RSS
Al Jazeera Documentary Absurdly Attacks CNN & BBC’s ‘Pro-Israel Bias’
The Al Jazeera Media Network logo is seen on its headquarters building in Doha, Qatar, June 8, 2017. Photo: REUTERS/Naseem Zeitoon
Qatari-funded Al Jazeera claims to have the scoop. While HonestReporting has spent the past year (and many years before that) exposing anti-Israel media bias, we’ve apparently had it all wrong. A
ccording to Al Jazeera:
Ten journalists who have covered the war on Gaza for two of the world’s leading news networks, CNN and the BBC, have revealed the inner workings of those outlets’ newsrooms from October 7 onward, alleging pro-Israel bias in coverage, systematic double standards and frequent violations of journalistic principles.
We’ve certainly found systematic double standards and frequent violations of journalistic principles during the past year. That includes Al Jazeera, which has acted as a mouthpiece for Hamas, spreading false propaganda and misinformation, and inciting hatred and violence against Israel and its citizens. So much so that Israel has taken the media outlet off the local airwaves and withdrawn press accreditation for its employees.
But pro-Israel bias in CNN and BBC coverage? Not likely.
So who does Al Jazeera rely on for its half-hour documentary? Three characters whose backgrounds make their views crystal clear:
Craig Mokhiber
Interviewee Craig Mokhiber is a former UN official who has accused Israel of war crimes, has spread the work of BDS activists, and has denied Israel’s right to exist. S
hortly after he exited the UN, it was uncovered that he fraudulently turned his anti-Israel views into a means by which to distract from the real reasons behind his departure — his open antisemitism. (See the tweet below.)
SHAMEFUL: How did some media outlets allow themselves to be manipulated by an antisemitic UN official looking to use his hatred of Israel as a false cover for his own indiscretions?
Must-read : https://t.co/UD0WomS4r0
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) November 1, 2023
Ghassan Abu-Sitta
Ghassan Abu-Sitta is a British physician who has a pathological need to get in front of TV cameras in order to accuse Israel of every crime imaginable. This is hardly surprising, since a Jewish Chronicle investigation revealed that Abu Sittah has “praised a terrorist murderer in a newspaper article, sat beside a notorious terrorist hijacker at a memorial and delivered a tearful eulogy to the founder of a terror group that was later involved in the October 7 atrocities.”
Jeremy Scahill
Jeremy Scahill’s byline was on a rape denial article in alternative news outlet The Intercept.
The article set about attempting to debunk The New York Times piece, “‘Screams Without Words’: How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7.” In doing so, The Intercept sought to cover up the extent of Hamas’ sexual crimes on October 7. It instead accused the Israeli government and Israel’s supporters of concocting the charges.
There’s nothing new in the charges made against Israel by the interviewees and nothing that hasn’t already been debunked elsewhere. What is new are the claims that Western media are complicit in Israel’s “genocide” and “war crimes.”
Al Jazeera charges the Western media with platforming Israeli “propaganda.” There is no examination of the all too many times the media got it wrong at Israel’s expense. Instead, the media are accused of enabling Israel to disseminate a false narrative. Where genuine errors may have occurred in the fog of war or due to miscommunication, Israel is portrayed as a conspirator in a plot to promote disinformation to a compliant media.
To back up its thesis, Al Jazeera claims to have spoken with 10 journalists from CNN and the BBC. Only two anonymous figures, however, one from each network, are interviewees in the documentary — hardly a substantial number.
And it’s worth asking, why would any journalists who value objectivity and impartiality shoot their mouths off to Al Jazeera of all media outlets?
The same Al Jazeera whose senior anchorman Jamal Rayyan, one of the network’s most prominent figureheads, celebrated the first anniversary of the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel with a series of posts hailing the “resistance” and calling on Arab countries to support it, even if “secretly.”
The same Al Jazeera that mocked the October 7 massacre by airing a tasteless comedy sketch:
Al Jazeera’s new comedy sketch about October 7th, now with AI-generated English subtitles https://t.co/ABRiP1mIcr pic.twitter.com/sFDmzcKjcO
— Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) October 3, 2024
No fair-minded journalist would complain about journalistic ethics to Al Jazeera. But they would if they had a bone to pick with Israel that goes beyond concern for the well-being of the Fourth Estate.
Former BBC journalist “Sara” claims that “overwhelmingly, guests on the Palestinian side of things were being looked into” in an internal BBC group chat in which producers could vet potential interviewees based on their social media footprint.
Yet this is exactly what the BBC should be doing. Because BBC interviewees from the Israeli side don’t generally have a history of libels, demonization, or outright racism against the other. The same, sadly, cannot be said about the Palestinian side.
“Sara” says that even some non-governmental organizations, including Human Rights Watch, were vetted. It’s entirely proper that this should be the case. Too many NGOs are not neutral actors in the conflict, but instead promote a politicized anti-Israel agenda under the guise of human rights.
The examples of newsroom rebellions over “pro-Israel” coverage highlighted by Al Jazeera are less supportive of their case than it first appears.
Al Jazeera says it has obtained an email complaint sent by more than 20 BBC journalists to senior management:
The BBC employs over 5,000 journalists. That Al Jazeera is only able to quote an email sent by “over 20” speaks volumes.
And it must have been a terrible shock for those small number of BBC journalists when a former International Court of Justice (ICJ) president, in a BBC interview of all places, contradicted their claim in the email that the ICJ ruling “found it ‘plausible’ that Israel is violating the Genocide Convention in Gaza.”
Joan Donoghue, former President of the International Court of Justice, clarified on air with @BBCNews that the court did *not* decide that Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza could plausibly be considered genocide. pic.twitter.com/oz1lOCUMD6
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) April 26, 2024
In another example of journalists in revolt, Al Jazeera references what it calls “the now notorious report” in The New York Times on Hamas rapes that Jeremy Scahill did so much to attack. Al Jazeera claims that the Hamas weaponization of rape was “an allegation that was exposed as baseless.”
As HonestReporting pointed out when addressing the attempt to discredit the sexual assault claims, this is not a mere search for the truth but is part of a concerted effort to invalidate Israel’s military campaign against Hamas and to rehabilitate Hamas’ image in the West.
And Al Jazeera is an integral part of that effort.
The second anonymous interviewee, CNN journalist “Adam” complains that “there was a period of time when we couldn’t call airstrikes in Gaza airstrikes unless we had confirmation from the Israelis.”
Given the media’s collective failure when Israel stood falsely accused of an airstrike on the al-Ahli hospital in October 2023, and the fact that numerous Hamas rockets have fallen on their own people in Gaza, it doesn’t sound so unreasonable that CNN would do due diligence before reporting airstrikes as facts.
“Adam” complains about double standards. But should a terrorist organization be treated with the same level of respect given to the army of a liberal democracy? Especially as that terrorist organization sees little wrong in lying to achieve its own ends.
“Adam” even says that he had a problem with CNN editors telling journalists to “hold Hamas accountable” when Gazan casualty figures were announced.
“Sara” complains of an “unwillingness among the [BBC] executives to accept evidence.” This is somewhat ironic given the BBC’s reaction to the evidence presented to them of anti-Israel bias, most recently in Trevor Asserson’s report that found the BBC had breached its own editorial guidelines more than 1,500 times during the first four months of the Israel-Hamas war alone.
She also complains that the BBC has an aversion to its guests or its journalists using the word “genocide” to refer to Israel’s actions in Gaza. Actually, given both the gravity of the charge and the fact that Israel has not been found guilty of such a crime under international law, the BBC is absolutely correct to avoid giving the impression that genocide is taking place.
Of course, there are no such restrictions on Al Jazeera, which can in no way be considered impartial.
It would be remiss not to mention the token voice representing the other side in the debate. Al Jazeera interviewed former New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren, who pushed back against some of the charges leveled against her profession. But hers is a lonely voice in a documentary that has already framed an argument based on a simple and simplistic assumption — Israel is in the wrong and deserves to be portrayed as a criminal while the Western media are its accomplices.
Unfortunately for Al Jazeera, even though Israel comes in for plenty of criticism and unfair treatment in the international media, the Qatari-sponsored network’s definition of journalism isn’t what most mainstream media consider to be the norm.
The author is the Editorial Director of HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
The post Al Jazeera Documentary Absurdly Attacks CNN & BBC’s ‘Pro-Israel Bias’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Syria’s Sharaa Says Talks With Israel Could Yield Results ‘In Coming Days’
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa speaks at the opening ceremony of the 62nd Damascus International Fair, the first edition held since the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, in Damascus, Syria, Aug. 27, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi
Syria’s President Ahmed al-Sharaa said on Wednesday that ongoing negotiations with Israel to reach a security pact could lead to results “in the coming days.”
He told reporters in Damascus the security pact was a “necessity” and that it would need to respect Syria’s airspace and territorial unity and be monitored by the United Nations.
Syria and Israel are in talks to reach an agreement that Damascus hopes will secure a halt to Israeli airstrikes and the withdrawal of Israeli troops who have pushed into southern Syria.
Reuters reported this week that Washington was pressuring Syria to reach a deal before world leaders gather next week for the UN General Assembly in New York.
But Sharaa, in a briefing with journalists including Reuters ahead of his expected trip to New York to attend the meeting, denied the US was putting any pressure on Syria and said instead that it was playing a mediating role.
He said Israel had carried out more than 1,000 strikes on Syria and conducted more than 400 ground incursions since Dec. 8, when the rebel offensive he led toppled former Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.
Sharaa said Israel’s actions were contradicting the stated American policy of a stable and unified Syria, which he said was “very dangerous.”
He said Damascus was seeking a deal similar to a 1974 disengagement agreement between Israel and Syria that created a demilitarized zone between the two countries.
He said Syria sought the withdrawal of Israeli troops but that Israel wanted to remain at strategic locations it seized after Dec. 8, including Mount Hermon. Israeli ministers have publicly said Israel intends to keep control of the sites.
He said if the security pact succeeds, other agreements could be reached. He did not provide details, but said a peace agreement or normalization deal like the US-mediated Abraham Accords, under which several Muslim-majority countries agreed to normalize diplomatic ties with Israel, was not currently on the table.
He also said it was too early to discuss the fate of the Golan Heights because it was “a big deal.”
Reuters reported this week that Israel had ruled out handing back the zone, which Donald Trump unilaterally recognized as Israeli during his first term as US president.
“It’s a difficult case – you have negotiations between a Damascene and a Jew,” Sharaa told reporters, smiling.
SECURITY PACT DERAILED IN JULY
Sharaa also said Syria and Israel had been just “four to five days” away from reaching the basis of a security pact in July, but that developments in the southern province of Sweida had derailed those discussions.
Syrian troops were deployed to Sweida in July to quell fighting between Druze armed factions and Bedouin fighters. But the violence worsened, with Syrian forces accused of execution-style killings and Israel striking southern Syria, the defense ministry in Damascus and near the presidential palace.
Sharaa on Wednesday described the strikes near the presidential palace as “not a message, but a declaration of war,” and said Syria had still refrained from responding militarily to preserve the negotiations.
RSS
Anti-Israel Activists Gear Up to ‘Flood’ UN General Assembly
US Capitol Police and NYPD officers clash with anti-Israel demonstrators, on the day Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint meeting of Congress, on Capitol Hill, in Washington, DC, July 24, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Umit Bektas
Anti-Israel groups are planning a wave of raucous protests in New York City during the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) over the next several days, prompting concerns that the demonstrations could descend into antisemitic rhetoric and intimidation.
A coalition of anti-Israel activists is organizing the protests in and around UN headquarters to coincide with speeches from Middle Eastern leaders and appearances by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The demonstrations are expected to draw large crowds and feature prominent pro-Palestinian voices, some of whom have been criticized for trafficking in antisemitic tropes, in addition to calling for the destruction of Israe.
Organizers of the demonstrations have promoted the coordinated events on social media as an opportunity to pressure world leaders to hold Israel accountable for its military campaign against Hamas in Gaza, with some messaging framed in sharply hostile terms.
On Sunday, for example, activists shouted at Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon.
“Zionism is terrorism. All you guys are terrorists committing ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza and Palestine. Shame on you, Zionist animals,” they shouted.
BREAKING: PRO-PALESTINE PROTESTORS CONFRONT “ISRAELI” AMBASSADOR DANNY DANON AT THE UNITED NATIONS
1/5 pic.twitter.com/4G1VYEMGzV
— Within Our Lifetime (@WOLPalestine) September 14, 2025
The Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM), warned on its website that the scale and tone of the planned demonstrations risk crossing the line from political protest into hate speech, arguing that anti-Israel activists are attempting to hijack the UN gathering to spread antisemitism and delegitimize the Jewish state’s right to exist.
Outside the UN last week, masked protesters belonging to the activist group INDECLINE kicked a realistic replica of Netanyahu’s decapitated head as though it were a soccer ball.
US activist group plays soccer with Bibi’s mock decapitated HEAD right outside NYC UN HQ
Peep shot at 00:40
Footage posted by INDECLINE collective just as UN General Assembly about to kick off
‘Following the game, ball was donated to Palestinian Genocide Museum’ pic.twitter.com/TQ84sgZhKr
— RT (@RT_com) September 9, 2025
Within Our Lifetime (WOL), a radical anti-Israel activist group, has vowed to “flood” the UNGA on behalf of the pro-Palestine movement.
WOL, one of the most prolific anti-Israel activist groups, came under immense fire after it organized a protest against an exhibition to honor the victims of the Oct. 7 massacre at the Nova Music Festival in southern Israel. During the event, the group chanted “resistance is justified when people are occupied!” and “Israel, go to hell!”
“We will be there to confront them with the truth: Their silence and inaction enable genocide. The world cannot continue as if Gaza does not exist,” WOL said of its planned demonstrations in New York. “This is the time to make our voices impossible to ignore. Come to New York by any means necessary, to stand, to march, to demand the UN act and end the siege.”
Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM), two other anti-Israel organizations that have helped organize widespread demonstrations against the Jewish state during the war in Gaza, also announced they are planning a march from Times Square to the UN headquarters on Friday.
“The time is now for each and every UN member state to uphold their duty under international law: sanction Israel and end the genocide,” the groups said in a statement.
JVP, an organization that purports to fight for “Palestinian liberation,” has positioned itself as a staunch adversary of the Jewish state. The group argued in a 2021 booklet that Jews should not write Hebrew liturgy because hearing the language would be “deeply traumatizing” to Palestinians. JVP has repeatedly defended the Oct. 7 massacre of roughly 1,200 people in southern Israel by Hamas as a justified “resistance.” Chapters of the organization have urged other self-described “progressives” to throw their support behind Hamas and other terrorist groups against Israel
Similarly, PYM, another radical anti-Israel group, has repeatedly defended terrorism and violence against the Jewish state. PYM has organized many anti-Israel protests in the two years following the Oct. 7 attacks in the Jewish state. Recently, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) called for a federal investigation into the organization after Aisha Nizar, one of the group’s leaders, urged supporters to sabotage the US supply chain for the F-35 fighter jet, one of the most advanced US military assets and a critical component of Israel’s defense.
The UN General Assembly has historically been a flashpoint for heated debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Previous gatherings have seen dueling demonstrations outside the Manhattan venue, with pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian groups both seeking to influence the international spotlight.
While warning about the demonstrations, CAM noted it recently launched a new mobile app, Report It, that allows users worldwide to quickly and securely report antisemitic incidents in real time.
RSS
Nina Davidson Presses Universities to Back Words With Action as Jewish Students Return to Campus Amid Antisemitism Crisis
Nina Davidson on The Algemeiner’s ‘J100’ podcast. Photo: Screenshot
Philanthropist Nina Davidson, who served on the board of Barnard College, has called on universities to pair tough rhetoric on combatting antisemitism with enforcement as Jewish students returned to campuses for the new academic year.
“Years ago, The Algemeiner had published a list ranking the most antisemitic colleges in the country. And number one was Columbia,” Davidson recalled on a recent episode of The Algemeiner‘s “J100” podcast. “As a board member and as someone who was representing the institution, it really upset me … At the board meeting, I brought it up and I said, ‘What are we going to do about this?’”
Host David Cohen, chief executive officer of The Algemeiner, explained he had revisited Davidson’s remarks while she was being honored for her work at The Algemeiner‘s 8th annual J100 gala, held in October 2021, noting their continued relevance.
“It could have been the same speech in 2025,” he said, underscoring how longstanding concerns about campus antisemitism, while having intensified in the aftermath of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, are not new.
Davidson argued that universities already possess the tools to protect students – codes of conduct, time-place-manner rules, and consequences for threats or targeted harassment – but too often fail to apply them evenly. “Statements are not enough,” she said, arguing that institutions need to enforce their rules and set a precedent that there will be consequences for individuals who refuse to follow them.
She also said that stakeholders – alumni, parents, and donors – are reassessing their relationships with schools that, in their view, have not safeguarded Jewish students. While supportive of open debate, Davidson distinguished between protest and intimidation, calling for leadership that protects expression while ensuring campus safety.
The episode surveyed specific pressure points that administrators will face this fall: repeat anti-Israel encampments, disruptions of Jewish programming, and the challenge of distinguishing political speech from conduct that violates university rules. “Unless schools draw those lines now,” Davidson warned, “they’ll be scrambling once the next crisis hits.”
Cohen closed by framing the discussion as a test of institutional credibility, asking whether universities will “turn policy into protection” in real time. Davidson agreed, pointing to students who “need to know the rules aren’t just on paper.”
The full conversation is available on The Algemeiner’s “J100” podcast.