For some mysterious reason, the Associated Press felt Louis Farrakhan’s mutterings on international relations deserve close attention. “Louis Farrakhan, in Iran, warns Trump a Mideast war possible,” a Associated Press headline announced, as if the firebrand anti-Semite’s views on Persian Gulf tensions are any more newsworthy than David Duke‘s overview of China’s transportation infrastructure.

The subject of the news article, though, wasn’t the only thing funny about it. Here’s how AP’s anonymous author addressed Farrakhan’s long history of anti-Semitism:

The 85-year-old Farrakhan, long known for provocative comments widely considered anti-Semitic, criticized the economic sanctions leveled by Trump against Iran after America’s pullout from the nuclear deal between Tehran and world powers.

His “provocative” comments are “considered” anti-Semitic. Those comments include descriptions of Jews as “termites,” as a “synagogue of Satan,” and as responsible for “filth and degenerate behavior,” the 9/11 attacks, and evil in general. They are as straightforwardly anti-Semitic as it gets.

So did AP avoid straightforwardly describing Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism as “anti-Semitic” due to some journalistic constraint — a disciplined refusal to editorialize or even characterize?

No. A look back at the archives proves the agency’s journalists are certainly willing to pass such judgment, for example about David Horowitz who an AP reporter described as “known for anti-Muslim rhetoric.” Not known for provocative comments considered anti-Muslim. Just anti-Muslim.

Farrakhan is newsworthy. Not for his prognosticating about Iran, but because he is at the center of an ongoing controversy involving appointed leaders of the Women’s March and their expressions of support for Farrakhan. It’s particularly important, then, that AP get it right — and be forthright.

A June 28, 2018 Washington Post report, “Prince William visit Jerusalem’s holy sites, concluding historic visit,” omitted key context and details about the Duke of Cambridge’s trip to Israel and areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Prince William was the first member of the British Royal Family to make an official trip to Israel since the Jewish state was recreated in 1948. Washington Post correspondent Ruth Eglash noted the significance of the Prince’s visit and claimed that it comes “at a time when peace seems more elusive than ever for Israelis and Palestinians.”

The Post, however, failed to provide readers with details as to why that might be the case.

As CAMERA has detailed, the PA has refused numerous U.S. and Israeli offers for a Palestinian state in exchange for peace with the Jewish state. More recently, the PA refused offers in 2000 at Camp David, 2001 at Taba, and 2008 after the Annapolis Conference—as well as U.S. proposals to restart negotiations in 2014 and 2016. Yet, not only did the PA reject these opportunities, its leaders refused to so much as make a counteroffer.

The Washington Post failed to mention this history—despite its obvious relevance to their report. Indeed, Eglash reported that “some Israelis were upset that the Jerusalem portion” of the Prince’s itinerary was “billed as part of a visit to the ‘occupied Palestinian territories.’”

“Much of the world,” the reporter wrote, “does not recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the eastern parts of the city, which Palestinians hope will become the capital of the future state.”

Yet, the 2008 offer, among others, would have provided the Palestinians with a state with its capital in eastern Jerusalem. It is odd that The Post chose not to mention that the PA rejected precisely what they claim Palestinians “hope” to obtain.

The Post also omitted other aspects of the Prince’s visit. According to Khaled Abu Toameh, an Arab Israeli journalist, on June 27, 2018: “Palestinian children threw rocks at Prince William’s convoy in Jelazoun refugee camp, north of Ramallah. No one was hurt and there was no damage.”

That same day, the Israeli Knesset approved a law that would deduct funds to the PA “commensurate with the amount of money the Palestinians pay to terrorists and their families,” the writer Bassam Tawil noted. The PA responded to the Israeli law by vowing that it would “not abandon the prisoners and the families of the martyrs.” The “martyrs” that the PA is talking about “are in fact Palestinian terrorists, who were killed by the Israeli army or police during attacks on Jews,” Tawil noted in a June 28, 2018 Gatestone Institute report.

The PA’s promise to pay terrorists—and the passage of an Israeli law to discourage the policy—was not mentioned in The Post’s report. Indeed, although the paper noted that the Prince “visited [PA President Mahmoud] Abbas in Ramallah,” they failed to report the Palestinian leaders comments during the meeting. On the same day that his government vowed to keep paying terrorists, Abbas told the Prince he was “serious about reaching peace with Israel” and Palestinians were “committed to combating terrorism.”

Apparently, The Post didn’t deign the PA’s duplicity—or its support for terror and rejection of peace—to be worth reporting.

“The fact is that the United States dodged a bullet in Syria—and, it’s worth stressing, all courtesy of the Israelis.” So writes John Hannah, former national security advisor to Vice President Richard Cheney and now a senior counselor at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a Washington, D.C. think tank.

In “It’s the Proliferation, Stupid,” an April 25, 2016 article for Foreign Policy online, Hannah notes North Korea’s preparation for a possible fifth nuclear weapons test. His country cash, food and fuel-starved, Kim Jong Un might sell “part of his ever-expanding nuclear arsenal to other rogue actors that mean us harm.”

Given that “North Korea has for decades sold missiles and missile technology to any state willing to pay,” nuclear weapons proliferation could be next, according to Hannah. He notes that Pyongyang’s “military relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran, in particular, has been longstanding and deep.”

He adds that “Iran’s most deadly terrorist proxy, Lebanese Hezbollah, has also been an important recipient of North Korean military assistance. The North provided critical support to help Hezbollah build a massive network of underground military installations, tunnels, bunkers, depots and storage facilities in southern Lebanon,” while helping Hezbollah, via Iran, build its huge missile arsenal aimed at Israel.

So imagine if Israel had not destroyed Syria’s Al-Kibar reactor in 2007 and it now was producing nuclear material for either dictator Bashar al-Assad or one of his enemies in the Syrian civil wars, perhaps the Islamic State.

‘Chilling’ evidence

Hannah recalls the day in 2007 that the director of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, the late Meir Dagan, briefed President George W. Bush and Vice President Cheney. Dagan revealed “chilling” evidence that in the desert east of Damascus, “North Korea was covertly building a plutonium-producing nuclear reactor” more or less a replica of its own “at Yongbyon, which formed the centerpiece of its weapons program.

“Making matters worse, Al-Kibar was perilously close to completition.” Once the reactor became operational, attempting to destroy it “would run a high risk of dispersing deadly radioactive materials that could poison thousands of innocent civilians,” Hannah writes.

“The U.S. intelligence community had totally missed Al-Kibar. It was completely taken aback by Dagan’s stunning revelations,” he adds. Israel’s discovery and attack “was almost certainly the only means of ensuring the reactor never went hot.”

Now, “the North is seeking to perfect precisely those elements of its military nuclear arsenal that Iran has yet to develop: the testing of an actual bomb; warhead miniaturization; reentry technology; and a functional ICBM [intercontinental ballisitic missile],” Hannah says. “The potential for synergy between these two rogue states and longtime proliferation partners is more than obvious.”

Meanwhile, “no doubt less likely—but who’s to say impossible?—is the risk that North Korea, for the right price and perhaps in cahoots with the Russian mafia or another anti-Western power, might be tempted to share some of its nuclear know-how with the likes of the Islamic State or some other jihadist non-state actor that’s focused on staging a terrorist spectacular against the West.”

Given his country’s proliferation record and anti-American rhetoric from Kim Jong Un that parallels Islamic State declarations, “one hopes that the American intelligence community is focused like a laser on this element of the North Korean threat,” including the link to Iran, Hannah says.

Washington Post columnist Walter Pincus has opined again on Israel, Iran, and nuclear weapons. And again, his compulsion to play “gotcha” against Israel cripples his analysis.

Pincus’ “Nuclear-free Middle East is worth imagining” (June 16, 2015) flawed premise leads to a flawed conclusion—just like his “Is the U.S. going too far to help Israel?” (May 17, 2012), as CAMERA noted at the time.

The Post columnist says his reading of Ari Shavit’s book My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel—a key chapter of which CAMERA exposed for falsely portraying the 1948 battle for Lydda (Lod) as a “massacre at the heart of Zionism”—sparked the thought that if Israel would just agree to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a nuclear-free Middle East eventually would emerge.

Pincus says that according to Shavit “the Iranians have been doing what Israel did…if Iran succeeds, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and Algeria could be next.” The veteran correspondent muses:

“That thought made me realize how different this all would be if Israel, rather than opposing a P5+1 [Germany and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council] agreement calling for new economic sanctions against Iran and threatening a military attack on Tehran’s nuclear facilities, would put its energy into developing a rational NPT option.”

By this logic, nuclear proliferation in the Middle East is Israel’s fault. By its extension, other Middle Eastern countries are not independent actors with their own motivations; they only react to actions of Israel and the West. In this line of thinking, Iran—despite its own calls to “wipe Israel off the map”—wants a nuclear weapon only because Israel has had one before the treaty existed.

To Pincus, the solution is simple: Israel should quit calling for Iran—a signatory to the NPT—to abide its promises and instead propose a “rational” NPT option. How this would elicit a different response from the world’s leading state sponsor of terror, a regime that repeatedly refuses to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) he doesn’t say.

A clouded crystal ball

Perhaps this is because nuclear proliferation in Middle Eastern countries isn’t the primary focus of the article—Israel’s defense policy is.

The Post’s long-time reporter and columnist asserts the Jewish state has no need for nuclear self-defense because “the threat to Israel that generated its bomb—overwhelming Arab armies—no longer exists. The Israel Defense Forces have far more conventional capability than the nation’s neighbors put together, including Iran.”

By this logic, Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, and their terrorist ilk pose little or no threat to Israel—even as they gobble up territory (including some near the Israeli-controlled portion of the Golan Heights), mount operations to kill Israelis, and in the case of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip—receive support from Iran. Similarly, had not Israeli bombers conducted “nuclear arms control” against Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007, conventional or terrorist armies might be protected today by radioactive umbrellas.

But in Pincus’ crystal ball photograph, as opposed to the Middle East’s unspooling video of upheaval, today’s tactical threats will never change into strategic dangers, Arab armies will never serve aggressive pan-Islamic regimes and Israel with its inescapable population inferiority will remain militarily superior to any combination of threats without a presumed nuclear arsenal.

Pretzel logic and crucial omissions leave the author comfortable with his mind-numbing claim “the best way to remove the Iran nuclear threat is to create a Middle East nuclear-free zone.” After all, he says, as if it mattered, it “has been on the U.N. agenda since the 1960s…promoted initially by Egypt and Iran [emphasis added].”

Not only CAMERA recognized Pincus’ faulty reasoning. Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Executive Director Abraham Foxman noted in a June 21, 2015 letter to the editor that Pincus’ attempt to compare Israel to South Africa—which cancelled its nuclear program—was “faulty” since “South Africa faced no enemies committed to its destruction. Israel faces an Iran that openly calls for the end of the Jewish state.”

Pincus concludes by “sadly” noting demands by theocrats in Tehran for Israel to sign the treaty—which the Iranian regime regularly violates—are not likely to be heeded.

In James Thurber’s 1939 short story “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty”—enlarged if not improved as a 2013 Ben Stiller film—the main character daydreams his fantasies into apparent reality. Many children play with imaginary friends; Pincus periodically writes about an imaginary Middle East.—Sean Durns

In a USA Today commentary, “Do Buffer Zones Deter Wars?” (Dec. 29, 2014) Lionel Beehner writes that such zones “maintain the uneasy peace between Israel and Egypt and Syria over the past few decades.” But “the one place in the Middle East with no real buffer … is within Israel itself, which is partly why violence with the Palestinians rekindles every few years.”

Are there “real buffers” in Syria? Iraq? Yemen? Libya? Never mind.

One hundred and twenty miles of largely unpopulated Sinai Desert, hosting a U.S.-led multinational observer force, does buffer Israel and Egypt. Israel occupies the Golan Heights, separating it from and looking down on a relatively unpopulated part of Syria.

But anti-Israel violence by Palestinian Arabs rarely comes from “within Israel itself.” Israel’s West Bank security barrier, which was a response to suicide bombers of the second intifada, plus checkpoints, good intelligence and occasional raids usually buffer Israel against terrorism from the well-populated territory that begins where suburban Tel Aviv and eastern Jerusalem stop.

What periodically rekindles Israeli-Palestinian violence? Contrary to Beehner, it’s not the lack of a buffer zone. At fault are the genocidal intentions of Hamas, which dominates the Gaza Strip, and repeated rejections of a “two-state solution” if it means peace with Israel as a Jewish state by the Fatah rulers of the West Bank.

Though not without its critics, Edward de Bono’s influential and commercially successful book Teaching Thinking appeared 39 years ago. Beehner, a member of USA Today’s board of contributors, Ph.D. candidate at Yale University and editor of the start-up online journal Cicero, apparently hasn’t read it yet.

(USA Today declined to publish a shorter version of the above as a letter to the editor.)

During last summer’s Operation Protective Edge, news reports often highlighted claims of noncombatant casualties made by Palestinian sources or agencies relying on such sources. They also emphasized damage Israel inflicted on housing and other Gaza Strip infrastructure during its war against Hamas and its allies in the Gaza Strip.

Such reports frequently missed the fact that many of those casualties were not civilians, for example, as indicated three weeks in the 50 days of fighting by CAMERA’s senior analyst Steve Stotsky (“How Hamas Wields Gaza’s Casualties as Propaganda,” TIME, July 29, 2014)

Another analysis, this one by the U.N. Office of Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, also was missed or ignored by much of the media. The United Nations, of course, is a font of anti-Israel activity, and one must sift through hyperbole in the Humanitarian Affairs office report about “unprecedented” destruction, but data it contains support Israel’s contention that it targeted Hamas in a restrained manner.

According to a review of the study, done for the Web site www.israellycool.com:

“It now becomes very clear that most of the damage was caused to 5 locations right on the border with Israel. The rest of the Gaza Strip was, for the most part, undamaged. The main population areas of Gaza City, Jabaliya, Khan Yunes, Rafah and Deir el-Balah were disproportionately undamaged.

“If we do a rough estimate of the damage area, it is once again clear the vast majority of the Gaza Strip was unscathed. With a fairly generous estimation that a damage point has a 25 meter radius — the footprint of a house, or the blast radius of a bomb — the total damage area of the 12,433 impacts was in the order of 15 KM2. The land area of the Gaza strip is 360 Km2. In other words, less than 5 percent of the land was affected” (“Assessing the UN’s OCHA ‘Gaza Crisis Atlas 2014’ Report,” Israellycool, Aug. 24, 2014).

Where was the coverage of such basic information? During the July-August war scores of pictures of Palestinian casualties and damaged or destroyed buildings ran in The Washington Post (“More than 100 Palestinians dead in worse day of Gaza conflict; Israel denies soldier captured,” July 24, 2014), New York Times (“Civilian or Not? New Fight in Tallying the Dead From the Gaza Conflict,” Aug. 5, 2014) and Chicago Tribune (“100 Palestinians, 13 Israelis killed in bloody Gaza fighting”, July 20, 2014), among others.

Yet, The Post, N.Y. Times, Tribune and many other outlets did not undertake their own analysis of the report the U.N. Office of Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. This, despite the fact that coverage of the fighting during the summer promoted heightened anti-Israel and, as exemplified by murderous slogans chanted at pro-Palestinian rallies in Europe, antisemitic behavior.

So, Israel’s intensive attacks against Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups in the Gaza Strip left 95 percent of the territory unscathed. Where was the coverage?—by Ziv Kaufman.

In a Washington Times commentary (“Hamas rules,” Aug. 6, 2014) Clifford D. May, president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, urges journalists to report more accurately from the Gaza Strip—or acknowledge the obstacles to doing so. He notes the limitations many reporters face in covering the region controlled by Hamas:

“Hamas restricts what journalists in Gaza may film, photograph and even write about. Hamas threatens and intimidates journalists who do not follow what might be called Hamas rules—rules designed to shape media coverage and influence perceptions around the world.

The problem, writes May—a former New York Times foreign correspondent—is that many in the news media fail to disclose to their audiences Hamas’ oppressive nature. This basic omission may leave readers, listeners and viewers to assume that coverage from the Gaza Strip is as reliable as that from countries that uphold press freedom, like the United States or Israel. May suggests journalists at least report on their personal experiences once they have left the Strip and returned home.

“Let me say this as clearly as I know how: The journalists covering Gaza are brave. I’m not saying they should be braver — much less reckless. I do think they should be honest with their readers and viewers about the conditions under which they are operating; namely, conditions of coercion, manipulation, restriction and censorship.”

He also notes that “on any day, any foreign reporter could be abducted, handcuffed and hooded, while their captors reviewed their dispatches. If not satisfied with what they see, that could be all she wrote — literally.”

If that’s the case then shouldn’t there be a discussion within the media about the overall accuracy of reporting from Gaza? Shouldn’t Hamas tactics of influence be something audiences are reminded of periodically? Reports from Gaza—or any society dominated by a single, anti-democratic party—may include not only the unintentional errors and distortions that can creep into news accounts anywhere but also propaganda presented as news, slanted or false information reporters are prohibited from checking adequately, let alone exposing.

May spotlights, among other examples of press intimidation in the Gaza Strip, the threat to John Reed of The Financial Times, “after he tweeted about rockets being fired” from near Shifa hospital and the warning to a television reporter who said he had seen rockets fired into Israel from near his hotel: “In WWII, spies got shot.”

On the other hand, May refers to NBC reporter Ayman Mohyeldi, first pulled out of the Strip after apparently one-sided, anti-Israel coverage, then sent back. Mohyeldi tweeted that he was “returning to #Gaza to report. Proud of NBC’s continued commitment to cover the #Palestinian side of the story.”

“How,” May asks, “to interpret that except as an admission that he covers only one side of the story? Can you imagine a reporter saying he was proud his media outlet was committed to covering ‘the Israeli side of the story’?”

May also spotlights what he calls hypocrisy and a double standard by some journalists:

“Finally, a few words on more subtle forms of journalistic bias: Early in the current round of fighting, reporters for The New York Times asked an Israeli military spokesman ‘about the repercussions of carrying out’ operations against Hamas ‘during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan’. If it occurred to these reporters to ask Hamas spokesmen about the ‘repercussions’ of firing missiles at Jerusalem during Ramadan, I missed it.”

Many journalists apparently believe that by their presence in the Gaza Strip they are providing—and audiences may assume they are getting—accurate coverage, balanced and in context. Reality is more complicated, the news picture more straightforward. The Gaza Strip is ruled by a terrorist organization; reporters are intimidated and comprehensive coverage is compromised. The press owes it to its audience to say so. — Ziv Kaufman

In the best-selling “Harry Potter” novels intimidated magicians refer to the central villain, Voldemort, as “He Who Must Not Be Named.” Tribune Newspapers—including The Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and Baltimore Sun—seemed equally intimidated in coverage of French riots last summer. They did not print journalism’s first “w”.

Without who, what, when, where, why and how journalism is less than gossip. Yet a Tribune Newspapers article headlined “French president pledges public security focus after riots” on The Los Angeles Times Web site August 14, linked from The Chicago Tribune site and appearing in the August 15 print edition of The Baltimore Sun under the head “French president vows crackdown after rioting” never really said who shot at police.

More than a dozen police were injured and several buildings damaged or destroyed, The Los Angeles Times’ Kim Willsher reported from Paris.

“French police said rioting youths opened fire on them amid violent clashes … on the outskirts of Amiens, which is troubled by high rates of unemployment and crime.” The disturbance, “apparently sparked by police spot checks on residents, followed outbreaks of violence last week in the southern city of Toulouse, when about 150 police and riot squad officers were sent to suburban housing estates [public housing projects] after reports of fighting between gangs of youths and bursts of gunfire.”

In Amiens, cars were stolen from their occupants and police and fire personnel obstructed “by barricades of burning cars and garbage cans ….”

Readers were told that “disaffected youth” live in “gritty suburbs” called banlieue. The banlieue “are often home to families with immigrant roots, where the number of failing schools and jobless young is especially high.”

“Disaffected youths,” “rioting youths” and “gangs of youths.” But no specific identification. “Families with immigrant backgrounds.” Immigrants from where? This too apparently must not be mentioned.

However, a reference to “more widespread rioting in 2005” in projects near Paris and to neighborhoods that “have become almost no-go areas for police” might tip off readers with decent memories. The 2005 rioters reportedly were mostly young Muslim men whose families had emigrated from Arab countries, former French possessions, in North Africa.

Another hushed clue was the mention of previous violence in Toulouse. Again, unassisted by Tribune papers, readers might recall that in March a French Muslim of Algerian descent with reported jihadist and anti-Israel motives murdered three children and a teacher at a Jewish school and, separately, two French soldiers.

The Tribune dispatch said that according to Interior Minister Maneul Valls, Amiens and 14 other “security priority zones” had been targeted for increased patrols because “acts of incivility were structurally deep-rooted” and the zones “had become havens for the ‘black market economy, the trafficking of drugs and arms’ as well as violence, thefts and gangs.”

It’s one thing for a political appointee in a country with difficulty absorbing large numbers of Muslim immigrants (an estimated five million or more, eight to nine percent of France’s 65 million people) to talk about “structurally deep-rooted acts of incivility.” It’s another for major news media to refuse—while referring to socio-economic causes—to simply identify who did what to whom.

A partisan source and leading interview questions made for an unreliable June 3 segment on “The World,” a one-hour weekday radio news magazine co-produced by the British Broadcasting Corp. and WGBH Boston for Public Radio International. Anchor Marco Werman interviewed Lara Lee, a U.S.-based Brazilian filmmaker who was on board the “Mavi Marmara” as it attempted to run Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip, precipitating a fight in which nine Turkish men were killed.

“We didn’t have weapons,” Lee claimed. “Our ships were fully inspected before departure.” This despite video footage of Israeli soldiers being attacked by passengers with iron bars and clubs and wire service photographs showing passengers holding knives and standing over wounded commandos.

“These Gazan people be completely, like, locked in where they cannot have access to food, medication and cement and all sorts of basic products and people are injured or have diseases and they can’t have medication in the hospitals,” Lee alleged. Werman didn’t ask Lee about the hundreds of tons of aid, including food and medicine, Israel allows into Gaza weekly or the thousands of Gazans it treats annually in Israeli hospitals.

Instead, like a prosecuting attorney leading a willing witness, he asked questions including, “Israel has said its commandos fired in self defense after they were clubbed, stabbed and fired upon by activists who had snatched the commandos’ pistols. At any time did you see any fighting between the activists and the commandos?” and “And did the Israelis confiscate your cameras?”

“The World’s” overall coverage of the Gaza flotilla managed to avoid interviewing a single Israeli. In addition to Lee, Werman chatted with Jeffery Goldberg (June 2), a correspondent for Atlantic Monthly magazine, BBC’s Jon Donnison (June 2) and Bethany Bell (June 3), and Magdi Abdelhadi, an Arab Affairs analyst at the BBC (June 4) regarding the flotilla. Journalists talking to other journalists about news generally is not news. And even with inclusion of Goldberg, “The World’s” Lara Lee-BBC line-up was anything but balanced. – Traci Siegel, research intern.

The controversy in Canada provoked by a speech given by Jason Kenney, Canadian Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism in December needs a bit of unpacking, particularly in light of recent Ynet article which stated that the Canadian government had recently decided not to fund Kairos, a welfare agency supported by Canadian churches, because of its support for efforts to promote divestment from Israel.

The YNET report states:

The Canadian government has recently decided to cut back or entirely withdraw the funding to organizations that encourage a boycott of Israel or Israeli products, including pro-Palestinian and Christian groups.

One such organization is the Kairos welfare agency, which lost $7 million – half of its annual budget. Kairos is a social apparatus serving 11 Catholic and Protestant groups and churches promoting the “liberation theology” within the Canadian legal and educational establishments.

Canadian Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said that the agency’s budget was cut back in light of its anti-Semitic positions, adding the group preaches for recognition of such terror organizations as Hamas and Hezbollah while rejecting the Jewish people’s right for a state.

In fact, the Canadian government did not cut the organization’s annual budget, but denied a grant application filed by Kairos. Moroever, the government’s decison was not related to the organization’s anti-Israel stance but was largely due to funding priorities of the Canadian government.

Nevertheless, the controversy over Kenney’s speech in Jerusalem did, thanks to the work of Canadian journalists, draw attention to the organization’s discriminatory attitude toward Israel, which the organization’s leaders have apparently tried to obscure.
(more…)