Wednesday, February 21, 2018
  Home
RSS Feed
Facebook
Twitter
Search:
Media Analyses
Journalists
Middle East Issues
Christian Issues
Names In The News
CAMERA Authors
Headlines & Photos
Errors & Corrections
 Corrected
 Uncorrected
 Dismal Corrections
Film Reviews
CAMERA Publications
Film Suggestions
Be An Activist
Adopt A Library
History of CAMERA
About CAMERA
Join/Contribute
Contact CAMERA
Contact The Media
Privacy Policy
 
Corrected

E-1

Error (Ha'aretz, Chaim Levinson and Barak Ravid, 1/14/13): The evacuation -- which involved about 500 police and Israel Defense Forces soldiers -- was carried out despite a temporary injunction issued by the High Court of Justice preventing the state from evacuating the encampment for six days, pending deliberations.

Correction (2/7/13): In the article "Troops evacuate Palestinians from E-1 tent protest despite court injunction," by Chaim Levinson and Barak Ravid, it should have been made clear that the court injunction referred to tents rather than the protesters.



Error (Guardian, Harriet Sherwood, 1/13/13): On Saturday evening, Netanyahu demanded the Israeli supreme court overturn an injunction preventing the removal of the protesters, and ordered the area to be declared a closed military zone. . . .

The activists sought legal protection from the supreme court, which granted an injunction against eviction and gave the state of Israel up to six days to respond.



Correction (1/17/13): On Saturday evening, Netanyahu demanded the Israeli supreme court overturn an injunction preventing the removal of the tents, and ordered the area to be declared a closed military zone. . . .

This article was amended on 14 January and 17 January 2013. Activists were detained but not formally arrested. In addition a sub-heading and text were amended to make clear the Supreme Court injunction referred to tents rather than the protesters. This has been corrected.



Error (Guardian, subheadline, 1/13/13): Israeli military detain activists in early morning swoop on Bab al-Shams encampment despite supreme court ruling

Correction (1/17/13): Israeli military detain activists in early morning swoop on Bab al-Shams . . .

This article was amended on 14 January and 17 January 2013. Activists were detained but not formally arrested. In addition a sub-heading and text were amended to make clear the Supreme Court injunction referred to tents rather than the protesters. This has been corrected.



Error (Los Angeles Times, Maher Abukhater, 1/14/13): Police also removed 25 tents from the area.

Correction (1/16/13): Palestinian tents: An article in the Jan. 14 Section A about a police raid on a tent village set up by Palestinian activists on land that Israel has designated as the site of a new settlement said that the tents were removed. The activists were evicted, but the tents were left standing pending a court appeal.



Error (Guardian, Harriet Sherwood, 1/13/13): According to activists, a large military force surrounded the encampment at around 3am. All protesters were arrested and six were injured, said Abir Kopty. . . .

Palestinian legislator Mustafa Barghouti, who was was among those arrested, said the eviction was "proof that the Israeli government operates an apartheid system."

Correction (Online as of 1/15/13): This article was amended on 14 January 2013. Activists were detained but not formally arrested. This has been corrected.



Error (New York Times, Jodi Ruderon and Mark Landler, 12/1/12): Construction in E1, in West Bank territory that Israel captured in the 1967 war, would connect the large Jewish settlement of Maale Adumim to Jerusalem, dividing the West Bank in two. The Palestinian cities of Ramallah and Bethlehem would be cut off from the capital, making the contiguous Palestinian state endorsed by the United Nations last week virtually impossible.

Correction (12/8/12): Because of an editing error, an article last Saturday about Israel’s decision to move forward with planning and zoning for settlements in an area east of Jerusalem known as E1 described imprecisely the effect of such development on access to the cities of Ramallah and Bethlehem from Jerusalem. While development of E1 would limit access to Ramallah and Bethlehem to narrow corridors far from the Old City and downtown Jerusalem, it would not completely separate those cities from Jerusalem.



Error (New York Times, Jodi Ruderon, 12/2/12): Construction in E1, in West Bank territory that Israel captured in the 1967 war, would connect the large Jewish settlement of Maale Adumim to Jerusalem, dividing the West Bank in two. The Palestinian cities of Ramallah and Bethlehem would be cut off from the capital, making the contiguous Palestinian state endorsed by the United Nations last week virtually impossible. . . Like E1, [construction in Givat Hamatos] too would be a roadblock to plans for a contiguous Palestinian state . .

Correction (12/16/12 (in print); 12/10/12 (online)): An article on Dec. 2 about Israel’s decision to move forward with planning and zoning for settlements in an area east of Jerusalem known as E1 described imprecisely the effect of such development on access to the cities of Ramallah and Bethlehem from Jerusalem, and on the West Bank. Development of E1 would limit access to Ramallah and Bethlehem, leaving narrow corridors far from the Old City and downtown Jerusalem; it would not completely cut off those cities from Jerusalem. It would also create a large block of Israeli settlements in the center of the West Bank; it would not divide the West Bank in two. And because of an editing error, the article referred incompletely to the possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state. Critics see E1 as a threat to the meaningful contiguity of such a state because it would leave some Palestinian areas connected by roads with few exits or by circuitous routes; the proposed development would not technically make a contiguous Palestinian state impossible.