Connect with us

RSS

The Economist Misleads With Flawed A-Z on the Arab-Israeli Conflict

An Israeli soldier helps to provide incubators to Al Shifa Hospital in Gaza. Photo: Screenshot

In what should have been a well-researched piece, The Economist recently provided its readers with an A-Z glossary on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, the “glossary” is rife with inaccuracies, omissions, and flat-out mistakes that mislead rather than inform.

Here are the most egregious examples from the A-Z list, each followed by our brief responses.

Al-Shifa Hospital

THE ECONOMIST: Gaza’s largest hospital. Israel claims that Hamas has its underground headquarters below the building, which Hamas denies. Attacking health-care facilities can be illegal under international law.

Response: Israel has exposed Hamas tunnels under the hospital. The Israeli army also said it had found “weapons, ammunition, grenades, military equipment disguised in medical containers, and anti-tank explosives” at the site, and released some images of these. When healthcare facilities are used for terror activity, they lose their legally protected status under international law.

Arab Revolt in Palestine

THE ECONOMIST: In 1936 unrest broke out in the British mandate of Palestine amid frustration at rising Jewish immigration in the wake of Britain’s Balfour Declaration. By the summer of 1939 the uprising had been suppressed—but Britain later faced Jewish revolts and after the second world war handed the problem to the United Nations, which voted to partition the land.

Response: The Arab Revolt was not a mere “unrest.” It was a wide-scale, violent Palestinian uprising fueled by leadership incitement against Jewish immigration. More than 400 Jews were killed by Arabs during the revolt. Ignoring these facts creates the false impression that it was an anti-colonial rather than an anti-Jewish revolt.

Armistice (1949)

THE ECONOMIST: Peace deals signed after the first Arab–Israeli war of 1948. Israel and Arab states divided up the land. No Palestinian state was created; Egypt controlled Gaza while Transjordan (later Jordan) formally annexed the West Bank.

Response: The 1949 Armistice comprised of ceasefire agreements between Israel and its belligerent Arab neighbors, not peace deals. The armistice line (not a permanent border) is where the Israeli and Arab armies happened to be when the fighting was halted.

Hostages

THE ECONOMIST: Israeli prisoners held by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. On October 7th 2023 around 240 people were taken by Hamas from Israel to Gaza.

Response: Calling hostages “prisoners” suggests they have been detained or imprisoned under some form of legal framework. It also paves the way to morally equate them to Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails over violence and terror charges. But the Israeli hostages, children included, were not prisoners nor were they “taken” by Hamas to Gaza. They have been brutally kidnapped from their homes and other places after witnessing horrific atrocities inflicted on their families and communities. According to accounts of released hostages, they have been terrorized and suffered starvation and abuse while in Hamas captivity.

Israel

THE ECONOMIST: The modern state of Israel was established in May 1948 by Jewish leaders after the withdrawal of Britain from Palestine. The name also refers to a kingdom in ancient Palestine comprising the lands occupied by the Hebrew people.

Response: The phrase “ancient Palestine” suggests that a nation known as Palestine existed in the past, with the word “ancient” giving the impression that this nation has deep roots in the region, and thus has a natural claim to be revived in the form of a modern state called Palestine. This is false, as there has never been a state of Palestine as today’s supporters are calling for. This phrase, as well as the word “occupied,” also subtly suggests that a Jewish presence is foreign to the region. In reality, Jews are indigenous to Israel and have had a presence there for centuries.

Israel Defense Forces

THE ECONOMIST: Israel’s army. Largely made up of reservists with a small core of professional soldiers. Led in 2023 by Lieutenant General Herzi Halevi.

Response: The word “professional” suggests that Israeli soldiers sign up for a non-compulsory army service. A more accurate word would have been “conscripted,” as these soldiers are required to complete a mandatory military service.

First Lebanon War

THE ECONOMIST: Four month conflict between Israel and Lebanon in 1982. Known in Israel as Operation Peace for Galilee. Israel invaded in order to dismantle Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organisation which had taken control of the south of Lebanon. The war killed thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, along with hundreds of Israeli and Syrian soldiers. The PLO subsequently moved its headquarters to Tunisia. In 1985 most Israeli troops were withdrawn from Lebanon, except for a border “security zone”.

Response: What’s omitted here is the reason for the war — the terrorist activity of Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Before the war, the PLO had launched numerous lethal attacks against Israel from its southern Lebanon bases. The deadliest one was the 1978 coastal road massacre, in which 37 Israelis, including 12 children, were killed. Palestinian terrorists had also constantly targeted Israel’s northern communities with artillery and rocket fire. The immediate trigger for the war was the assassination of Israel’s ambassador to the UK by Palestinian terrorists in June 1982.

Second Lebanon War

THE ECONOMIST: Conflict between Israel and Lebanon between July and August 2006. Launched by Israel in an attempt to destroy Hizbullah, an Iran-backed militant group and political party which had created a “state within a state” in the south of the country. Israel imposed a naval blockade, bombed Beirut, Lebanon’s capital, and invaded the south. Six years earlier Israeli troops had withdrawn from the security zone established in 1985.

Response: Again, the reason for the war is omitted. Israel retaliated against a Hezbollah attack in which three soldiers were killed and two others kidnapped, while a barrage of rockets was fired at Israeli territory on July 12, 2006. The terrorist group had been constantly attacking Israeli forces, despite their withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000.

Six-Day War

THE ECONOMIST: Brief armed conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbours in June 1967. Israel tripled its territory, capturing the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights and the Sinai peninsula. Israel has since moved to build Jewish settlements on some of the land occupied during the war.

Response: The entry makes Israel look like the aggressor in an unprovoked war. In fact, this was a war of self-defense. Arab armies were amassed on Israel’s borders in preparation to attack and destroy it, and Egypt had closed the Straits of Tiran, a strategic supply route for Israel. Moreover, Israel had been constantly subjected to terrorist attacks from the West Bank. And while the armed conflict was “brief” in the sense of its timeframe, its results were seismic for the region.

Suez crisis

THE ECONOMIST: In October 1956 Israel invaded Egypt, capturing the Sinai peninsula and the Gaza Strip. The conflict was planned in collusion with Britain and France in order to allow them to regain control of the Suez Canal which they had run until Egypt’s president, Gamal Abdul Nasser, nationalised it in July 1956. America was outraged and pushed Britain to abort the mission. In December 1956 the Israelis withdrew from Sinai and in March 1957 they withdrew from Gaza.

Response: The Economist fails to mention that Israel’s main goal in the Sinai operation was the eradication of the Palestinian “Fedayeen” based in Sinai, who had terrorized Israeli communities since the beginning of the 1950s. It also fails to mention that Egypt had illegally closed the Straits of Tiran in 1955. Instead, it makes Israel look like a co-conspirator in a colonial war.

West Bank

THE ECONOMIST: Israeli-occupied territory run in part by the Palestinian Authority. Palestinians view it as the core of their would-be state. Right-wing and religious Israelis regard it as their ancestral territory, with many biblical sites, and are pushing for Israel to annex it in part or entirely. Home to increasing numbers of Israeli settlers.

Response: The area is presented as the object of two competing worldviews, without mentioning the fact that it actually is the ancestral Jewish homeland, known also as Judea and Samaria. Such phrasing undermines the validity of the Jewish claims to the region.

Zionism

THE ECONOMIST: A movement founded by Theodor Herzl, an Austro-Hungarian Jew, with the aim of creating a Jewish homeland. In the 1920s the movement was dominated by socialists, who went on to establish the state of Israel on socialist principles. In more recent years religious Zionism, an offshoot, which regards Zionism as a fundamental component of Orthodox Judaism, has become a powerful force.

Response: The aim of Zionism was to establish a state for the Jews in their historic homeland, not to create a Jewish homeland. It is clearly stated in Herzl’s book, The Jewish State. Presenting Zionism’s core idea as an out-of-the-blue creation undermines the very basis of the Jewish national movement.

The Economist was right to publish an A-Z explainer on the Arab-Israeli conflict. News consumers need basic information on complicated issues. But this is exactly why such efforts should be performed with extra care. When every word matters, when every mistake tilts the narrative, when every entry is loaded, The Economist should have known better.

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 The Economist Misleads With Flawed A-Z on the Arab-Israeli Conflict first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

RSS

US Reportedly Shares Intelligence with New Syrian Leadership to Counter ISIS Threats

Syria’s de facto leader Ahmed al-Sharaa, also known as Abu Mohammed al-Golani, waits to welcome the senior Ukrainian delegation led by Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha, after the ousting of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, in Damascus, Syria, Dec. 30, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi

i24 NewsThe United States has begun sharing classified intelligence with Syria’s new leadership, led by Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), an Islamist group formerly designated as a terrorist organization, reports the Washington Post.

This unexpected collaboration comes in the wake of HTS overthrowing the Assad regime last month and reflects heightened US concerns about a potential resurgence of the Islamic State (ISIS).

According to sources, US intelligence recently helped thwart a planned ISIS attack on a prominent Shiite shrine near Damascus.

Despite this cooperation, US officials stress that the intelligence-sharing arrangement does not signify full support for HTS, which has a controversial history of extremism.

HTS leader Ahmed al-Sharaa, previously known by his militant alias Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, has made efforts to project a more moderate image, pledging to protect Syria’s religious minorities and stabilize the country.

However, skepticism remains about HTS’s ability to govern effectively and sustain efforts against ISIS.

The Biden administration, before leaving office, maintained HTS’s terrorist designation while easing sanctions on Syria to facilitate humanitarian aid. As the new US administration under President Donald Trump takes shape, questions loom about the future of American involvement in Syria and the ongoing military presence aimed at preventing an ISIS comeback.

The post US Reportedly Shares Intelligence with New Syrian Leadership to Counter ISIS Threats first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Hostages Missing from Hamas’ Release List

A birthday cake for Kfir Bibas, who is a hostage in Hamas captivity. Thursday, January 18, 2024. (Photo: Debbie Weiss)

i24 NewsThe second phase of hostage releases between Israel and Hamas has sparked deep frustration and grief among the families of those still held captive.

Two hostages—Arbel Yahud and Agam Berger—were notably excluded from the list of those to be freed on Saturday, despite earlier agreements prioritizing the return of civilians.

Arbel Yahud, 29, and Agam Berger, 20, both captives since the October 7 attack, were not included in the list of four hostages expected to be released.

Yahud, from Kibbutz Nir Oz, was taken along with her partner, Ariel Cunio, whose family was freed in November. Yahud’s brother, Dolev, was later found dead in June after he was killed while trying to aid the wounded. Agam Berger, from Holon, was captured while stationed at Nahal Oz. Her family identified her in a video released by Hamas, showing her in pajamas being taken away in a vehicle after she called her father to alert him of the gunfire.

The omission of these two hostages has led to heightened concerns and calls for action from Israeli authorities, who are now exerting pressure on Hamas and mediators to honor the terms of the release agreement. Israeli officials reaffirmed their commitment to continue with the broader agreement, but warned that the failure to meet the agreed terms could harm future releases.

Adding to the grief, the Bibas family expressed their devastation when they learned that Shiri Bibas and her children, who were abducted from their Nir Oz home on October 7, were also absent from the second release list. In a heartfelt message shared on Saturday, the Bibas family shared their anguish: “Even though we were prepared for it, we were hoping to see Shiri and the children on the list that was supposed to be the civilian list.” The family voiced concerns over their loved one’s safety and questioned why, despite grave fears for their lives, their relatives were not included among the civilians due to be returned.

The Bibas family’s message emphasized their belief that the public must continue to demand answers, adding, “Thank you, dear supporters, for not giving up, for continuing to pray, to hope and to demand answers.

The post Hostages Missing from Hamas’ Release List first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Liri Albag, Karina Ariev, Naama Levi, and Daniela Gilboa Return to Israel After 477 Days of Captivity

A combination picture shows Israeli hostages Karina Ariev, Naama Levy, Liri Albag, and Daniela Gilboa, soldiers who were seized from their army base in southern Israel during the deadly Oct. 7, 2023 attack by Hamas, in these undated handout pictures. Photo: Courtesy of Bring Them Home Now/Handout via REUTERS

i24 NewsAfter 477 harrowing days in captivity, four young Israeli women—Liri Albag, Karina Ariev, Naama Levi, and Daniela Gilboa—have finally returned home.

The release took place Saturday morning in Gaza’s Palestine Square, under a carefully staged scene orchestrated by Hamas.

The four women, who served in a military observation unit in Nahal Oz, were handed over to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Before their release, they were made to wear uniforms provided by Hamas and were paraded on a platform in front of a crowd of activists. Forced to smile and wave, the women endured the ordeal under the watchful eyes of Hamas fighters.

Once the formalities concluded, the women walked to waiting ICRC vehicles, accompanied by representatives of the organization. Upon reaching Israeli forces, IDF medical teams immediately conducted examinations. At the meeting point, the first female officers who greeted them informed the women that their families were watching live. Overcome with emotion, the former hostages smiled at the cameras, sending heartfelt gestures to their loved ones.

Footage later released by the IDF captured a poignant moment: the four women removing the uniforms given to them by Hamas and embracing Israeli officers. These emotional scenes underscored the end of a long and grueling chapter in their lives.

The women were transported to the Reim reception center, where their families eagerly awaited them. After 477 days of separation, the reunions were deeply moving, marking a moment of relief and joy.

However, the release was not without complications. A fifth military observer, Agam Berger, remains in captivity, and Hamas failed to uphold its agreement to release civilian hostage Arbel Yahud, who was originally included in the liberation group. The breach of terms has drawn widespread condemnation, intensifying efforts to secure the release of those who remain captive.

This momentous event brings a mix of celebration and determination, as Israel continues to work tirelessly for the freedom of all hostages still held in Gaza.

The post Liri Albag, Karina Ariev, Naama Levi, and Daniela Gilboa Return to Israel After 477 Days of Captivity first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News