A CNN broadcast accused Carmel's Israeli residents of using a security fence to block Palestinian children from attending school. CAMERA's investigation found that a safe alternative route is readily available and exposed the documented antisemitic threats that originally necessitated the barrier.
One of the most fundamental tenets of liberal Western democracy is that moral standards are universal, and that there can be no exceptions to this principle due to race, religion, ethnicity or any other mere accident of birth.
The Economist's failure to hold Palestinian jihadists responsible for their decisions is both racist and fundamentally illiberal.
Ali Velshi’s absurd falsehood that “all of the violence in the West Bank has been settler violence on Palestinians” isn’t just untrue. It’s wildly offensive. It erases the victims of Palestinian terrorism and whitewashes the reality of Israelis who have to live with it on a daily basis.
The similarities between entries in the style guide used by the Hamas-supporting and terrorist-employing Qatari government-funded media outlet (which has been banned by several Arab countries) and those appearing in the BBC style guides certainly raise questions regarding the standards to which Britain’s national broadcaster apparently aspires.
The BBC's Sarah Montague advances the canard that the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) is all “Palestinian territory” and takes a thinly veiled swipe at diaspora Jews who make aliyah and choose to live there.
In order to meet its obligations to provide audiences with balanced and fair reporting, the BBC would have to consider the Palestinian people as equally capable of being political actors in their own right, something which unfortunately happens all too rarely.
Over the course of a single week, PBS NewsHour pushed one-sided narratives of Israeli policy, erased American victims of Oct. 7, and offered soft, unchallenged interviews to a repressive Iranian regime. This reporting raises questions over whether it is attempting to inform its viewers or persuade them.
To produce a documentary about a peace movement which only shows pain, suffering, and trauma on one side, and lays all agency, responsibility, and violence at the feet of the other, is a narrative decision which fails catastrophically in the BBC’s commitment to impartiality and accuracy.
The AP article on Israel's move to legalize the Yatziv outpost notes that "fittingly, the new settlement’s name means 'stable' in Hebrew." Unfortunately, AP's reporting on the disputed site flounders in factual instability.
Why did The Jerusalem Post give a platform to B'Tselem, thereby legitimizing an organization whose mission and methods revolve around demonizing Israel in the international realm as opposed to working on the ground to effect positive change in the Jewish state?
