An Amnesty International USA board member and director at a U.S.-funded NGO shares social media content that dignifies the murder of Jewish civilians, praises Palestinian war crimes, lies about the laws of war, and argues Israel will be expelled from the Middle East because there isn't enough room for the Jewish-Israeli people.
An Amnesty official suggested the reason neither he nor Amnesty will address concerns over factual errors is because such time won't “contribute to helping to end Israeli apartheid.” In other words, the conclusion has already been declared and the facts don’t matter. The hypothesis must be treated as correct regardless of what the data shows. This is not the behavior of a credible fact-finder.
Roth’s reaction to his rejection from Harvard's Kennedy School is simply the latest iteration of his penchant for blaming the Jews first, and asking questions later.
After Kenneth Roth, the former head of Human Rights Watch, received a preliminary offer of a Senior Fellowship from the Carr Center at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, the offer was not approved by the Kennedy School's Dean. Roth's reaction was to lie about his own and HRW's record, and cast blame on -- surprise -- Israel and the Jews, thus illustrating why the Dean was right to nix him.
The answer as to why these actors are so militant about appointing and defending known anti-Israel partisans and antisemites should be obvious. A fair analysis of the allegations would not produce the outcome they so desire. Whether ensuring only anti-Israel partisans are appointed to investigate Israel or crying “smear campaign” when those partisans are caught saying the quiet part out loud, these actors are invested in creating a lose-lose game for the Jewish state and the Jewish people.
VOA states that its staff must follow the principle of presenting “a comprehensive, reliable, and unbiased description of events.” In relation to its coverage of the COI, VOA has come up well short of these principles.
For all their high-minded rhetoric about free speech and expression, some “human rights” activists and lawyers seem zealously opposed to allowing debate. As a recent conference panel demonstrated, this is particularly true among those who seek to besmirch the Jewish state with substantively empty accusations of “apartheid” and “racism.” However, after efforts by CAMERA and others to counteract this behavior, purveyors of the libel – and their sponsors – now know they will not be left unchallenged.
Contrary to what the teen fashion magazine would like readers to believe, using extremely biased sources to tell a one-sided, anti-Israel story is not a Jewish value.
Media coverage of Israel is, with growing frequency, more comparable to activism than actual journalism. Indeed, as the Shireen Abu Akleh controversy highlights, journalists are failing to ask basic questions while simultaneously giving platforms and awards to activists masquerading as reporters.
