Connect with us

RSS

Syria’s New Leader Says Elections Expected in 4 Years, Constitution in 3

A person waves a flag adopted by the new Syrian rulers, as people gather during a celebration called by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) near the Umayyad Mosque, after the ousting of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, in Damascus, Syria, Photo: December 20, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad/File Photo

i24 News – The new administration’s president in Syria, Ahmad Al-Sharaa, conducted an interview with the Saudi Arabia-based Al Arabiya channel on Sunday to address key issues facing the country. Toppling Assad’s regime ensured and guaranteed the security of the region, the Gulf, and Syria for the next 50 years, he said, noting that the transition of power is “as smooth as possible.” Syria will witness many steps and stages until a new president is elected for Syria. Elections will be held in Syria in four years at most, with a timeline for a constitution expected for three years.

The Hayat Tahrir al-Sham organization will be disassembled, al-Sharaa said, which will be announced at an upcoming National Dialogue Conference.

“We hope the incoming Trump Administration will not follow the policy of its predecessor,” he told the Saudi channel.

Al-Sharaa criticized the UN’s lack of action, which “failed to secure the release of a single detainee or facilitate the return of a single refugee.”

“Negotiations are ongoing with the SDF to resolve the crisis in northeastern Syria,” he said, with the goal being, eventually, to integrate the militia into the national army.

“There will be no division of Syria in any way,” he said. The Kurdish area will not be a launching ground for PKK attacks against Turkey, al-Sharaa added.

Regarding the transitional government, he called them “essential for the period and not intended to exclude anyone.” This comes after worries by minorities that he will turn the state into an jihadist fundamentalist country. Faction-sharing, however, could derail the process for a fully-formed government.

He said that citizens have rights to express opinions peacefully, following protests by various groups in the wake of the fall of Assad, as long as public institutions are not harmed.

“During the liberation process, we ensured that there were no casualties or displacement,” al-Sharaa said.

He added that he made sure not to attack Iranian positions, which was a good will gesture to the Islamic Republic that will pay in dividends.

“I don’t consider myself a Syrian liberator but everyone who offered sacrifices liberated the country,” he said.

Al-Sharaa said that all who took part in the former regime’s crimes will receive their punishment and will be prosecuted.

He concluded that Syria does not want Russia to leave the country so as not to damage the relations between the two countries – despite the stalwart support Moscow gave the Assad regime.

The post Syria’s New Leader Says Elections Expected in 4 Years, Constitution in 3 first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 46
Related Topics:
Continue Reading

RSS

Is Now the Moment to Rid Syria of Its Chemical Weapons?

Khaled Brigade, a part of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), hold a military parade, after Syria’s Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Damascus, Syria, Dec. 27, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Amr Abdallah Dalsh

The matter of Syria’s chemical and biological weapons (CBW) program has long lingered. It was initiated in the 1970s by President Hafez al-Assad and steadily increased over time. The issue has reemerged multiple times: in efforts to reach an agreement to eliminate Syria’s under-declared CW arsenal (2013); in the Syrian military’s subsequent recurrent employment of CW against the rebels during the civil war; in the reestablishment of a Syrian CW alignment within certain installations; and in the US-UK-France raid on Syrian CW facilities (2018). The issue recently surfaced once again, amid the collapse of the Assad regime. Various CW facilities became uncontrolled, some of which were destroyed by Israel.

Apparently, all the sides involved – the rising new Syrian regime, NATO, Russia and Israel – are willing to eliminate Syria’s CW alignment. Radical rebel groups might be keen to capture residual Syrian CW (the extent and deployment of which are not clear), along with the associated expert personnel. Russia and Iran might rush to get rid of any traces of their assistance to the Syrian CW program, in terms of both classified technical knowhow and CW Convention violations. Related North Korean and Chinese rudimentary (yet curious) contributions might also be traceable. In addition, profound inquiry could finally reveal whether concealed CBW possessed by Saddam Hussein’s regime was smuggled into Syria 20 years ago. At any rate, the complete disarmament of Syria’s CW would reduce the number of Muslim states possessing CW to three – Iran, Pakistan and Egypt – thereby diminishing the menace of CW use in the Middle East.

Originally, the overall Syrian CW alignment consisted of about 35 facilities in roughly 11 sites. However, it underwent many revisions, and its dimensions are now fairly obscure. The best way to attain a complete picture of the entire alignment (or what remains of it) might be to interrogate pertinent high-ranking Syrian (or Iranian in Syria) military and MoD figures and to locate genuine Syrian classified software and documents.

Basically, the components comprising the Syrian CW alignment include stocks of raw materials, final precursors of the binary nerve agents sarin and VX, sulfur mustard, chlorine, possibly some incapacitants, mechanical parts of the binary systems, and adjusted warheads. Selective bombardment of certain of these components would not cause environmental pollution but would prevent operability. In terms of installations, the alignment consists of development, production and storage facilities. Some of those facilities were attacked by the IDF “in order that they will not fall into the hands of extremists” (including Hezbollah, presumably), as noted by Israel’s Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Since 2014, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has raised 26 questions over potential stockpiles with the Syrian authorities, but only seven have been resolved. “It is up to the international community to seize this opportunity … to eradicate this criminal program once and for all,” Fernando Arias, director general of the OPCW, said on December 12, 2024, at an emergency meeting of the implementing body for the international CW Convention.

Upon taking control of Syria, the Islamist Hayat Tahrir al-Sham group pledged its “readiness to cooperate with the international community in everything related to monitoring weapons and sensitive areas”. The group also indicated that it would safeguard the country’s remaining CW stockpiles and ensure that they are not used against citizens. Further, one of the Syrian opposition leaders stressed that the opposition is committed to fully implementing CW disarmament in Syria.

Upon the collapse of the Assad regime, a senior Biden administration official said: “We are doing everything we can to prudently ensure that those (CW) materials are either not available to anyone or are cared for.” He further indicated that the Biden administration isn’t planning to send US troops into Syria to secure or destroy CW. Beyond that, he said that Washington will act at all costs to prevent any attempt by Syria or Iran to develop nuclear weapons. That last sentence is notable, as it pertains to the sphere of WMD at large rather than solely with regard to Iran. Also of note, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had intended to collect fresh environmental samples from suspected nuclear-related sites in Syria, but the collapse of the Assad regime disrupted this important monitoring.

As regards Iran, its military nuclear program is certainly in progress. Recently, then-IAEA head Rafael Grossi said that “Iran [has] developed much stronger capabilities… and is practically at the same level as nuclear-armed states.” Alongside that assessment, a report by the Office of the US Director of National Intelligence maintained that “Iran now has enough fissile material to make more than a dozen nuclear weapons.”

At any rate, the unequivocal statement by the above senior Biden administration official in reference to removing the nuclear WMD dimension echoes a previous statement (December 2021) by David Barnea, Head of the Mossad: “Iran will not have nuclear weapons, not in the coming years, and it never will. This is my commitment, and this is the commitment of the Mossad.”

Also worthy of mention is the possession of operational CW and BW arsenals by Iran, albeit a state party to the international CW and BW conventions. Iran is increasingly active in the area of weaponizing pharmacologically derived substances, both chemical and biological.

The third dimension of WMD – biological weapons – surfaced in the Syrian context in a press statement by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken (December 10): “The United States reaffirms its full support for a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political transition…. The transition process and new government must also…. ensure that any chemical or biological weapons stockpiles are secured and safely destroyed.” The Assad regime had an active BW program that was divided in two: the development of toxins (such as botulinum, ricin and cobra toxins) by the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center, and the development of pathogens (such as anthrax and Brucella) by that center plus the Atomic Energy Commission of Syria. Thus, the Syrian BW program constitutes a serious issue of its own. This is particularly true as Syria is not a state party to the international BW Convention.

Tight and meticulous cooperation and collaboration ought to be potentiated between the new Syrian regime and the international community for the purpose of dealing appropriately with all the above-detailed challenges in Syria, apart from those no less meaningful ones that concern Iran.

 Dr. Dany Shoham is a former senior analyst in IDF military intelligence and the Ministry of Defense. He specializes in chemical and biological warfare in the Middle East and worldwide. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.

The post Is Now the Moment to Rid Syria of Its Chemical Weapons? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 1
Continue Reading

RSS

2024 Dishonest Reporter of the Year Awards

The New York Times building in New York City. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Following the horrific events of October 7, 2023, news and analysis related to Israel’s war against Hamas dominated the headlines around the world for months on end. But instead of rising to the challenge of covering the fast-moving, multi-front battle accurately and impartially, media outlets did their viewers and readers a great disservice by producing a plethora of skewed coverage.

And with the alarming spike in antisemitism, fueled by the warp-speed dissemination of baseless accusations against Israel and its motives for fighting Hamas, the negative impact of dishonest reporters in 2024 was felt more acutely than at any other time in recent memory.

Some of this year’s nominees for the Dishonest Reporter of the Year Award are old favorites — outlets that incessantly delegitimize Israel by distorting the truth, not providing relevant context, using loaded language, publishing misleading headlines, as well as other sleights of hand that are part of the biased journalist’s bag of tricks.

And then there are the influencers with massive online followings who contributed to the wave of anti-Israel bias that swept through the media in 2024. By perpetrating a distinct narrative, that of unbridled Israeli aggression in contrast to perpetual Palestinian victimhood, these online activists have had an impact on the public discourse over the last year.

Our hope is that by tracking and spotlighting the most egregious examples of journalistic malfeasance and presenting our findings, the serial offenders will be held to account for their spreading of malicious untruths about Israel.

Before we reveal the winner of the 2024 Dishonest Reporter Award, here are all the nominees, those publications and individuals who excelled in getting it totally wrong about Israel…

(nominees presented in no particular order)

Most Useful Idiot: Adam Schrader, UPI

UPI’s Adam Schrader in 2024 repeatedly used terror groups and state-run Palestinian agencies as the primary sources in his articles. Among Schrader’s many offenses, the one that stood out this year was when he produced a biography of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar that depicted the arch-terrorist in heroic terms.

According to UPI, Sinwar — a mass murderer and the mastermind behind the October 7 massacre in southern Israel — is a “Palestinian militia” leader who had been arrested in Israel “for supporting a free Palestine.”

While he may have supported a Palestine free of Jews, Sinwar was most definitely not a militia leader. Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organization that has ruled all aspects of life in Gaza for almost two decades.

In the same abysmal story, Schrader referred to the October 7 attack, “which many have characterized as a terror attack” and “Jewish settlers during the 1948 war.”

He even had the gall to accuse Israelis of raping Palestinians in 1948 while singularly ignoring the very real Hamas rape cases that had literally just occurred on October 7.

Biggest Car Crash Interview: Michael Moore (on CNN)

Academy Award-winning filmmaker Michael Moore’s April 2024 interview on CNN was difficult to watch. Among many, many gaffes, Moore suggests that anti-Israel campus demonstrations are a hallmark of healthy “democracy and free speech,” and complains that protesters have been beaten and clubbed by police in response, even though no protesters are “committing any acts of violence.”

 Another stand-out moment is when he states that 98% of protesters are not antisemitic — something he suggests is impossible “because the Palestinian people are Semites.”

The fact that the there was virtually no pushback from CNN anchor Kaitlin Collins allowed Moore to reimagine facts and rewrite history.

This is can’t-miss viewing in the worst conceivable way.

Most Malicious Mouthpiece for the Iranian Regime: Seyed Mohammad Marandi, (Interviews on BBC, Sky News, and Channel 4 News)

In the aftermath of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s drone and missile attack on Israel in April 2024, several British media outlets provided a platform for Seyed Mohammad Marandi. While he was presented innocuously enough as a University of Tehran professor, he is nonetheless an educator in a closed society, where the Iranian regime maintains control over every facet of life, including education. Moreover, Seyed Mohammad Marandi has been exposed as a former IRGC soldier. Despite this revelation, UK media continue to turn to the good professor for sage analysis.

None of the various UK-based news channels alerted their audience that Marandi is effectively a representative of the Iranian government. And so, viewers were fed a feast of lies by the ever-smirking professor who accused Israel in various interviews of genocide, and the Israeli government of being a Nazi regime – an overt act of antisemitism. The fall of the Iran-led axis of resistance will be that much sweeter if it manages to knock that irritating grin off Marandi’s face.

New Master Race: Owen Jones, The Guardian

Having published a lengthy screed exposing the BBC for being pro-Israel, Guardian columnist Owen Jones liked a couple of blatantly antisemitic comments posted by his supporters. After being called out, Jones sort of backtracked, posting that “the lesson here is don’t scan through comments reading the first line and pressing ‘like,’ which is what I did.”

A heartfelt apology this most assuredly was not.

Then again, Jones is no stranger to the Dishonest Reporter of the Year Award. This is, after all, the same man who, after watching 47 minutes of footage from the October 7 Hamas massacre, concluded that Israel still hadn’t provided enough proof of horrors like the gang-rape of women and the deliberate killing of children.

In Memoriam: Mehdi Hasan, On Leaving Legacy Media (Hopefully for Good)

In late 2023, MSNBC announced the cancelation of long-time detractor of Israel Mehdi Hasan’s regular show. Hasan eventually chose to quit the network and launch his own independent media company, Zeteo, in early 2024.

In theory, Hasan now has even more freedom to pursue his obsessive attacks on Israel through his own outlet and on social media.

How did he fare without MSNBC as a platform? Based on his performance in the Munk Debate on anti-Zionism, where he spoke against the motion that anti-Zionism is antisemitism, Hasan’s flame-throwing days may be behind him. Between the beginning of the debate and the end, support for Mehdi’s position dropped by 5%.

Most Dysfunctional News Network: CBS

In July, HonestReporting revealed that a CBS News journalist in Gaza praised terrorists at an official event of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and had contacts with terrorists as a member of the Gaza City municipal council.

Marwan al-Ghoul has been working as a CBS News producer in Gaza for more than two decades, and his affiliation with a proscribed terror group, as well as his official public role in the Hamas-ruled Strip, raises alarming questions regarding the network’s journalistic standards.

Unsurprisingly, Al-Ghoul’s reports from Gaza are typical — they include destruction and victims, not Hamas terrorists.

Marwan Al Ghoul Dishonest Reporter 2024

Despite having no problem with al-Ghoul’s continuing employment, CBS did take issue when its anchor Tony Dokoupil pressed author Ta-Nehisi Coates on the most contentious parts of his new essay collection, The Message, which tackles the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Instead of engaging in an open debate, CBS succumbed to internal backlash and forced Dokoupil to apologize. The resulting fallout led to Paramount Global’s CEO, Shari Redstone reportedly admitting that CBS’s decision to reprimand Dokoupil was a “mistake.”

Al-Ghoul gets a free pass but Dokoupil gets hauled over the coals? Something just isn’t right at CBS News.

Biggest New Influencer Antisemite: Dan Bilzerian

Like many other influencers, Dan Bilzerian’s sudden interest in Israel ignited after the October 7 Hamas massacre that sparked the current war in Gaza. His public embrace of anti-Jewish bigotry is part of a wider online trend that includes such luminaries as Nick Fuentes, Candace Owens, and Jackson Hinkle.

In 2024, Bilzerian posted dozens of disturbing comments about the Jewish state, including conspiratorial claims that Israel murdered U.S. soldiers, that Israel’s Mossad controls the U.S. government, and that Israel orchestrated October 7 as a pretext to seize land in Gaza.

Another antisemitic social media trend that Bilzerian has latched onto involves using either fake or manipulated quotations from the Talmud to supposedly “prove” that Jews are evil, thereby “contextualizing” the war in Gaza.

Bilzerian’s post-October 7 boost in popularity underscores how antisemitism is flourishing online, resulting in real-world consequences.

Dan Bilzerian

Most Creative Use of Hezbollah to Correct a Story: Washington Post

The Washington Post in September managed to “correct”’ an error of its own making with … Hezbollah propaganda.

Comments in Post connected with an interview conducted with Alma, an independent research and education center focused on Israel’s security challenges along its northern border, implied that the Galilee region in northern Israel is “disputed” territory. After confirming with Alma that its representative never made any such statement during her interview with the Washington Post, the publication issued a correction…of sorts.

Instead of doing the right thing and simply removing the word “disputed” from the article, journalist Loveday Morris appeared to double down, attempting to justify or explain why the status of the Galilee region could be considered disputed.

Yet even after HonestReporting called out The Washington Post for Morris’s shoddy journalism and subsequent ‘correction,’ the media outlet continued to platform Hezbollah’s false claims.

Biggest Disappointment: The Wall Street Journal

The Wall Street Journal, long seen as a reliable voice on Israel, is now pushing a dangerous narrative by drawing disturbing moral equivalencies between Hamas terrorists and Israelis defending their lives.

Case in point: One of their reporters, Abeer Ayyoub, was caught spreading terrorist propaganda on social media. On October 7, Ayyoub posted a violent Hamas propaganda video. It showed terrorists lynching and executing Israeli soldiers near the Gaza border.

Ayyoub’s anti-Israeli sentiment is often hidden behind the facade of the Arabic language, making it easier to conceal from her bosses and colleagues in Western media.

But this is no excuse.

However, despite Ayyoub’s rampant hate-mongering, The Wall Street Journal apparently believes that she can report on Israel and Gaza objectively, without letting her views contaminate her coverage.

Aber Ayyoub

Perpetuation of 2,000-Year-Old Blood Libel Prize: Sky News

Sky News reached a journalistic low in July with a report by special correspondent Alex Crawford, detailing the aftermath of the Hezbollah rocket attack on the Golan Heights that killed 12 children playing soccer in the Druze town of Majdal Shams.

Crawford prominently highlighted Hezbollah’s vehement denials of involvement in the attack, yet omitted the fact that the group had earlier that day boasted about launching at least 100 rockets at Israel.

But the most disturbing part of the piece wasn’t Crawford’s almost sympathetic portrayal of the terror group as unflinching in the face of “threats and accusations from their Israeli neighbors.” Below, is a direct quote from the piece:

The war has entered a very dangerous stage and the Lebanese authorities who’re in direct contact with their Hezbollah partners are urging restraint whilst encouraging the Americans to leverage pressure on the Israelis to reign [sic] in their lust for revenge. 

The People’s Choice: BBC News

Last year’s Dishonest Reporter Award winner has had a stellar year for anti-Israel bias and that was reflected in a vote held on X (formerly Twitter) that demonstrated just how poorly BBC News is thought of around the globe. Despite coming up against The New York Times in the final round of voting, the BBC delivered a knockout blow to take the people’s choice for the worst coverage of Israel this year.

A damning report exposed the full extent of the BBC’s anti-Israel bias during the Israel-Hamas war. The analysis, spanning four months of the broadcaster’s coverage starting on October 7, uncovered a staggering 1,500 breaches of the BBC’s editorial guidelines and highlighted systemic failures to maintain its commitment to impartiality and accuracy during a conflict that has fueled a troubling rise of antisemitic bigotry worldwide.

The Asserson Report reveals not just isolated errors, but a consistent pattern of bias that undermines the BBC’s journalistic integrity. But how can the BBC begin to address its failings when it refuses to acknowledge that there is a problem?

The BBC has recently come under fire from The Guardian’s Owen Jones and Al Jazeera for being “pro-Israel.”

We’ll respectfully disagree.

2024 Dishonest Reporter of the Year: The New York Times

In a disturbingly crowded field, The New York Times stood out in 2024. One of America’s leading publications, the Gray Lady repeatedly played fast and loose with news about the Israel-Hamas conflict. While there were notable instances where the newspaper of record for the United States distinguished itself with compelling fact-driven articles and investigations, even earning a Pulitzer Prize for its Israel-Hamas war coverage, such examples of journalistic excellence, unfortunately, proved to be the exception.

Instead, people around the world looking for clear and sober reporting and reasoned analysis about Israel were generally treated to a steady diet of advocacy journalism that put a premium on pushing a certain narrative.

Below, are but a few of the ways the NYT’s readership was thoroughly misled:

Doctors Plot

In October, The New York Times opinion essay “65 Doctors, Nurses and Paramedics: What We Saw in Gaza” blew up, as weapons and forensic ballistic experts debunked and questioned X-ray images featured in the piece claiming to be 5.56 caliber bullets inside the skulls of Gazan children.

Despite The New York Times’ vigorous defense of the essay, the mounting evidence that discredited both the accounts and the purported evidence within the piece raises serious questions about how thoroughly The Times vetted the doctors involved.

Another doozy also occurred in October, when The New York Times published an investigation alleging that IDF soldiers were using Gazans as human shields during operations in the Gaza Strip. NYT’s investigation relied heavily on highly problematic sources, including the organization Breaking the Silence.

In doing so, The New York Times turned on its head the substantiated fact that Hamas deliberately embeds itself within civilian infrastructure as a means of protecting its terrorists and their weaponry from Israel. Not only are the accusations against the IDF baseless, but they are also a distraction from the very real human rights violations Hamas perpetrates when it uses Gazans as human shields.

Apartheid Roads

The New York Times failed mightily when it published an interactive feature titled “Roadblocked.”

The piece implied strongly that Israel’s road network exists solely to “restrict Palestinian movement.” The truth is that these barriers and security measures were put in place to protect Israelis from terrorism. And, crucially, they likely would not exist if there were a Palestinian leadership committed to peace with Israel.

Apartheid Roads New York Times

No Campus Antisemitism Here

The Times posted a piece in July that failed to portray the full and accurate picture of events surrounding the outburst of antisemitism on U.S. college campuses. In an entire discussion of the campus protest arrests, the article does not make a single mention of the extreme nature of these demonstrations.

Effectively, the NYT uncritically ran with the narrative that student protesters were simply exercising their right to free speech. Such fact-free reporting trivializes the incitement perpetrated by those present and enforces the idea that they do not deserve any consequences for their violent behavior.

Lancet Libel

The Lancet medical journal published a piece in July that claimed it wasn’t “implausible” that the overall number of deaths in Gaza could be higher than 186,000 — a figure the authors concocted by comparing Gaza to other conflicts with no substantial basis.

To her credit, New York Times Opinion Editor Meher Ahmad was one of the few journalists to correctly describe the piece as a “letter,” not a peer-reviewed study or anything remotely rigorous. However, she still attempted to contextualize the authors’ “staggering” number, describing the contents of the missive as “more a call for open documentation of casualties than anything else.”

Legitimized By Pulitzer Prize

The awarding of the Pulitzer Prize to the Times for “its wide-ranging and revelatory coverage of Hamas’ lethal attack in southern Israel on October 7, Israel’s intelligence failures, and the Israeli military’s sweeping, deadly response in Gaza” gave the ultimate seal of approval for all of the paper’s Israel-Hamas war coverage — including all of those times that the Gray Lady has not lived up to appropriate standards.

To fulfill its mission to cover “All the News That’s Fit to Print,” one can forgive The New York Times for the occasional case of sloppy journalism, inevitable in a 24/7 news cycle. However, the publication’s biased reporting on the Israel-Hamas war was part of a pattern. On a topic as complex and impactful as the Israel-Hamas war, the paper has a major responsibility to get the facts right. Instead, the publication sacrificed its journalistic standards on the altar of a narrative that aligns neatly with that of Israel’s most vociferous detractors.

“Congratulations” to a worthy winner of this year’s Dishonest Reporter Award.

Gidon Ben-Zvi, former Jerusalem Correspondent for The Algemeiner newspaper, is an accomplished writer who left Hollywood for Jerusalem in 2009. He and his wife are raising their four children to speak fluent English – with an Israeli accent. Ben-Zvi’s work has appeared in The Jerusalem Post, The Times of Israel, The Algemeiner, American Thinker, The Jewish Journal, Israel Hayom, and United with Israel. Ben-Zvi blogs at Jerusalem State of Mind (jsmstateofmind.com). The author is a contributor to 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 2024 Dishonest Reporter of the Year Awards first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 11
Continue Reading

RSS

Why Does the Media Continue to Smear Israel With Anti-Christmas Lies?

The BBC logo is seen at the entrance at Broadcasting House, the BBC headquarters in central London. Photo by Vuk Valcic / SOPA Images/Sipa USA.

As long-time readers know, the BBC cannot resist promoting politicized messaging in its Christmas coverage, and this year was no exception.

On the morning of Christmas Day, the BBC News website published a report by the BBC Jerusalem bureau’s Yolande Knell titled “Palestinian Christians struggle to find hope at Christmas,” which opens by telling readers that a town which has been under the exclusive control of the Palestinian Authority for twenty-nine years is “occupied.”

The little town of Bethlehem in the occupied West Bank has good reason to consider itself the capital of Christmas but this year it does not feel like it.

There are very few visitors at what is typically a peak time. There are not the usual cheerful street decorations nor the giant Christmas tree in front of the Nativity Church, built over the spot where it is believed that Jesus was born.

Public celebrations of Christmas have been cancelled for a second year because of the war in Gaza. Palestinian Christians are only attending religious ceremonies and family gatherings.

As was the case in a very similar report published a year earlier, Knell does not bother to inform her readers that one of the reasons why there are “few visitors” is because most major airlines cancelled flights to Israel following the October 7, 2023 invasion and massacre by Hamas that led to the current war.

Neither does Knell explain that tourists are unlikely to be attracted to a town which has cancelled Christmas celebrations for the second time and – as was also the case in the BBC’s 2023 report – she fails to clarify that (as other media outlets were able to report) the political decision to cancel public celebrations was taken by local authorities, including the municipality.

Despite having failed to clarify that the cancellation of Christmas celebrations in Bethlehem is a political decision, Knell later goes on to promote talking points concerning the town’s economy:

The economy is in dire straits especially in Bethlehem, which relies heavily on tourism which has almost entirely stopped. Guides stand idly by the Nativity Church, feeding the pigeons.

“If there [are] tourists, all the people will work: hotels, transportation, accommodation, all of them,” says one guide, Abdullah. “But [if] there [are] no tourists, there is no life in Bethlehem city.”

“I am broke! No business! For more than one year we stay home,” exclaims Adnan Subah, a souvenir seller on Star Street.

“My son is a tour guide in the church, we stay home, all my kids stay. No jobs, no business, no tourists.”

Knell fails to comply with BBC editorial guidelines concerning Contributors’ Affiliations by neglecting to inform readers that the pastor to whom she gives a platform to promote lies concerning “genocide” is a long-time political activist.

”This should be a time of joy and celebration,” comments Reverend Dr Munther Isaac, a local Lutheran pastor. “But Bethlehem is a sad town in solidarity with our siblings in Gaza.”

At his church, the Nativity scene shows baby Jesus lying in a pile of rubble. In the run-up to Christmas, a prayer service focused on the catastrophic situation in Gaza.

“It’s hard to believe that another Christmas has come upon us and the genocide has not stopped,” Isaac said in his strongly worded sermon. “Decision makers are content to let this continue. To them, Palestinians are dispensable.”

Israel strongly denies accusations of genocide in Gaza and judges at the UN’s top court have yet to rule in a case alleging genocide, brought by South Africa.

Neither does Knell tell her readers that the same pastor also promoted “baby Jesus lying in a pile of rubble” agitprop last Christmas.

Another political activist (who, like Isaac, is linked to the Bethlehem Bible College and ‘Christ at the Checkpoint’ conferences) is portrayed by Knell merely as a “theologian.” His promotion of the politically motivated falsehood of ‘starvation’ goes unchallenged.

”My mum told me that what we see on television doesn’t capture one per cent of what’s happening,” says theologian, Dr Yousef Khouri, who is originally from Gaza City.

His parents and sister are among a few hundred Christians who have spent much of the past 14 months sheltering in two Gazan churches.

“They are subjected like the entire Gaza strip to starvation. Of course, almost non-sleep because of bombardment, because of all the drones hovering above their heads and the lack of medical attention and services,” he says.

“We’ve lost friends and relatives.”

In addition, Knell promotes the notion that casualty figures provided by the Gaza-based terrorist organization which started the war are “reliable.”

“In Gaza, more than 45,000 people have been killed in the war that was unleashed in response to the Hamas attacks on southern Israel. Figures come from the Hamas-run health ministry but are considered reliable by the UN and others. The assault on 7 October 2023 killed some 1,200 people – Israelis and some foreigners – and led to about 250 being taken hostage.

Knell tells her readers that: “Tensions have risen in the West Bank in parallel to the war. Israel has imposed new restrictions on Palestinians’ movements and cancelled tens of thousands of permits for workers who used to cross into Jerusalem or Jewish settlements each day.”

BBC audiences are not informed that “tensions” in fact began long before October 2023 due to the rise in terrorism that has been encouraged and facilitated by Iranian-backed terrorist groups for over three years.

Knell also returns to themes that she has been promoting in Christmas coverage for at least a decade: “Many local Christian and Muslim families have emigrated in the past year. With the constant threat of violence and expansion of settlements on lands where Palestinians have long sought an independent state of their own, there is increased fear and uncertainty over the future.”

Christian emigration from PA controlled areas began long before “the past year” but like so many of her colleagues, Yolande Knell opts for the easy option of blaming “settlements” and an inadequately explained “threat of violence” rather than informing her readers accurately on the topic.

And so once again BBC audiences find Yolande Knell self-conscripting to the opportunistic exploitation of Christmas for promotion of context-free political sloganeering.

Hadar Sela is the 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 first appeared.

The post Why Does the Media Continue to Smear Israel With Anti-Christmas Lies? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 15
Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News