The New York Times downplays a Palestinian attack in an incident Thursday that ended with an Israeli settler shooting dead one of the Palestinians who bombarded his car with rocks. The Times’ online headline states that the Israeli fired on Palestinian protesters and ignores the Palestinian rock-throwing, as if the Israeli fired on demonstrators doing nothing more than waving flags:

Similarly, the print edition headline is “Protester Is Shot Dead By Settler in West Bank.”

The article’s first three paragraphs refers to “demonstration,” “protest,” “demonstrators” or “protesters” a total of six times to describe violent clashes in which Palestinians attacked soldiers and/or civilians with rocks:

An Israeli settler whose car was caught up in a pro-Palestinian street demonstration in the West Bank on Thursday opened fire on the protesters, killing a 23-year-old Palestinian man and wounding a news photographer.

The protest, held in support of Palestinian prisoners on a hunger strike that has now lasted 32 days, was one of several marred by violence recently.

At a protest near the city of Ramallah on Thursday, Israeli soldiers fired on demonstrators, wounding one Palestinian. The day before, a settler fired a gun at protesters blocking roads near Ramallah and throwing stones; a 19-year-old Palestinian was injured in that episode.

Though the second paragraph does refer to “several [protests] marred by violence,” it fails to indicate that in the deadly incident Thursday Palestinians used violence, while the preceding paragraph did note the Israeli shooting, which was the result of the unmentioned Palestinian attack.

Not until the fifth paragraph does The Times acknowledge: “Israelis point to video images showing the settler’s car, a small silver hatchback, being pounded by rocks and surrounded by dozens of demonstrators.” The digital edition also provides a hyperlink to the video.

Contrast The Times’ articles downplaying the Palestinians’ attack on the Israelis to those of the wire services, which clearly state that Palestinians attacked the Israeli’s car. The Associated Press, whose own photographer was injured, apparently by the Israeli, noted in the headline that the “protesters” engaged in violence citing a clash: “Protester killed, AP journalist wounded in West Bank clash.”
(more…)

May 23 Update: Reuters Corrects Six Day War Jerusalem Infographic, But Leaves Flawed Original in Place

Reuters marks the 50th anniversary of the Six Day War with an infographic in English, French and Spanish which explicitly states that east Jerusalem “is home to Islam’s third holiest site,” but which ignores the fact that the area is also home to Judaism’s holiest sites. The Temple Mount is Judaism’s holiest site, and the nearby Western Wall is the holiest site where Jewish prayer is permitted.

Reuters’ skewed reference to the holy status of Jerusalem in Islam, while ignoring the city’s even more significant sacred status in Judaism, directly counters the 2015 reassurance from a Reuters editor that “[w]hen we say that the Al Aqsa mosque compound (or Noble Sanctuary) is the holiest site in Islam outside Saudi Arabia, or that it is the third holiest site in Islam, we also point out that the Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism.”

CAMERA last week contacted Reuters editors to request that they amend this tilted infographic, but they have failed to do so. Contact Reuters here to request that they add that east Jerusalem is home to Judaism’s holiest sites.

France 24 Arabic has taken a page out of the book of the Jordanian government: blaming Israeli police for killing a Jordanian tourist, while ignoring the fact that the tourist repeatedly stabbed the Israeli officer in the head and neck. The wounded officer managed to fatally shoot his assailant.

France 24 Arabic’s grossly distorted headline about the May 13 attack in Jerusalem was: “Israeli police kill Jordanian tourist; Amman blames Israel.”

France 24’s article was drawn from AFP, whose solid headline in English was: “Jordanian stabs Israeli officer in Jerusalem, shot dead: police.” In addition, the accompanying Arabic article notes that, according to police, the Jordanian attacked the officer with a knife. (Video of the Jordanian’s attack on the officer substantiates the police’s information.)

France 24’s shoddy Arabic headline earned the media outlet an entry on CAMERA’s popular document “Wave of Palestinian attacks accompanied by spate of bad writing.” CAMERA has contacted Arabic France 24 editors to request a correction.
(more…)

David Friedman at Feb. 16 Senate hearing: Two-state solution “is best possibility for peace in the region” (NY Times screen capture)

In an article today about the visit of U.S. envoy Jason Greenblatt to the West Bank, Ian Fisher of The New York Times misleadingly reports that David M. Friedman, President Trump’s pick for the next ambassador to Israel, “has disavowed the two-state solution” (“Trump’s Envoy to Mideast Meets With Mahmoud Abbas in West Bank“).

The article does not inform readers that in his Feb. 16 Senate confirmation hearing, Friedman more recently expressed support for the two-state solution, calling it “the best possibility for peace in the region.”

As The Times reported Feb. 17 (“Nominee for Israel Envoy Regrets ‘Hurtful Words,” Emmarie Huetteman):

Although [Friedman] has been dismissive of it in the past, he said the two-state solution had received ”the most thought and effort and consideration.” He later elaborated that he had not seen any evidence that Palestinians had an ”appetite” for unifying under a single state.

”It still remains the best possibility for peace in the region,” he told senators, referring to the two-state solution.

Likewise, AP reported Feb. 16:

Friedman said he “absolutely” supports a two-state solution, but said he’s skeptical such an approach can succeed because Palestinians haven’t renounced terrorism and have refused to accept Israel as a Jewish state. But he said he would be “delighted” if it were possible to reach a two-state agreement.

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

On Thursday, an assailant opened fire on shoppers in the central Israeli town of Petah Tivkah, and stabbed one, injuring a total of five people. The suspected attacker is an 18-year-old from Nablus. That this attack happened is not in dispute.

Yet, Haaretz‘s English edition, both online and print, referred to a “suspected” attack, as if was not yet verified that a shooting attack had taken place. The first sentence of the print article refers to the attack as “suspected”:

Five people were hospitalized following a suspected shooting attack in the central city of Petah Tikvah yesterday.

The front-page headline of Haaretz‘s English edition Friday was “Five people wounded in suspected Petah Tikva terror attack.”

The digital edition in English also qualifies the attack as “suspected.” Its headline is: “Five Wounded in Suspected Shooting Attack in Central Israeli City.”

Likewise, the first sentence online reads:

Five people were hospitalized following a suspected shooting attack in the central Israeli city of Petah Tikvah.

The Hebrew edition, in contrast, both in print and online did not qualify the attack as “suspected” and reported it just as it was: an attack. The Hebrew print headline states (CAMERA’s translation): “Petah Tikvah Market Attack: Five Lightly Wounded from Shooting and Stabbing, 18-Year-Old Suspect from Nablus Arrested.”

The first sentence states: “Five people were lightly injured yesterday in a shooting and stabbing attack near the market on Baron Hersh Street in Petah Tikvah.”

This latest instance of what we call “Haaretz, Lost in Translation” follows another English edition article last month which described an incident in which a Bedouin driver ran over and killed an Israeli policeman as a “police claim.” Yet, the fact that the driver ran over and killed the policeman was not disputed; the reason, however, was disputed (the Bedouin driver either intentionally attacked the policeman or, alternatively, lost control of the vehicle after police shot him). CAMERA prompted corrected in that case. We have contacted editors again about the Petah Tikvah attack. Stay tuned for an update.

“PM’s anti-Jewish support for Trump’s anti-Muslim decree” is a front-page headline of Haaretz‘s English print edition yesterday.

Similarly, Haaretz‘s online headline states: “Netanyahu’s anti-Jewish Support for Trump’s anti-Muslim Decree.”

But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not expressed any support for President Trump’s move against immigration. In fact, Netanyahu has come under criticism for keeping silentabout Trump’s executive order. The Times of Israel reported yesterday:

Former Likud party stalwart Dan Meridor on Sunday harshly criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for failing to condemn the new US administration’s entry ban on citizens from certain Muslim states, arguing that the Jewish state should place Jewish values above political expediency. . .

In December 2015, Netanyahu himself issued a statement rejecting then-presidential candidate Trump’s vow to ban Muslims from entering the US. On Sunday, however, he did not comment on the matter, and his spokesperson refused to respond to several Times of Israel queries.

In December 2015, Netanyahu himself issued a statement rejecting then-presidential candidate Trump’s vow to ban Muslims from entering the US. On Sunday, however, he did not comment on the matter, and his spokesperson refused to respond to several Times of Israel queries.

(more…)

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.

In an article yesterday (“Israel to re-assess U.N. ties after settlement resolution, says Netanyahu“), Reuters reduces Israel’s claim to the West Bank to biblical only. Ignoring Israel’s legal claim along with a very long historical record spanning thousands of years after the biblical period, the article misleads:

Most countries view Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as illegal and an obstacle to peace. Israel disagrees, citing a biblical connection to the land. (Emphasis added.)

Israel’s claim to the West Bank rests on international law, cultural and religious ties, and post-biblical history, including the long-term presence of Jews for thousands of years, the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Conference, and the League of Nations decision which was never repealed, and Article 80 of the United Nations charter which upheld Article Six of the League of Nations’ Palestine Mandate enabling Jewish settlement.

Indeed, the November 2015 Ministry of Foreign Affairs document “Israeli Settlements and International Law” goes into great detail about Israeli claims to the territory grounded in international law. The document notes that the Jewish presence in the territory was:

recognized as legitimate in the Mandate for Palestine adopted by the League of Nations in 1922, which provided for the establishment of a Jewish state in the Jewish people’s ancient homeland.

After recognizing “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” and “the grounds for reconstituting their national home”, the Mandate specifically stipulated in Article 6 as follows:

“The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use”.

Some Jewish settlements, such as in Hebron, existed throughout the centuries of Ottoman rule, while settlements such as Neve Ya’acov, north of Jerusalem, the Gush Etzion bloc in southern Judea, and the communities north of the Dead Sea, were established under British Mandatory administration prior to the establishment of the State of Israel, and in accordance with the League of Nations Mandate.

Many contemporary Israeli settlements have actually been re-established on sites which were home to Jewish communities in previous generations, in an expression of the Jewish people’s deep historic and abiding connection with this land – the cradle of Jewish civilization and the locus of the key events of the Hebrew Bible. A significant number are located in places where previous Jewish communities were forcibly ousted by Arab armies or militia, or slaughtered, as was the case with the ancient Jewish community of Hebron in 1929.

For more than a thousand years, the only administration which has prohibited Jewish settlement in these areas was the Jordanian occupation administration, which during the nineteen years of its rule (1948-1967) declared the sale of land to Jews a capital offense. The right of Jews to establish homes in these areas, and the private legal titles to the land which had been acquired, could not be legally invalidated by Jordanian occupation – which resulted from their illegal armed invasion of Israel in 1948 and was never recognized internationally as legitimate – and such rights and titles remain valid to this day.

These historical and legal claims relate almost entirely to historical periods thousands of years after biblical times. CAMERA has contacted Reuters to request that editors redress the egregious omission.

Dec. 28 Update: Reuters Agrees That Israel’s Claims Not only Biblical, Improves Next Article

While Reuters has declined to amend the Dec. 24 article flagged in this post, the news agency did agree with CAMERA that Israel’s claim to the West Bank is not limited only to biblical ties. Indeed, a Reuters’ article the next day expands that Israel’s claim includes “biblical and historical connections to the West Bank and Jerusalem as well as security interests” (“Israel PM, angered by anti-settlement U.N. vote, summons U.S. ambassador“).

Dec. 20 UPDATE: Reuters Amends Captions: Palestinian Killed During Violent Clashes

Reuters photo captions about Ahmed Al-Remawi omit the fact that the Palestinian was killed Sunday during violent clashes, limiting information about the circumstances surrounding his death to the fact that the “Palestinian Health Ministry said [he] was shot and killed by Israeli forces on Sunday.”

Given the minimal information, uninformed readers could reasonably conclude that unprovoked Israeli forces shot Remawi Sunday as he did nothing more than sit and drink coffee. (Reports conflict about his age, said to be either 19 or 23.)

But both Israeli and Palestinian sources agree that a mob of Palestinians was violently clashing with Israeli troops, throwing stones, when Remawi was killed. Haaretz reported:

According to the IDF, some 50 Palestinians were involved in the clash, some of whom threw stones at Israeli security forces. A Border Police officer was wounded. The army said that the forces responded to the stone-throwing with riot control measures and with shooting in the air.

Examples of the incomplete Reuters captions follow:

Mourners carry the body of Palestinian Ahmed al-Remawi, who Palestinian Health Ministry said was shot and killed by Israeli forces on Sunday, during his funeral in the West Bank village of Beit Rima near Ramallah December 18, 2016. REUTERS/Mohamad Torokman

Relatives of Palestinian Ahmed al-Remawi, who Palestinian Health Ministry said was shot and killed by Israeli forces on Sunday, mourn during his funeral in the West Bank village of Beit Rima near Ramallah December 18, 2016. REUTERS/Mohamad Torokman

Relatives mourn as people carry the body of Palestinian Ahmed al-Remawi, who Palestinian Health Ministry said was shot and killed by Israeli forces on Sunday, during his funeral in the West Bank village of Beit Rima near Ramallah December 18, 2016. REUTERS/Mohamad Torokman

Dec. 20 UPDATE: For Second Time, ABC Corrects: US Does Not View Settlements as ‘Illegal’

After correcting the very same error in an Associated Press story which appeared last month on its website, ABC News once again wrongly reports that “the United States considers Jewish settlements illegal” (“Donald Trump’s Pick for US Ambassador to Israel Signals Changes in US Policy“). A screen shot of the Dec. 17 erroneous claim by ABC’s Elizabeth McLaughlin follows:

The Associated Press correction which CAMERA prompted in November on the identical topic subsequently appeared in countless AP clients, ABC News among them.

The AP correction which appeared Nov. 21 on ABC’s news site stated:

In a story Nov. 16 about Israel’s settlement policy, The Associated Press reported erroneously that the United States considers Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank to be illegal. While the United States opposes settlement construction, it does not take a position on its legality. Instead, it says that settlements are “illegitimate,” ”corrosive to the cause of peace” and “raise serious questions about Israel’s ultimate commitment to a peaceful negotiated settlement with the Palestinians.” Most of the international community views the settlements as illegal.

Since the Reagan administration, which explicitly said it did not believe the settlements were illegal, U.S. administrations have instead characterized the settlements as an obstacle to peace and illegitimate. The current U.S. government, and numerous preceding American administrations, have not characterized the settlements as “illegal.”

CAMERA has contacted editors to request that ABC correct for the second time the incorrect claim the United States considers Israeli settlements illegal.