jesch Din is one of the organisations contesting the move. Photo by: Stefanie J’rkel

In addition, a second DPA caption refers to a future Israeli settlement to be built in “Palestinian territories.” The land slated for the future settlement of Amichai is in disputed West Bank land, Area C, not under Palestinian control, and is therefore not part of the “Palestinian territories.” The final status of this land is to be determined in negotiations, and has not yet been resolved.

This caption also appears on the AP and AFP photo sites:

Avichai Boaron, a spokesman for the illegal West Bank settlement of Amona, stands in front of the site upon which the Israeli government has approved the first state-sanctioned settlement in the occupied territories since the beginning of the Oslo peace process in ‘Amichai’, Palestinian Territories, 26 June 2017. The settlements are widely regarded as illegal under international law. Photo by: Stefanie J’rkel

CAMERA has reached out to DPA, AP and AFP for corrections. Stay tuned for updates.

See also: “DPA, AP Correct: Lebanon, Not Libya, Borders Israel“

Influential wire service Agence France Presse falsely reported yesterday that Hamas’ May 1 policy document accepts a Palestinian state “limited to the 1967 borders” (“Gaza: Palestinian territory ravaged by war, poverty”).

In no way does the new Hamas document signal an acceptance of a Palestinian state “limited to the 1967 borders.” In fact, it says the exact opposite. The wording is:

Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus. . . .

A real state of Palestine is a state that has been liberated. There is no alternative to a fully sovereign Palestinian State on the entire national Palestinian soil, with Jerusalem as its capital. (Emphases added.)

In an interview with Reuters, Hamas’ Mahmoud al-Zahar emphasized that the new document is a “mechanism” for Hamas’ pledge “to liberate all of Palestine.” Reuters reported:

One of Hamas’s most senior officials said on Wednesday a document published by the Islamist Palestinian group last week was not a substitute for its founding charter, which advocates Israel’s destruction.

Speaking in Gaza City, Mahmoud al-Zahar, a regular critic of Israel, said the political policy document announced in Qatar on May 1 by Hamas’s outgoing chief Khaled Meshaal did not contradict its founding covenant, published in 1988.

Trailed for weeks by Hamas officials, the document appeared to be an attempt to soften the group’s language towards Israel. But it still called for “the liberation of all of historical Palestine”, said armed resistance was a means to achieve that goal, and did not recognise Israel’s right to exist.

“The pledge Hamas made before God was to liberate all of Palestine,” Zahar said on Wednesday. “The charter is the core of (Hamas’s) position and the mechanism of this position is the document.

June 14 Update: CNN Corrects on New Hamas ‘Charter,’ Gaza Unemployment

In his article today, “What the Qatar crisis means for Hamas,” CNN International’s Ian Lee errs on Hamas and Gaza unemployment.

First, the article twice falsely refers to a new policy document that Hamas issued on May 1 as a “new charter.” The article begins:

When Palestinian militant group Hamas announced its new charter to the world, it wasn’t from Ramallah or Gaza City, but from the Sheraton hotel’s gilded Salwa Ballroom in Doha.

Further down, the article repeats the incorrect reference to a “new charter,” stating:

Last month, a new leader was announced — Ismail Haniya taking over from long-time leader Meshaal — at the same time as the militant group issued its new charter.

But as CNN correctly reported at the time, in the very article hyperlinked in the first erroneous reference to a “new charter,” Hamas issued a new policy document on May 1, not a new charter. As CNN’s May 3 article reported: “The Palestinian militant group Hamas unveiled a new policy document Monday . . . ” The earlier CNN story repeatedly refers to the document as a “document” and not a charter, because it was not a “new charter.”

Hamas itself refers to the new policy statement as “A Document of General Principles and Policies” — not a charter.

Hamas’ own Mahmoud al-Zahar made clear that the new document does not in any way replace the founding charter of 1988. As Reuters reported:

One of Hamas’s most senior officials said on Wednesday a documentpublished by the Islamist Palestinian group last week was not a substitute for its founding charter, which advocates Israel’s destruction.

In a second, unrelated error, Lee reports:

According to the United Nations, the unemployment rate in the strip hovers around 65% and one million people rely on food handouts from the UN’s Palestinian refugee agency.

In fact, United Nations documents put Gaza’s unemployment at below 45 percent, not at 65 percent. According to the “Gaza Situation Report, 197 30 May – 5 June 2017 target=_blank” published by UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East,

In the first quarter of 2017, according to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, the unemployment rate in Gaza stood at 41.1 per cent, one of the highest rates worldwide.

Also, according to this May 3 UN document:

In the fourth quarter of 2016, the joblessness rate stood at an average of 40.6 per cent – 68.6 per cent for women – according to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS).

CAMERA has contacted CNN to request corrections. Stay tuned for an update. Readers may also contact CNN International on Twitter.

See also: “In English, Haaretz Upgrades Hamas’ New Document to New ‘Charter'”