RSS
Under New Editor, the Wall Street Journal Is Misreporting Facts About Israel
Wall Street Journal Editor-in-Chief Emma Tucker is making changes at the venerable publication, pushing more “life-style stories with snappy headlines” in the news section — and she’s reportedly downsized, if not gutted, the standards desk that handles corrections. She’s eliminated an editing team “responsible for prepublication review of sensitive stories.”’
The new direction, as described in a National Review story, resonates alarmingly for many readers of the newspaper who have long counted on its fact-focused, serious coverage, but find something very different today. For many, the increasingly skewed, factually shoddy coverage of Israel is a striking indicator of the wider shift in the paper’s tenor and content.
Reporter Omar Abdel-Baqui could be the poster child for this new Wall Street Journal.
One “sensitive” story of his with far too little fact-checking and editorial oversight was a June 15 account focused on the disappointments of young Gen Z Palestinians. Much of the bias of the piece stems from relentless omission of critical information. The online title, “Gen Z Palestinians See Door Slamming Shut on Coexistence with Israel,” perfectly conveys the deceptions and distortions that follow.
What the article fails to mention is that many Palestinians are themselves the door-slammers. There’s no hint in the story that the Palestinian leadership has repeatedly refused an independent and peaceful state next to the Jewish State of Israel. There’s no suggestion the melancholy Gen Z Palestinian teens who are cast as buffeted by upheaval and uncertainty should blame their own autocratic leaders for ruining their lives. (The print version was similarly titled: “Gen Z Palestinians Have Little Hope for Peace.”)
Striking photographs accompany the story. A 15-year-old girl fully clothed in black, and wearing a keffiyeh, poses floating on her back in the Persian Gulf, gazing skyward — as if in a fashion spread. A displaced Gazan from a wealthy family, the young woman also appears elsewhere in the online version of the story standing fully clothed in the water, expressionless. This could be Teen Vogue.
Abdel-Baqui recounts various harsh political events that have ostensibly shaped the lives of the young woman and fellow Palestinian teens, but he continuously omits facts key to an accurate understanding of how Palestinians themselves are culpable for their circumstances. Thus Abdel-Baqui writes:
“Though their parents recall an era of hope amid the 1990’s Oslo Accords, the latest breakthrough agreement between the two sides, Palestinians under the age of 25 – who comprise most of the population – say the door to coexistence with Israelis always felt barely ajar. It has been slammed shut since Oct. 7.”
The repetitive door metaphor omits how exactly that “era of hope” and “door to coexistence” surrounding Oslo was blocked.
There is no mention of Palestinian terrorists blowing up Israeli buses, cafes, and religious events in the wake of the 1993 Oslo agreements. The terror attacks began only six months after the September 1993 agreement — in 1994 in Afula, Hadera, and then Tel Aviv. The bloodletting intensified in 1995 and 1996, when gruesome mass bombings occurred in Jerusalem, Ramat Gan, Beit Lid, and elsewhere. All the while, Israel continued attempting to implement Oslo measures aimed at getting to an “end of the conflict” predicated on Yasser Arafat’s false pledge to resolve disagreements peacefully.
Obviously, there’s no suggestion in the article that Gen Z parents were wishing their ruthless, corrupt leaders had been different human beings and accepted Israel’s extended hand. So reference to the parents wistfully recalling an era of Oslo peace only to be let down is an egregious deception characteristic of the entire piece.
In relaying the pain and disappointment of other Gen Z Palestinians, Abdel-Baqui refers to the sealing off of the West Bank after October 7 and how it prevented friendly Palestinian interaction with Israelis, and before that, the building of a “barrier across much of the military-occupied West Bank” because of a “Palestinian uprising known as the Second Intifada.”
The reporter notes that Israeli “skepticism grew during the Second Intifada when Palestinian militants launched suicide bombings across Israel and deepened after Oct. 7, leading many Israelis to conclude they can’t trust Palestinians.”
Once more, there’s not the slightest hint by the Wall Street Journal reporter that the Second Intifada and the security barrier were results of Palestinian rejection of coexistence and peace. The Gen Z’ers and their families are cast as innocents simply looking for an open door if Israel would only offer one. The formulation is a lie insofar as it overlooks critical facts such as those cited above and many related ones.
Abdel-Baqui could have written a genuinely significant story probing the predicament of young Palestinians betrayed by “leaders” like Yahya Sinwar who, far from promoting their safety and happiness, use them as shields for Hamas gunmen, situating rockets, and tunnel openings in their family homes. As is well known, Hamas fighters themselves hide in tunnels while leaving Palestinian women and children exposed to Israeli targeting of the terrorists and their rocket launchers and other military hardware.
What is it like for teenagers to live in that world?
How do Gen Z Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank feel about a regime that rejects peaceful coexistence and leaders who seize Israeli children, young women, and elderly hostages and torment them, some in underground dungeons? What exactly have they been taught about Jews? Did Abdel-Baqui ask any of them how they felt about the mass rape of young Israeli women on October 7? Have young Palestinians been so indoctrinated in Jew-hatred that rape, murder of children, and hostage-taking are acceptable? That would have been a worthwhile question to probe and report.
Perhaps as well, given the widespread belief that Jews are interlopers in the land of Israel, it would have been worthwhile to probe what Gen Z’ers make of the countless archeological sites and artifacts literally everywhere in the region marking the long and ancient Jewish presence there. They’re told Jews have no history in the land and must be expelled. Wouldn’t these questions have been important and informative for readers?
Instead of fresh insight, Abdel Baqui’s story hewed to immutable touch points of an immutable fable of total Palestinian innocence in the face of Israeli malevolence. Predictably, in the fable, Jewish settlers and settlements are invoked as major elements of Palestinian victimization. Again, the facts are incomplete, distorted, and false, both in the broad suggestion that it is overwhelmingly non-violent Palestinians on the receiving of gratuitous settler violence, but also in factual details of history.
Abdel-Baqui recounts the deplorable killing of Bilal Saleh by settlers in November 2023 in a period shortly after October 7, when fear and anger on the part of Israelis at the unprecedented Hamas atrocities and the jubilation of West Bank Palestinians over the massacre had fueled tensions. That crime is completely inexcusable — and was treated as such by Israel. But there’s no context provided to explain that the area has been radicalized and militarized, with a massive inflow of arms and the growth of Iranian-supported militias threatening to set off a larger conflict. There’s no mention that most of the Palestinian casualties have been gunmen killed in clashes with Israeli military, or Palestinians killed when shooting, hurling IED’s, stabbing, ramming or otherwise assaulting Israelis. In this tense environment, civilians are sometimes tragically caught in the crossfire.
Nor is there reference to the brutality inflicted on innocent Jews in the West Bank and the mortal dangers they face as in the case, for instance, of the Dee family, a mother and two daughters murdered in April 2023 as they drove in the Jordan Valley to a family gathering. They were shot first from a distance, and when the vehicle crashed, the Palestinian terrorist circled back to shoot them again at close range. There’s no reference to the recent kidnap and murder of a young Israeli shepherd. Such information obviously would offer context to Abdel-Baqui’s one-dimensional fable.
Indicative of the shoddy reporting on settlements, a photo caption asserts that “the number of Israeli settlements in the West Bank has ballooned since the 1990’s.”
The opposite is true. The large majority of existing settlements were founded in the 1970s and 1980s (a total of 116), with just seven added in the 1990s and another five in the last 24 years up to the recent present when there has been “tentative” recognition of a possible four of five additional settlements. Thus, there are about 133 settlements with nine or ten founded “since the 1990’s.” The intent of the Journal’s claim is seemingly to suggest rampant Jewish settlement expansion — regardless of the facts.
When alerted that the rate of growth in the number of Israeli settlements has not “ballooned since the 1990’s” but rather declined dramatically compared to earlier decades, the Journal corrections editor refused to correct or clarify.
CAMERA noted in communication with the Journal that the reporter was likely conflating the supposed addition of new settlements with population increase within existing ones which has, indeed, occurred, and urged editors to correct the record on the error. The Journal was, however, content to misinform readers, injecting in the private correspondence reference to counting “illegal outposts”– which are not “settlements” and were not referenced in the original problematic photo caption — and citing the partisan claims of Peace Now.
The lesson of the exchange was the striking indifference of the Journal to adhering to professional standards mandating accuracy.
More serious is another uncorrected error Journal editors have chosen to promote in their coverage. The news pages have rhetorically awarded the West Bank to the Palestinians — having decided to refer to the West Bank as “Palestinian land” or “Palestinian territory.” Of course, the land is not Palestinian but rather disputed until, per the Oslo Accords to which the Israelis and Palestinians are signatories, there is a negotiated agreement on the disposition of the territory.
Nevertheless, the Journal is standing by an erroneous statement by Yaroslav Trofimov from December 1, 2023, that Israel “has maintained military occupation over Palestinian territories since 1967.” Indeed, the paper has doubled down, and is now regularly publishing this factually false terminology. as Abdel-Baqui did repeatedly on July 19, 2024
Previously on May 17, 2020, the publication had promptly corrected the same error, noting that “a Page One photo incorrectly referred to those parts of the West Bank as Palestinian territory. Under the Oslo accords, sovereignty over the West Bank is disputed, pending a final peace settlement.” Many other outlets, including the The New York Times, have made similar errors and then set the record straight. The Los Angeles Times just recently corrected the same error
Over the past year, however, and with increasing frequency, possibly coinciding with changes under Emma Tucker, the news pages have declined to address substantive errors that are corrected by other news outlets. Moreover, the tilt of the errors has been markedly in one direction– towards denigrating Israel’s position in the conflict with the Palestinians.
Regarding the false characterization of the entire West Bank as Palestinian, Journal editors have been blunt, telling CAMERA point blank:
“We accept the use of Palestinian territories to refer generally to the West Bank and Gaza.”
CAMERA asked in response: “Given the Journal’s delineating of the West Bank as ‘Palestinian territories’, can you cite … the date and terms of the agreement under the Oslo Accords when the PA and Israel reached a Final Status agreement on the challenging disposition of that territory after Israel’s withdrawal from 40% of the West Bank per Oslo II? What are the territorial lines agreed on under that Final Status Agreement that apply to the remaining 60% of Area C that you designate ‘Palestinian territory’”?
The Journal did not address the questions raised but replied: “The articles are accurate; there aren’t any errors to correct.”
The contempt of Journal news editors for readers and for the norms of ethical journalism in deeming it their prerogative to assign disputed West Bank territory to their preferred party appears to be part of the new regime under Emma Tucker.
Accuracy, impartiality,, and accountability — the precious components of honorable journalism on which a public relies to learn about the world and to help shape reasoned response to events — are on the wane in the news pages of the Wall Street Journal.
Andrea Levin is Executive Director and President of CAMERA, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, where a different version of this article first appeared.
The post Under New Editor, the Wall Street Journal Is Misreporting Facts About Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Iran to Deny UN Inspectors Access to Nuclear Sites, Top Lawmaker Says, Amid Rising Pressure for New Deal
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi arrives on the opening day of the agency’s quarterly Board of Governors meeting at the IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria, Nov. 20, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Lisa Leutner
Iran will not grant access to its nuclear facilities during next week’s visit by a delegation from the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), amid growing international pressure to reach a nuclear deal and avoid new sanctions, according to a top Iranian lawmaker.
On Monday, the head of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee of Iran’s parliament, Ebrahim Azizi, confirmed that the visiting IAEA team will only be authorized to hold “technical and expert-level talks” with Iranian officials and experts.
“According to the laws passed by parliament, Iran will not let physical access to its nuclear facilities under any circumstances,” Azizi said in a press conference reported by Iranian state-run media.
“No inspector from the IAEA team or any other foreign organization will be allowed to be present at our country’s nuclear sites,” the Iranian lawmaker continued.
In June, the Iranian parliament voted to suspend cooperation with the IAEA “until the safety and security of [the country’s] nuclear activities can be guaranteed.”
At the time, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi attributed the decision to IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi’s alleged bias against Tehran and a recent resolution accusing Iran of failing to cooperate with the UN nuclear watchdog over alleged “undeclared nuclear activities.”
“The IAEA and its Director-General are fully responsible for this sordid state of affairs,” Araghchi said in a post on X.
Grossi “directly facilitated the adoption of a politically-motivated resolution against Iran by the IAEA [Board of Governors] as well as the unlawful Israeli and US bombings of Iranian nuclear sites,” he continued.
During a press conference on Monday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei explained that next week’s visit by IAEA officials to Iran is intended to discuss the “method of interaction” with the agency.
“We are facing exceptional circumstances, as the facilities of a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] have been illegally attacked by two nuclear-armed regimes,” Baghaei said.
“Unfortunately, the IAEA did not remain impartial, failed to condemn the attacks, and instead issued a report that provided a kind of political ground for making excuses,” the Iranian diplomat continued.
In June, Israel and the US bombed Iranian nuclear sites in an effort to stop the regime from building nuclear weapons. Iran claims its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
The UN nuclear watchdog’s upcoming visit comes as Iran faces growing international pressure to resume negotiations on its nuclear program.
Last month, Tehran made its first attempt at direct talks with European powers since Israel, with the support of the US, launched an airstrike campaign targeting the country’s nuclear facilities and ballistic-missile capabilities.
The United Kingdom, France, and Germany — collectively known as the E3 — have previously warned they would reinstate UN sanctions on Tehran if no new agreement is reached by the end of August.
The sanctions were originally lifted under the 2015 nuclear deal — known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — which imposed temporary restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for large-scale sanctions relief.
Although the United States withdrew from the agreement in 2018 under President Donald Trump’s first administration, Iran and the three European nations have continued to uphold the deal.
Under the UN Security Council resolution implementing the nuclear accord, international sanctions could be reimposed on Iran through a “snapback” mechanism that would take about 30 days.
As for the United States, Iran has insisted that Washington must compensate Tehran for the losses incurred during the recent 12-day war with Israel to pave the way for renewed negotiations.
However, Araghchi made clear that a deal would remain off the table as long as Trump continued to demand that Iran commit to zero uranium enrichment.
RSS
US Sen. Cory Booker Refuses to Endorse Zohran Mamdani for NYC Mayor
US Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ). Photo: Reuters / Rebecca Cook.
US Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) declined to endorse New York Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani in his bid for New York City mayor, underscoring a simmering divide within the Democratic party over whether to embrace the anti-Israel politician.
Booker, a former presidential candidate known for his progressive rhetoric and background in community activism, has often walked a careful line when it comes to the party’s internal divisions. When asked last week by CNN reporter Manu Raju whether he would support Mamdani, a far-left democratic socialist, Booker said, “I have learned a long time ago, to let New York politics be New York politics. We have enough challenges in New Jersey.”
Citing heated gubernatorial and legislative races, Booker said his energy will be devoted to his home state of New Jersey before adding, “New York City, I love you. You’re my neighbor. You’re about 10 miles from where I live. You guys figure out your elections. I’m going to be focused on mine.”
Booker’s response came after he dodged an initial question from Raju asking if the senator would support Mamdani, who won the New York City Democratic mayoral in June.
“So, you and I are going to have this conversation, and I’m going to say to you one day, I told you so,” Booker responded. “This is not a left-right issue. It really isn’t. It is an authoritarian, versus people who want pragmatic government that makes a difference in the lives of the American people. I’m one of these people that says the lines that divide us in America are not nearly as strong as the ties that bind us.”
“Big corporations, people want to keep our eyes on the screen, want to pit us against each other and tell us how much we should hate each other,” he continued. “I’m sorry, the left-right lens is not the right lens to look at this right now. Right now, it is, can we get back to the pragmatic work of governing?”
Booker’s refusal to endorse Mandani broader tensions within the Democratic party over the rising influence of its far-left, progressive wing, particularly among younger lawmakers who have been outspoken critics of US military aid to Israel. Mamdani, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, has drawn national attention for his calls to end what he describes as unconditional support for the Israeli government, a position that has attracted both praise from progressive activists and backlash from pro-Israel groups and establishment Democrats.
Booker, who has long positioned himself as a supporter of Israel while also advocating for Palestinian rights, has grown increasingly cautious in recent years about aligning with candidates whose positions might alienate key constituencies. Despite the growing anti-Israel sentiment within the Democratic base, Booker has remained outspoken about the need to secure the release of the remaining hostages in Gaza. Booker regularly wears a yellow ribbon pin on the lapel of his suit jacket as a sign of his support for the hostages.
Many observers have argued that the New York City mayoral race, though local, is a proxy battle for the future of the Democratic party, with some claiming that Mamdani’s blend of left-wing economic policies and anti-Zionism are reflective of the party’s increasingly progressive base.
Mamdani, the 33‑year‑old state assemblymember and proud democratic socialist, defeated former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other candidates in a lopsided first‑round win in the city’s Democratic primary for mayor, notching approximately 43.5 percent of first‑choice votes compared to Cuomo’s 36.4 percent.
A little-known politician before this year’s primary campaign, Mamdani is an outspoken supporter of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to isolate Israel from the international community as a step toward its eventual elimination.
Mamdani has also repeatedly refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, falsely suggesting the country does not offer “equal rights” for all its citizens, and promised to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits New York.
Mamdani also defended the phrase “globalize the intifada”— which references previous periods of sustained Palestinian terrorism against Jews and Israels and has been widely interpreted as a call to expand political violence — by invoking the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising during World War II. In response, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum repudiated the mayoral candidate, calling his comments “outrageous and especially offensive to [Holocaust] survivors.”
RSS
Harvard President Denies Looming $500 Million Deal With Trump to Restore Federal Funding: Report
Harvard University President Alan Garber speaks during the 374th Commencement exercises at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, May 29, 2025. Photo: Reuters Connect via Brian Snyder
Harvard University President Alan Garber has told faculty that he will not settle the institution’s dispute with the Trump administration by shelling out $500 million, the Harvard Crimson reported on Monday, contradicting a New York Times article which claimed that the move is impending.
Rather, Harvard has resolve to continue on fighting the federal government in court, the Crimson said, even as it faces a $1 billion shortfall caused by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the confiscation of $3 billion in taxpayer-funded research grants and contracts previously awarded to the university. Amid this cash crunch Harvard has resorted to leveraging its immense wealth to borrow exorbitant sums of money.
In March it issued over $450 million in bonds as “part of an ongoing contingency planning for a range of financial circumstances.” It offered another $750 million in bonds to investors in April, a sale that is being managed by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.
According to the Crimson, Garber insists that the Times report is erroneous.
“In a conversation with one faculty member, [he] said that the suggestion that Harvard was open to paying $500 million is ‘false’ and claimed that the figure was apparently leaked to the press by White House officials,” the Crimson said, noting that the Times believes its reporting is on the mark. “In any discussions, Garber reportedly said, the university is treating academic freedom as nonnegotiable.”
Garber’s apparent assurances to faculty that the university will not concede to Trump for financial relief comes as it takes conciliatory steps that seem aimed at reversing an impression that it is doctrinally far left, as well as anti-Zionist. In July, it announced new partnerships with Israeli academic institutions and shuttered its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices, transferring their staff to other sections of the university. These moves came after it “paused” a partnership in March with a higher education institution located in the West Bank. Some reports, according to the Crimson, suggest that Harvard may even found a “new conservative research institute” in any deal with the Trump administration.
Other Ivy League schools have made similar steps while resolving their funding disputes with the US federal government.
On Wednesday, Brown University announced that it agreed to pay $50 million and enact a series of reforms put forth by the Trump administration to settle claims involving alleged sex discrimination and antisemitism. The government is rewarding Brown’s propitiating by restoring access to $510 million in federal research grants and contracts it impounded.
Per the agreement, shared by university president Christina Paxson, Brown will provide women athletes locker rooms based on sex, not one’s self-chosen gender identity — a monumental concession by a university that is reputed as one of the most progressive in the country — and adopt the Trump administration’s definition of “male” and “female,” as articulated in a January 2025 executive order issued by Trump. Additionally, Brown has agreed not to “perform gender reassignment surgery or prescribe puberty blockers or hormones to any minor child for the purpose of aligning the child’s appearance with an identity that differs from his or her sex.”
Regarding campus antisemitism, the agreement calls for Brown University to reduce anti-Jewish bias on campus by forging ties with local Jewish Day Schools, launching “renewed partnerships with Israeli academics and national Jewish organizations,” and boosting support for its Judaic Studies program. Brown must also conduct a “climate survey” of Jewish students to collect raw data of their campus experiences.
Only days ago, Columbia University agreed to pay over $200 million to settle claims that it exposed Jewish students, faculty, and staff to antisemitic discrimination and harassment — a deal which secures the release of billions of dollars the Trump administration impounded to pressure the institution to address the issue.
US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon commented on the resolution, saying it is a “seismic shift in our nation’s fight to hold institutions that accept American taxpayer dollars accountable for antisemitic discrimination and harassment.”
Claiming a generational achievement for the conservative movement, which has argued for years that progressive bias in higher education is the cause of anti-Zionist antisemitism on college campuses, she added that Columbia has agreed to “discipline student offenders for severe disruptions of campus operations” and “eliminate race preferences from their hiring and mission practicers, and DEI programs that distribute benefits and advantages based on race.”
“Columbia’s reforms are a roadmap for elite universities that wish to retain the confidence of the American public by renting their commitment to truth-seeking, merit, and civil debate,” McMahon continued. “I believe they will ripple across the higher education sector and change the course of campus culture for years to come.”
As Harvard debates its future, it continues to be a theater of an unrelenting debate on the Israel-Hamas war and the US-Israel relationship. On Saturday, pro-Hamas protesters instigated their arrests by local law enforcement during an unauthorized demonstration at Harvard Square.
“At least three protesters were pushed to the ground and handcuffed by police officers,” the Harvard Crimson reported on Sunday. “Several protesters were seen pouring water on their eyes, which were red and apparently irritated by a chemical agent.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.