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 So much so that Israel has taken the media outlet off the local airwaves and withdrawn press accreditation for its employees.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
Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll
Harvard University president Alan Garber attending the 373rd Commencement Exercises at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, May 23, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder
A recently published Harvard Crimson poll of over 1,400 Harvard faculty revealed sweeping opposition to interim university President Alan Garber’s efforts to strike a deal with the federal government to restore $3 billion in research grants and contracts it froze during the first 100 days of the second Trump administration.
In the survey, conducted from April 23 to May 12, 71 percent of arts and sciences faculty oppose negotiating a settlement with the administration, which may include concessions conservatives have long sought from elite higher education, such as meritocratic admissions, viewpoint diversity, and severe disciplinary sanctions imposed on students who stage unauthorized protests that disrupt academic life.
Additionally, 64 percent “strongly disagree” with shuttering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, 73 percent oppose rejecting foreign applicants who hold anti-American beliefs which are “hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence,” and 70 percent strongly disagree with revoking school recognition from pro-Hamas groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC).
“More than 98 percent of faculty who responded to the survey supported the university’s decision to sue the White House,” The Crimson reported. “The same percentage backed Harvard’s public rejection of the sweeping conditions that the administration set for maintaining the funds — terms that included external audits of Harvard’s hiring practices and the disciplining of student protesters.”
Alyza Lewin of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law told The Algemeiner that the poll results indicate that Harvard University will continue to struggle to address campus antisemitism on campus, as there is now data showing that its faculty reject the notion of excising intellectualized antisemitism from the university.
“If you, for example, have faculty teaching courses that are regularly denying that the Jews are a people and erasing the Jewish people’s history in the land of Israel, that’s going to undermine your efforts to address the antisemitism on your campus,” Lewin explained. “When Israel is being treated as the ‘collective Jew,’ when the conversation is not about Israel’s policies, when the criticism is not what the [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism] would call criticism of Israel similar to that against any other country, they have to understand that it is the demonization, delegitimization, and applying a double standard to Jews as individuals or to Israel.”
She added, “Faculty must recognize … the demonization, vilification, the shunning, and the marginalizing of Israelis, Jews, and Zionists, when it happens, as violations of the anti-discrimination policies they are legally and contractually obligated to observe.”
The Crimson survey results were published amid reports that Garber was working to reach a deal with the Trump administration that is palatable to all interested parties, including the university’s left-wing social milieu.
According to a June 26 report published by The Crimson, Garber held a phone call with major donors in which he “confirmed in response to a question from [Harvard Corporation Fellow David M. Rubenstein] that talks had resumed” but “declined to share specifics of how Harvard expected to settle with the White House.”
On June 30, the Trump administration issued Harvard a “notice of violation” of civil rights law following an investigation which examined how it responded to dozens of antisemitic incidents reported by Jewish students since the 2023-2024 academic year.
The correspondence, sent by the Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, charged that Harvard willfully exposed Jewish students to a torrent of racist and antisemitic abuse following the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre, which precipitated a surge in anti-Zionist activity on the campus, both in the classroom and out of it.
“Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard’s relationship with the federal government,” wrote the four federal officials comprising the multiagency Task Force. “Harvard may of course continue to operate free of federal privileges, and perhaps such an opportunity will spur a commitment to excellence that will help Harvard thrive once again.”
The Trump administration ratcheted up pressure on Harvard again on Wednesday, reporting the institution to its accreditor for alleged civil rights violations resulting from its weak response to reports of antisemitic bullying, discrimination, and harassment following the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre.
Citing Harvard’s failure to treat antisemitism as seriously as it treated other forms of hatred in the past, The US Department of Educationthe called on the New England Commission of Higher Education to review and, potentially, revoke its accreditation — a designation which qualifies Harvard for federal funding and attests to the quality of the educational services its provides.
“Accrediting bodies play a significant role in preserving academic integrity and a campus culture conducive to truth seeking and learning,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “Part of that is ensuring students are safe on campus and abiding by federal laws that guarantee educational opportunities to all students. By allowing anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination to persist unchecked on its campus, Harvard University has failed in its obligation to students, educators, and American taxpayers.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun attends a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France, March 28, 2025. REUTERS/Sarah Meyssonnier/Pool
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun on Friday carefully affirmed his country’s desire for peace with Israel while cautioning that Beirut is not ready to normalize relations with its southern neighbor.
Aoun called for a full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory, according to a statement from his office, while reaffirming his government’s efforts to uphold a state monopoly on arms amid mounting international pressure on the Iran-backed terror group Hezbollah to disarm.
“The decision to restrict arms is final and there is no turning back on it,” Aoun said.
The Lebanese leader drew a clear distinction between pursuing peace and establishing formal normalization in his country’s relationship with the Jewish state.
“Peace is the lack of a state of war, and this is what matters to us in Lebanon at the moment,” Aoun said in a statement. “As for the issue of normalization, it is not currently part of Lebanese foreign policy.”
Aoun’s latest comments come after Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar expressed interest last month in normalizing ties with Lebanon and Syria — an effort Jerusalem says cannot proceed until Hezbollah is fully disarmed.
Earlier this week, Aoun sent his government’s response to a US-backed disarmament proposal as Washington and Jerusalem increased pressure on Lebanon to neutralize the terror group.
While the details remain confidential, US Special Envoy Thomas Barrack said he was “unbelievably satisfied” with their response.
This latest proposal, presented to Lebanese officials during Barrack’s visit on June 19, calls for Hezbollah to be fully disarmed within four months in exchange for Israel halting airstrikes and withdrawing troops from its five occupied posts in southern Lebanon.
However, Hezbollah chief Sheikh Naim Qassem vowed in a televised speech to keep the group’s weapons, rejecting Washington’s disarmament proposal.
“How can you expect us not to stand firm while the Israeli enemy continues its aggression, continues to occupy the five points, and continues to enter our territories and kill?” said Qassem, who succeeded longtime terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah after Israel killed him last year.
“We will not be part of legitimizing the occupation in Lebanon and the region,” the terrorist leader continued. “We will not accept normalization [with Israel].”
Last fall, Israel decimated Hezbollah’s leadership and military capabilities with an air and ground offensive, following the group’s attacks on Jerusalem — which they claimed were a show of solidarity with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas amid the war in Gaza.
In November, Lebanon and Israel reached a US-brokered ceasefire agreement that ended a year of fighting between the Jewish state and Hezbollah.
Under the agreement, Israel was given 60 days to withdraw from southern Lebanon, allowing the Lebanese army and UN forces to take over security as Hezbollah disarms and moves away from Israel’s northern border.
However, Israel maintained troops at several posts in southern Lebanon beyond the ceasefire deadline, as its leaders aimed to reassure northern residents that it was safe to return home.
Jerusalem has continued carrying out strikes targeting remaining Hezbollah activity, with Israeli leaders accusing the group of maintaining combat infrastructure, including rocket launchers — calling this “blatant violations of understandings between Israel and Lebanon.”
The post Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide
Chef and head of World Central Kitchen Jose Andres attends the Milken Institute Global Conference 2025 in Beverly Hills, California, US, May 5, 2025. Photo: Reuters/Mike Blake.
Renowned Spanish chef and World Central Kitchen (WCK) founder José Andrés called the Oct. 7 attack “horrendous” in an interview Wednesday and shared his hopes for reconciliation between the “vast majority” on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide who are “good people that very often are not served well by their leaders”
WCK is a US-based, nonprofit organization that provides fresh meals to people in conflict zones around the world. The charity has been actively serving Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank since the Oct. 7 massacre in southern Israel. Since the Hamas attack, WCK has served more than 133 million meals across Gaza, according to its website.
The restaurateur and humanitarian has been quoted saying in past interviews that “sometimes very big problems have very simple solutions.” On Wednesday’s episode of the Wall Street Journal podcast “Bold Names,” he was asked to elaborate on that thought. He responded by saying he believes good meals and good leaders can help resolve issues between Israelis and Palestinians, who, he believes, genuinely want to live harmoniously with each other.
“I had people in Gaza, mothers, women making bread,” he said. “Moments that you had of closeness they were telling you: ‘What Hamas did was wrong. I wouldn’t [want] anybody to do this to my children.’ And I had Israelis that even lost family members. They say, ‘I would love to go to Gaza to be next to the people to show them that we respect them …’ And this to me is very fascinating because it’s the reality.
“Maybe some people call me naive. [But] the vast majority of the people are good people that very often are not served well by their leaders. And the simple reality of recognizing that many truths can be true at the same time in the same phrase that what happened on October 7th was horrendous and was never supposed to happen. And that’s why World Central Kitchen was there next to the people in Israel feeding in the kibbutz from day one, and at the same time that I defended obviously the right of Israel to defend itself and to try to bring back the hostages. Equally, what is happening in Gaza is not supposed to be happening either.”
Andres noted that he supports Israel’s efforts to target Hamas terrorists but then seemingly accused Israel of “continuously” targeting children and civilians during its military operations against the terror group.
“We need leaders that believe in that, that believe in longer tables,” he concluded. “It’s so simple to invest in peace … It’s so simple to do good. It’s so simple to invest in a better tomorrow. Food is a solution to many of the issues we’re facing. Let’s hope that … one day in the Middle East it’ll be people just celebrating the cultures that sometimes if you look at what they eat, they seem all to eat exactly the same.”
In 2024, WCK fired at least 62 of its staff members in Gaza after Israel said they had ties to terrorist groups. In one case, Israel discovered that a WCK employee named Ahed Azmi Qdeih took part in the deadly Hamas rampage across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Qdeih was killed in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza in November 2024.
In April 2024, the Israel Defense Forces received backlash for carrying out airstrikes on a WCK vehicle convoy which killed seven of the charity’s employees. Israel’s military chief, Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, said the airstrikes were “a mistake that followed a misidentification,” and Israel dismissed two senior officers as a result of the mishandled military operation.
The strikes “were not just some unfortunate mistake in the fog of war,” Andrés alleged.
“It was a direct attack on clearly marked vehicles whose movements were known by” the Israeli military, he claimed in an op-ed published by Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot. “It was also the direct result of [the Israeli] government’s policy to squeeze humanitarian aid to desperate levels.”
In a statement on X, Andres accused Israel of “indiscriminate killing,” saying the Jewish state “needs to stop restricting humanitarian aid, stop killing civilians and aid workers, and stop using food as a weapon.”
The post Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide first appeared on Algemeiner.com.