The Times' claim that Palestinian Tayseer Mleitat was killed by Israeli troops "at a protest" is a gross misrepresentation of information available in the paper's own archives: he was part of a crowd of hundreds which targeted soldiers with Molotov cocktails and rocks.
Haaretz has falsely charged that the Israeli-Palestinian violence started due to "a disrespectful attack at the Al-Aqsa Mosque." Ignoring the evidence, many other media outlets around the world have echoed this. In fact, the chain of events indicates not only that the violence was a pre-planned Hamas initiative, but also that it was instigated despite a series of steps that the Israeli government took to calm things down, steps that had a heavy political and public cost in Israel.
Why did Israel Hayom mistranslate Ambassador Ron Dermer's statement about a "two-state solution" into "a solution for two peoples," and what are the implications of the inaccurate translation?
Haaretz's Shany Littman describes a "violent attack by rightists" against then Balad activist Yael Lerer at a 2013 panel at Netanya Academic College. "It was almost a lynching," Lerer claims, but her own videos of the incident tell a very different story.
Fatah, the ruling Palestinian party, published a threatening video inciting against Israeli journalists, and the International Federation of Journalists, the largest organization representing journalists internationally, has yet to voice any concern.
Haaretz contributor Odeh Bisharat falsely argues that President Trump's executive order targeting campus antisemitism will place Israel "above criticism," while the definition that the president endorses explicitly specifies otherwise.
Haaretz's Levy insists it's often "impossible" to criticize Israel in mainstream Western newspapers. Perhaps he's never read a mainstream Western newspaper?
Haaretz investigate journalist Uri Blau writes that a shadowy Israeli organization spied on Linda Sarsour. But then Middle East Forum, an American think tank, stepped forward, saying it compiled the dossier, collecting everything from open sources.
Haaretz takes the prime minister's son to task for "an anti-Semitic collage he posted to the exultant cheers" of a former KKK leader. Meanwhile, guess how many times neo-Nazis, including the same David Duke, gleefully feted Haaretz content.
Daniel Blatman writes in Haaretz that Benny Morris (at left) contradicts his earlier research when he claims that pre-state Zionist leaders did not have a grand plan to expel Palestinian Arabs. Morris maintains that for decades his position has been consistent. Which historian is correct?