A view of Metulla, northern Israel (Photo by Hadar Sela)After failing to set the record straight last May when Agence France Presse’s Arabic service repeatedly referred to Jewish communities in northern Israel as “settlements,” the Arabic-language wire reports no longer misidentify these locales within Israel’s pre-1967 lines.

Throughout last week’s round of escalation between Israel and Lebanon, AFP’s Arabic coverage consistently refrained from using this term when mentioning Kiryat Shmona, calling it “a town” instead. In comparison, between May 14 and 19, AFP referred to nearby Metula as “a settlement” no less than three times.

Notably, in recent months CAMERA Arabic prompted several Arabic news outlets to correct the “settlement” terminology with regards to Jewish communities inside Israel’s internationally recognized territory: BBC, Reuters and EuroNews.

The historian Deborah Lipstadt described Holocaust inversion — the act of described Jews in Israel as the new Nazis — as a form of “soft-core denial.” This style of Holocaust denial is part of an equation that, when looked at from one direction, amounts to hateful anti-Israelism, and from the other, as no less than historical revisionism about the Nazis. In Lipstadt’s words, Holocaust inversion is “a false comparison which elevates by a factor of a zillion any wrongdoings Israel might have done, and lessens by a factor of a zillion what the Germans did.”

It seems that Mike Isaac, a tech writer for the the New York Times, would prefer his readers think of the phenomenon as innocent commentary—certainly not something that a social-media site should regard as hateful speech.

Isaac’s March 19 piece in the paper’s Technology section speaks of how Facebook’s algorithms, and even its human moderators, sometimes fail to recognize satire and so wrongly flag as hate-speech political cartoons that are in fact meant to mock and highlight hate-speech. Or as the story’s headline and subhead put it, “For Political Cartoonists, the Irony Was That Facebook Didn’t Recognize Irony; As Facebook has become more active at moderating political speech, it has had trouble dealing with satire.”

As an example, the piece points to a cartoon mocking violent inclinations of the far-right “Proud Boys,” which Facebook removed from its site because it wrongly interpreted the cartoon as “advocating violence.”

Later in the piece, the author turned to what he cast as another example of Facebook screwing things up:

When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in 2019 that he would bar two congresswomen — critics of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians — from visiting the country, Mr. Hall drew a cartoon showing a sign affixed to barbed wire that read, in German, “Jews are not welcome here.” He added a line of text addressing Mr. Netanyahu: “Hey Bibi, did you forget something?”

Mr. Hall said his intent was to draw an analogy between how Mr. Netanyahu was treating the U.S. representatives and Nazi Germany. Facebook took the cartoon down shortly after it was posted, saying it violated its standards on hate speech.

Here’s the cartoon in question:

In the view of many Jews and others, the content of this cartoon is indeed an example of hate speech. It’s not only Deborah Lipstadt, who specializes in the history of the Holocaust, who has argued as much. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (or IHRA), a multinational Holocaust-education organization, includes in its definition of antisemitism the following example of the hatred: “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” (A similar definition was used by the Obama-era State Department.)

And so a Times piece meant to show Facebook failing recognizing the difference between hate and satire itself failed to distinguish between Holocaust minimization and innocent irony. What more should we expect from a newspaper with a history of failing to recognize antisemitism?

A recent New York Times book review boosts Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) autobiography while glossing over her antisemitism. In the paper’s Aug. 16, 2020 edition, NYT reporter Christina Cauterucci writes:

The memoir offers breathing room for Omar, who has been the target of racist attacks and whose history-making tenure in Congress has been marked by disputes with colleagues, especially over their support for Israel, in the claustrophobic confines of Twitter threads. Her efforts to deter further outrage are evident throughout the book, which barely touches topics that have inflamed her critics… But, with unrepentant recollections of schoolyard brawls with bullies, Omar bolsters her image as a scrapper constitutionally incapable of backing down. “Fighting didn’t feel like a choice,” she writes. “It was a part of me.”

Yet Omar supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. As CAMERA has noted, “BDS seeks the end of the Jewish state, singles out Israel for opprobrium, has been declared antisemitic by various legislative bodies, and is endorsed by terrorist organizations like Hamas.”

Ilhan Omar’s problems with Jews and Israel

• In July 2020, an Omar campaign mailer accused her congressional opponent of being “in the pocket of Wall Street” and mentions three Jewish donors by name. The mailer references only the three donors, plus “Michael, a donor from Scarsdale, New York.” This echoes the anti-Semitic trope that Jews exercise excessive political influence through use of outsize wealth.

• In February 2019, Omar employed the anti-Semitic dual loyalty trope while referring to American Jewish supporters of Israel: “[There is] the political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”

• In February 2019 Omar tweeted, “It’s all about the Benjamins, baby!” in response to a report about AIPAC, a pro-Israel organization. Omar’s tweet echoed a longstanding anti-Semitic trope — the implication that Jewish political influence operates entirely (“all about”) through money as well as the implication that Jews exercise undue political influence. The tweet refers to the fact that a representation of Benjamin Franklin is on the $100 bill, the largest U.S. dollar bill in circulation.

• In March 2019 Omar stated: “some people [who] did something” — in describing the Islamist terrorists who killed thousands of Americans on Sept. 11, 2001.

• In a November 2012 tweet, Omar accused Israel of “hypnotizing the world,” while insinuating that her fellow lawmakers are purchased by Jewish money, and that the Jewish Americans among them have dual loyalties. Her comments meet the widely accepted International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, used by the U.S. State Department and others.

The Times, of course, has had its problems with Jews and Israel as has been chronicled by CAMERA since 1992. A recent example involves the Times repeatedly turning to the radical Peter Beinart’s advocacy for dissolving the Jewish state.

Another recent example involves the newspaper’s erroneous claim that that there had been a “longstanding American policy treating the settlements as illegal,” which remained in place until Secretary of State Pompeo announced a reversal in 2019. The newspaper is aware of the error but has refused to correct or put forward a defense for its claim.

Perhaps particularly shameful is the newspaper’s record during the early to middle part of the previous century when it buried news about the Holocaust.

It should not come as a surprise that the New York Times glosses over Ilhan Omar’s problems with Jews and Israel.

Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) documented animosity toward Jews and Israel was ignored in recent interviews by MSNBC and C-SPAN.

 

MSNBC’s The Beat for July 23, 2020 included host Ari Melber’s 10-minute conversation at 6:16 pm EST with Omar (screenshot above left).

MSNBC’s The Reidout with Joy Reid for July 24, 2020 provided a 15-minute conversation at 7:18 pm EST with Omar (screenshot above right).

C-SPAN’s BookTV program aired on July 26, 2020 a 35-minute conversation between host Peter Slen and Omar about her book, “This Is What America Looks Like” dealing with “her journey from Somalia as a refugee to becoming one of the first Muslim women elected to the U.S. Congress.”

These interviews provided Omar with valuable public exposure during an election season, but they failed to note her history of antisemitism.

Ilhan Omar’s problem with Jews and Israel

• In July 2020, an Omar campaign mailer accused her congressional opponent of being “in the pocket of Wall Street” and mentions three Jewish donors by name. The mailer references only the three donors, plus “Michael, a donor from Scarsdale, New York.” This echoes the anti-Semitic trope that Jews exercise excessive political influence through use of outsize wealth.

• In February 2019, Omar employed the anti-Semitic dual loyalty trope while referring to American Jewish supporters of Israel: “[There is] the political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”

• In February 2019 Omar tweeted, “It’s all about the Benjamins, baby!” in response to a report about AIPAC, a pro-Israel organization. Omar’s tweet echoed a longstanding anti-Semitic trope — the implication that Jewish political influence operates entirely (“all about”) through money as well as the implication that Jews exercise undue political influence. The tweet refers to the fact that a representation of Benjamin Franklin is on the $100 bill, the largest U.S. dollar bill in circulation.

• In March 2019 Omar stated: “some people [who] did something” — in describing the Islamist terrorists who killed thousands of Americans on Sept. 11, 2001.

• In a November 2012 tweet, Omar accused Israel of “hypnotizing the world,” while insinuating that her fellow lawmakers are purchased by Jewish money, and that the Jewish Americans among them have dual loyalties. Her comments meet the widely accepted International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, used by the U.S. State Department and others.

Is there any other prominent ethnic/religious/national group that would be so egregiously overlooked or slighted as in these interviews on MSNBC or C-SPAN or, for that matter, any other major network?

WCVB-TV (channel 5) (Boston’s ABC network affiliate) recently misled area viewers about a matter involving antisemitic propaganda. This occurred on its local Sunday show Cityline hosted by Karen Holmes Ward who is described by the television station as “Director of Public Affairs and Community Services as well as host and executive producer of CityLine, WCVB’s award-winning weekly magazine program which addresses the accomplishments, concerns and issues facing people of color living in Boston and its suburbs.”

Curiously, WCVB deemed the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder an opportune moment to re-air a CityLine broadcast about the negative reaction to Member of Congress Ilhan Omar’s comments that were widely condemned as antisemitic.

The broadcast

The May 31, 2020 CityLine, focusing on the Boston area Muslim community, featured an interview with John Robbins, the executive director of the Massachusetts chapter of CAIR, designated an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal conspiracy to help fund Hamas.

Ward, noting that Ilhan Omar’s comments led to a U.S. House of Representatives resolution condemning antisemitism and other forms of hate, asked Robbins about his view that Islamophobia, rather than the nature of Omar’s remarks, were driving criticism of Omar’s comments that were akin to classic antisemitic propaganda. “That’s in the pot along with anti-black racism,” responded CAIR’s Robbins, apparently understanding that linking Omar’s critics with anti-black racists demonizes them yet more.

Ward asked, “Do you feel politicians on both sides are treating her [Omar] harsher because she is Muslim?” “Over and over again,” answered Robbins.

Ward pointed out that Omar’s words are thought to denigrate the Jewish community, but even this, she suggests, is a solely Jewish-centric view, turning to Robbins to confirm that “in the larger world” Omar’s views are not necessarily considered antisemitic. She asks: “In fairness to the Jewish community, many feel her comments were inappropriate. How are her comments being interpreted to the larger world?”

“She [Omar] apologized for anyone offended by that … [but] the idea is that anybody should be able to freely criticize any individual lobbying organization in the U.S.,” argued Robbins, adding, “Our hope is that this could be a breakthrough moment in which American Muslims can feel open to discuss any issues without taboo affecting our community, especially those in the Palestinian community who have felt they have not been able to discuss important issues.”

But what’s the evidence that Palestinians and other Muslims have fear, or reason to fear, to openly state their views on important issues? The host fails to ask. Meanwhile, viewers were left in the dark about what CAIR and Ilhan Omar are really all about.

• In a November 2012 tweet, Omar accused Israel of “hypnotizing the world,” while insinuating that her fellow lawmakers are purchased by Jewish money, and that the Jewish Americans among them have dual loyalties. Her comments meet the widely accepted International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, used by the U.S. State Department and others.

• In February 2019, Omar voiced the antisemitic dual loyalty trope while referring to American Jewish supporters of Israel, “[There is] the political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”

• In February 2019 Omar tweeted, “It’s all about the Benjamins, baby!” in response to a report about AIPAC, a pro-Israel organization. Omar’s tweet echoed a longstanding antisemitic trope — in particular, the implication that Jewish political influence operates entirely (“all about”) through money. The tweet refers to the fact that a representation of Benjamin Franklin is on the $100 bill, the largest U.S. dollar bill in circulation.

• In March 2019 Omar stated “some people [who] did something” — in describing the Islamist terrorists who killed thousands of Americans on Sept. 11, 2001.

Why at this time of racial unrest including sometimes violent protests, would a Boston TV station rebroadcast a segment in which a disreputable source accuses critics of antisemitism of being racists?

WCVB viewers deserve better.

Fareed Zakaria and Ehud Olmert, a former prime minister of Israel (June 21 broadcast)

In the teaser at the beginning of his June 21 show “Global Public Square” (GPS), Zakaria drew this unwarranted, likely agenda-driven conclusion:

Israel’s Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu said if he was put back in office, he would annex parts of the West Bank. That dramatic act could happen just days from now. I will talk to Netanyahu’s predecessor, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who said it is proof that Israel today does not want peace with the Palestinians.

In fact, Olmert’s assertions, as shown by CNN’s transcript, fell far short of claiming that “it [annexing parts of the West Bank] is proof that Israel today does not want peace with the Palestinians.”

Zakaria, like his colleagues at CNN, can be depended upon to regularly disparage the Jewish state.

A news story in Haaretz‘s English edition yesterday applied a double standard in its treatment of NGOs (“Fearing structural collapse, Israel halts dig in East Jerusalem,” page 3, and online here.)

Nir Hasson’s online article cited the “right-wing, settler Elad Association.” Similarly, the print edition mentions “the right-wing Elad Association.”

In contrast, when the article mentioned “The archeological group Emek Shaveh” it did not identify the organization as “left-wing” even though it has a clear left-wing agenda. Why the double standard?

If the political leanings of one organization is mentioned, then the leanings of the opposing organization should also be mentioned. Alternatively, if Emek Shaveh’s political inclinations aren’t mentioned, then why insert Elad’s?

Nir Hasson’s Hebrew article does not include political descriptions of either organization.

See also, “Haaretz, Lost in Translation“

Writing in Harper’s, Kevin Baker condemns the U.S. Middle East peace plan [“The Striking Gesture,” Easy Chair, May 2020], mischaracterizing it as, “Give up all your [Palestinian] hopes and your holiest places, embark on a terrible civil war with your brothers, hand over all your weapons …”

First, it’s not true that the Palestinians would be giving up their “holiest places.” Nowhere is it indicated in the peace plan that Muslims would lose any holy places.

Furthermore, the writer fails to inform readers why it would be dangerous to fail to limit the arming of a Palestinian state: There were the wars of 1948 and 1973 caused by attacks aimed at destroying the Jewish state by armies of Arab nations allied with the Palestinians. There was the war in 1967 precipitated by the hostile actions of Egypt, an ally of the Palestinians, endangering Israel. This had been preceded by an increase of Palestinian terrorist attacks upon Israelis.

Then, during the 1980s, 1990s and in 2000-2005, West Bank Palestinians perpetrated organized terrorist intifadas which killed over a thousand Jews.

The ongoing violence has been fueled by the Palestinian Authority’s cradle-to-grave incitement of the people. For example, as the Wall Street Journal noted in 2015, “Mr. [Mahmoud] Abbas, the PA president, said the following on Palestinian television on Sept. 16: ‘We welcome every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem. This is pure blood, clean blood, blood on its way to Allah. With the help of Allah, every martyr [murderer of Jews] will be in heaven, and every wounded will get his reward.’”

Hopefully, the next time a Harper’s writer deals with this subject matter or a similar topic, the approach will be more measured.

The following photo and caption appeared in the Arabic version of an article by Reuters’ Stephen Farrell, published on April 24 and dedicated to the opening Friday of Ramadan in the Old City of Jerusalem:

The Arabic reads: “Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque with the Dome of the Rock behind it – a picture from the Reuters archive.”

However, the dome shown in the back of the photo belongs to the mosque itself, while the Dome of the Rock does not appear at all in the picture as is located behind the camera.

Notably, the English version of the same article is accompanied by a different photo and does not contain the error.

Given the great importance of both buildings to Muslims worldwide, it is rather striking that editors of Reuters’ Arabic service made this error. CAMERA had notified editors of the error, and yet they have failed to correct.

To some pundits, it goes without saying that checkpoints in the West Bank should be discussed with the bleakest of terms.

The checkpoints Israel erected in the West Bank during waves of Palestinian suicide bombings are understood by Israelis to be life-saving, and there is no shortage of examples they could point to of would-be bombers stopped at a checkpoint before they could reach their target.

Outside of Israel, though, they are often cast in a different light. They inflict “moral and physical suffering” for no other reason than to “humiliate and intimidate another people,” insisted a pair of foreign visitors to the West Bank wrote the New York Times international edition, having once passed through a checkpoint.

“I can no longer endure the anxiety” caused in part by traffic created by checkpoints, insisted Raja Shehadeh, a frequent New York Times contributor who just last week absurdly claimed Israel’s curfew on the West Bank in 2002 was imposed as “normal life” continued in the Jewish state, though 2002 was a year of relentless Palestinian suicide bombings and hundreds of Israeli deaths, unprecedented in Israeli history.

“Some of the checkpoints create terror rather than prevent it,” declared the head of an advocacy group.

It was striking, then, to hear NPR correspondent Daniel Estrin reference West Bank checkpoints this Tuesday on Morning Edition as follows:

There are over a hundred cases of Palestinians who have caught the [corona]virus in the West Bank. … And Palestinian authorities very quickly imposed lockdowns even earlier than Israel did, much stricter lockdowns. It’s very difficult to move around in the West Bank. Palestinians can’t drive between cities. There are checkpoints that Palestinian security officials have set up. And Palestinians are rallying around their leadership right now. They like these strict measures.

The approval of these “strict measures” makes sense. Burdensome interventions like checkpoints are sometimes necessary to save Palestinian lives. When the alternative is hospitalization or death for sick Palestinians, they not only can handle restrictions on movement, but welcome them.

Editors rushing to print hyperbole about Israeli measures might also keep in mind that burdensome interventions like checkpoints are also sometimes necessary to save Israeli lives, too.