Saturday, April 20th | 13 Nisan 5784

May 17, 2022 9:35 am

The Media Doesn’t Bother with Facts; Israel Is Always Guilty

× [contact-form-7 404 "Not Found"]

avatar by Adam Levick


A photo of Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, who was killed in the West Bank city of Jenin on May 11, 2022. Photo: Reuters

There was no Guardian editorial condemning the April 7 execution of three Israeli Jewish civilians in Tel Aviv by a Palestinian from Jenin named Raad Hazem; there was also no editorial in response to any of the terror attacks in Israel and the West Bank since March 22 that have left 19 dead.

The murder of innocent Jews by Palestinian or Arab extremists, often inspired by ubiquitous antisemitic incitement by their leadership, is not and has never been a moral concern to The Guardian or its readers.

However, the killing of Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh during a firefight between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian gunmen in Jenin, under unclear circumstances, prompted an official editorial (“The Guardian view on Shireen Abu Akleh: press freedom under attack” May 13), that not only presumes Israeli guilt, but dishonestly suggests that their army intentionally targets journalists.

The editorial begins by framing Abu Akleh’s death as representing an attack on press freedoms in “the Holy Land” — a charge that, in theory, could include attacks and restrictions on journalists by the Palestinian leadership, but, based on the subsequent text, clearly is aimed only at Israel:

Abu Akleh was among a group of journalists covering a raid by the [IDF] in … Jenin on Wednesday when, according to reporters present, soldiers shot her in the head … Her Qatar-based employer accused Israeli soldiers of shooting Abu Akleh “in cold blood.”

The term “in cold blood” — employed by an outlet well-known as a mouthpiece for the Qatari royal family that routinely promotes radical Islamist and antisemitic messaging — refers to killings that are intentional. The Guardian’s editorial continues with contempt towards any Israeli response, writing that “Israel’s response was a familiar one: claim the shooter was a Palestinian,” and then writing that “Israel now says its troops may have ‘accidentally’ shot her.”

Yes, in the firefight with terrorists in question, it’s certainly possible, given the evidence currently available, that Israeli forces accidentally — as opposed to deliberately — shot the journalist. But, it’s staggering that editors can be totally dismissive of the other possibility: that Palestinian terrorists fired the shot killing Abu Akleh.

Let’s remember that a Palestinian forensic doctor from the Palestinian Authority (PA) Health Ministry acknowledged that he couldn’t determine who was to blame — a fact not reported by The Guardian to date in their coverage of the incident.

The editorial continues:

Whoever shot Abu Akleh ought to be held accountable. But the Israeli army investigating itself will not have the trust of Palestinians, or the wider world.

This is supremely dishonest, as they omit the fact that Palestinian leaders have refused Israeli offers to conduct a joint investigation.

The most appalling passages of the editorial follows:

At least 47 journalists have been killed by Israeli forces since 2000. Palestinians are particularly vulnerable, too often treated not as impartial observers but as partisans — rarely receiving official accreditation, having their movements restricted and being assaulted with impunity.  No one has been held to account in Israel for media deaths.

The press release they link to is based on a report by International Federation of Journalists that is deeply flawed, as it includes, in its tally of “journalists” killed by Israeli forces, those, like Yasser Abd al-Rahman Murtaja, who were actually Hamas operatives.

Alternatively, the Committee to Protect Journalists has a thorough list which reports that 19 journalists have been killed in Israel and the Palestinian territories — a region where a disproportionate number of journalists are stationed — in a database going back to 1992. Most were killed by “crossfire,” with only one intentionally murdered — by Palestinians.

In other words, contrary to The Guardian’s suggestion, it’s extremely rare for a journalist to be killed in the region, and those who are killed are typically victims of “crossfire” in conflict zones.

If The Guardian was truly concerned about press freedom, they would have consulted Reporters Without Borders, which lists “Palestine” among the worst places for press freedom, ranking it 170th out of 180 countries and territories listed. The internationally respected human rights group Freedom House confirms that Israel is generally a hospitable place for journalists to do their work, ranking Israel three out of a score of four, while the Palestinian territories are ranked just one out of four.

It’s telling that even Al Jazeera has reported on the PA’s increasing “crackdown on journalists,” citing the Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms reporting that journalists are increasingly “facing increased harassment, arrests and violence.” In June 2021 alone, following the killing of Palestinian dissident Nizar Banat, the group recorded “69 violations against Palestinian journalists by different Palestinian parties in the West Bank and Gaza, including 17 incidents of physical assault and two arrests, 11 confiscation and destruction of journalists’ equipment.”

But, of course, the failure of Palestinian leaders to create and nurture liberal traditions, norms and laws, a culture of transparency, and respect for Palestinian human rights within the territories they govern is not the story that Guardian editors will tell. The media institution’s rigid ideological orientation denying Palestinians agency demands the erasure of all evidence complicating the desired narrative, resulting in reporting based on the assumption of Palestinian innocence and Israeli guilt.

If you think we’re exaggerating, let’s remember that The Guardian is an outlet which literally once argued that it would have been better for the world if Israel had never been born. The Jewish state, in their view, is a state beyond the pale, one which can’t be reformed — a people not only undeserving of statehood, but representing an “organic obstacle to peace and progress.”

Adam Levick serves as co-editor of CAMERA UK — an affiliate of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA), where a version of this article was first published.

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.