RSS
Why Is CNN Airing Palestinian Lies and Propaganda as Journalism?
At 2PM on October 7, as Hamas’ barbaric attack on Israel was still ongoing, Christiane Amanpour gave her CNN platform to Husam Zomlot, the Palestinian Authority (PA) ambassador to the UK, who blamed that day’s attack on Israel and compared it to Israel’s self-defense with almost no pushback from the anchor. Nine months later, with 120 Israelis and tourists still being held captive by Hamas, Amanpour continues to promote guests who distort reality.
On June 25, Christiane Amanpour interviewed Palestinian propagandist and founder of Al-Haq, Raja Shehadeh. Throughout the interview, both Amanpour and Shehadeh engaged in a tactic of reversing victim and offender, and their descriptions of events often bore little resemblance to reality. While acknowledging that the October 7 attacks occurred, and that Hamas’ killing of civilians was unjustified, both acted totally oblivious to the cause-and-effect relationship that attack had on subsequent events.
Among other topics, Amanpour and Shehadeh discussed Shehadeh’s new book titled, What Does Israel Fear From Palestine? In the wake of October 7, the title beggars belief. In 2005, Israel evacuated every single civilian and soldier from Gaza, leaving behind a greenhouse business that was gifted to the people of Gaza and a beautiful Mediterranean coastline for tourism. At that time, there was no occupation and no blockade, and the people of Gaza, functionally, had independence. In a 2006 election, their first opportunity for self-determination, the people of Gaza elected Hamas. Hamas then started wars with Israel in 2009, 2012, 2014, and 2021, culminating in 2023 in the vicious attack in which 1,200 Israeli men, women, and children were burned to death, raped, tortured, and killed, with another 240 were taken hostage to Gaza.
What does Israel fear from Palestine, indeed.
But Amanpour’s first question to Shehadeh about the book was, “given that Israel essentially has the balance of power, why do you think Israel fears Palestine? Do you think it does?”
Shehadeh replied, “I think they fear the very existence of Palestine, because if Palestine exists, then the Israeli myth, foundation myth would have to be amended, because the foundation myth of Israel was that they came to a land that was empty, that didn’t have any Palestinians or anybody, and they established Israel from year zero, and so to recognize Palestine would require reconfiguration of the Israeli myth, and that’s the main fear, I think.”
This is false, of course.
Early Zionists were well-aware that Arabs were living in the Ottoman- and then British-controlled region of Palestine, and, as Efraim Karsh has explained, “took for granted the full equality of the Arab minority in the prospective Jewish state.” The population of the region prior to waves of Zionist immigration was sparse, and the Arabs who lived there did not call themselves “Palestinians.” But no one thought that there were no people living there at the time. The relevant point is that there was no sovereign state there.
Amanpour then said to Shehadeh, “you come from a family that has been involved in the attempt to broker peace for decades, since ‘48 frankly, your father, when you were a teenager in 1967, submitted a peace proposal to the Israeli government on behalf of the Palestinians and of course all these decades later there is no peace. So Israel always blames the Palestinians for not grabbing a chance when it’s there, or walking away from all the best opportunities it’s given backed by the United States et cetera. Palestinians always blame Israel for, quote unquote, not being serious, for continuing to build settlements while talking the peace talk. What, given that, what is your actual hope for this dynamic to be broken? Do you think it ever will be?”
Amanpour’s question itself is remarkable, not least of all because Aziz Shehadeh doesn’t appear to have ever had any authority to act on behalf of anyone other than himself, or possibly, 50 other “prominent” individuals. He certainly was not acting “on behalf of the Palestinians.”
According to his obituary, he was “condemned by the Palestine Liberation Organization as ‘a traitor’ for proposing a separate Palestinian state alongside Israel,” and The New York Times reported that the Fatah Revolutionary Council claimed to have stabbed Aziz Shehadeh to death for advocating “capitulation, humiliating coexistence and liquidation of the Palestine cause.”
Yet, Amanpour speaks as if the elder Shehadeh’s proposal was in some way official. More to the point, though, after Arabs started two wars and lost territory in both, the proposal was for a return to a status quo ante that had never existed or been implemented, because it was rejected by the Arab side — the 1947 Partition Plan. It also demanded that the Jews share sovereignty over their newly liberated holiest city, after being denied any access at all to their holy sites within that city for 19 years. In other words, it was a pipe dream, not a plan.
Predictably, Amanpour’s guest responded by blaming the lack of peace on the settlements. But he never explained, nor did Amanpour ask him, why the settlements can’t become part of a future Palestinian state — or if they can, how they preclude the establishment of one.
“What did you learn from your father, again you were a teenager when that took place, and you went on to be a lawyer, you founded Al-Haq, the human rights group, you’re an activist. What did you learn from everything you saw as you were growing up, and has that been changed irrevocably, irrevocably since October 7, or not?” Amanpour then asked.
While Amanpour calls Al-Haq a “human rights group,” NGO Monitor has documented the group’s extensive ties to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a terror organization known for hijacking airplanes.
These ties include, “according to multiple Arabic-language media sources, Al-Haq General Director Shawan Jabarin represented the PFLP at a December 2011 meeting of … a reconciliatory body between Hamas, Fatah, PIJ, the PFLP, and other Palestinian factions.” Moreover, “Jabarin was convicted in 1985 for recruiting and arranging training for members for the PFLP.”
After paying lip-service to the idea that, “we have to find a way to live together,” Shehadeh replies, “but since October 7th [it] has become much more difficult because they dehumanize the Palestinians to such an extent, that it’s difficult now to imagine how we can make peace with them.”
Later in the interview, he repeats the claim that it is Israelis who have dehumanized the Palestinians of Gaza with their response to October 7, and not the attack itself that dehumanized — and terrorized — Israelis. This is a manipulative reversal of victim and offender. While October 7 is mentioned, the significance of the actual events of that day, and the effects of that attack on the prospects for peace, seem impossibly lost on both interviewer and guest.
Shehadeh goes on to claim that it the wake of the Oslo Accords, it was the Palestinian side that accepted coexistence and was “ready to live with the Israelis and to make peace based on justice and splitting the land between the two people.” But as both former US President Bill Clinton and his former American ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk have made clear, it was Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat who rejected the terms of Oslo.
Amanpour should have corrected her guest here, but she did not.
Amanpour does press Shehadeh about Hamas: “more and more, Palestinians in Gaza are daring to speak out against Hamas, and they’re basically saying these guys are useless at governance, they’ve rained — they’ve contributed to raining this hell on us. And we hear more and more about Sinwar himself and other Hamas leaders who essentially believe, and they’ve told journalists … the more blood, the more spotlight on our situation. And we spoke to a doctor who saved Sinwar’s life in an Israeli prison, and he said Sinwar told him … a thousand, ten thousand, a hundred thousand Palestinian deaths would be worth, like other liberation movements, he said Algeria, Vietnam, and et cetera, would be worth it if we got our rights. What do you think of that?”
Shehadeh replies, “Well, I think this is too harsh, but I think at the same time that Israel could not have continued to oppress the Palestinians and put them in an open-air prison and expect them to be calm and silent and not resist. And Hamas resisted, and they had the right to resist, because the blockade was an act of war on the part of Israel which continued for 16 years. And an act of war can be resisted under international law. And they resisted by breaking the barrier. So, they had the right to do that. What they didn’t have the right was to kill the Israelis — 1,000 Israelis along the– and that was, I think, a crime, of course.”
Here, Amanpour fails to call out her guest’s inconsistency. Although he attempts to make his case under international law, he fails to note that the 2011 Palmer Report found that blockade of Gaza was legal under international law. Amanpour, too, fails to note this, and allowed her guest to make the false claim that it was the blockade that was illegal and the October 7 attack that was legal. Although he takes pains to distinguish the attacks on civilians from the breaking of the barrier between Israel and Gaza and the invasion, he still justifies that invasion based on a false claim about international law. Again, it’s a reversal of victim and offender.
Amanpour moves on to the “universities [that] have been destroyed … cultural centers have been destroyed,” but is oblivious to the contradiction between the beautiful Gaza that was destroyed and Shehadeh’s description of it as an “open-air prison.”
She asks, “do you see an intent in terms of wiping out Palestinian culture or do you see it as part of the general destruction of Gaza in this pursuit of Hamas?” Shehadeh of course takes this hook, “I think there’s an intent to destroy Gaza and culture in Gaza. And I think that the denial by the Israelis about, just as there was denial about ‘48, there’s a denial about the destruction of culture in Gaza and the people of Gaza entirely.”
The fact that Hamas used homes, mosques, and schools not only to store but even to manufacture weapons, is irrelevant to both Amanpour and Shehadeh.
This is not journalism. This was nearly 13 minutes of anti-Israel propaganda under the imprimatur of CNN.
Karen Bekker is the Assistant Director in the Media Response Team at CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis.
The post Why Is CNN Airing Palestinian Lies and Propaganda as Journalism? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Jewish Democrat Announces Primary Challenge Against Anti-Israel New York City Councilwoman
Jewish Democrat Maya Kornberg, an author and senior research fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, has launched a primary challenge to New York City Councilmember Shahana Hanif. Photo: Screenshot
Maya Kornberg, a Jewish Democrat from Brooklyn, New York, has launched a campaign to unseat New York City Councilwoman Shahana Hanif, an outspoken critic of Israel.
Kornberg announced on Tuesday that she will seek to represent District 39 in the New York City Council. Much of the city’s Jewish community has expressed outrage at Hanif over her repeated repudiations of Israel, including her false accusations that the war against the Hamas terrorist group in Gaza constitutes a “genocide.”
“I am thrilled to announce that I’m running for NYC Council in District 39! With the Trump presidency looming, local governance is more important than ever, and the City Council is our best line of defense,” Kornberg wrote on X/Twitter on Tuesday. “Together, I believe we can build a district where everyone can feel happy, safe, and thrive.”
“I’ve dedicated my career to making democracy work better,” Kornberg added in a statement, promising that if elected she will concentrate on “standing up against hate, providing reliable constituent services, and delivering meaningful change for every resident in every corner of the district.”
Kornberg’s decision to enter next June’s Democratic primary contest sets up a showdown between a self-described “pragmatic” liberal and a far-left democratic socialist. Hanif, who represents heavily Jewish neighborhoods in central Brooklyn such as Park Slope, has reportedly enraged her constituents by ignoring concerns about antisemitism and unloading an unrelenting barrage of criticism directed at Israel.
Following Hamas’s massacre across southern Israel last Oct. 7, Hanif issued a statement blaming the Jewish state for the terrorist attacks.
“The root cause of this war is the illegal, immoral, and unjust occupation of the Palestinian people. The Occupation has brought violence toward Israelis and Palestinians for over 75 years. There will be no peace unless the rights of all people in this region are respected,” Hanif wrote on X/Twitter on Oct. 13.
Despite Hanif’s presence on New York’s “Taskforce to Combat Hate,” she has reportedly refused to denounce acts of antisemitic vandalism and graffiti around the city. Hanif was also arrested at an October 2023 “ceasefire” rally organized by the anti-Israel Democratic Socialists of America organization. At the rally, protesters chanted “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” — a popular slogan among anti-Israel activists that has been widely interpreted as a call for the destruction of the Jewish state, which is located between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea — and held up signs reading “No, I do not condemn Hamas.”
Hanif later participated in the anti-Israel encampments at Columbia University in April. She posted a photo of herself from the center of the encampment, sporting a red keffiyeh and smiling.
“I’m proud to witness disciplined leadership from students mobilize for peace and against genocide,” Hanif wrote.
The incumbent councilwoman also voted against a resolution to establish “End Jew Hatred Day” in New York City, claiming that it had been brought forth by a “coalition that has concerning ties to far-right politicians who promote problematic and hateful rhetoric.”
Kornberg, who has reportedly spent months fundraising to enter the primary race, is expected to receive substantial backing from the community’s pro-Israel constituents. Many District 39 constituents have expressed exasperation with Hanif’s unwillingness to publicly apologize for her past commentary and hesitance to tackle surging antisemitic hate crimes in the city.
The impending battle between Kornberg and Hanif comes on the heels of New York City experiencing a somewhat rightward shift in the 2024 presidential election. Every single county in the New York City metropolitan area moved toward Trump compared to four years ago, and the Republican president-elect’s margin of defeat in the heavily Democratic city was 16 points narrower than in 2020.
In the wake of last month’s surprising election results, many Democrats are modulating their approach to controversial topics such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, seeking to strike a more moderate tone. Many observers believe the District 39 primary race could indicate whether the deep-blue city has made an enduring shift away from far-left progressivism.
The post Jewish Democrat Announces Primary Challenge Against Anti-Israel New York City Councilwoman first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Orthodox Rabbinical Conference Slams German University for Canceling Lecture by Israeli Historian Benny Morris
Israeli historian Benny Morris in 2024. Photo: Screenshot
The Orthodox Rabbinical Conference of Germany, an influential association of orthodox rabbis, lambasted the University of Leipzig for canceling a lecture by Israeli historian Benny Morris following anti-Israel student protests described by the school as “understandable, but frightening in nature.”
The Cologne-based group said on Wednesday that it was “shameful to see how quickly an academic institution in Germany is now caving in to aggressive anti-Israeli and antisemitic activism,” German media reported. Instead, the association continued, it is necessary to “resolutely defend the freedom of teaching and science.”
According to the rabbinical conference, young people must be taught to engage with each other at educational institutions rather than shut out opposing views in order to fulfill the post-Nazi promise of “never again.” However, it continued, submitting to aggressive activists rather than protecting constitutional rights is an “alarming signal” and a threat to a free, democratic society.
Morris, one of Israel’s leading public intellectuals, was scheduled to deliver a lecture about extremism and the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, in which the Jewish state secured its independence, at the university on Thursday as part of a lecture series on antisemitism.
However, the school released a statement this past Friday announcing that it had canceled the planned event, citing protests over the lecture and what it described as security concerns.
“Our invitation to Prof. Morris was motivated by the desire to talk about his earlier work, which has had a profound impact on historical research, the university said in its statement. “Unfortunately, Prof. Morris has recently expressed views in interviews and discussions that can be read as offensive and even racist. This has led to understandable, but frightening in nature, protests from individual student groups.”
The University of Leipzig did not elaborate on any specific comments by Morris, whose works include the seminal study The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, first published in 1988, and made a point of noting it did not endorse the historian’s views.
“In principle, inviting speakers to the university does not necessarily mean that we agree with their views, and we firmly distance ourselves from Prof. Morris’ controversial statements,” the school said. “The purpose of the event with him was to engage critically, not to endorse his theses or later statements. In our opinion, science thrives through the exchange of diverse ideas, including those that are challenging or uncomfortable. We trust that our students are able to engage constructively and critically with the guest speaker.”
Various groups including Students for Palestine Leipzig had called for the lecture to be canceled, arguing Morris — who has expressed political opinions associated with both the left and the right — held “deeply racist” views against Palestinians.
“Together with security concerns, the above points mean that Prof. Benny Morris’ lecture will not take place,” the university stated.
Morris, 75, told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that the decision to cancel the lecture was “disgraceful, especially since it resulted from fear of potential violence by students. It is sheer cowardice and appeasement.”
Despite canceling Morris’ lecture, the University of Leipzig expressed concern about the increased efforts to boycott and marginalize Israeli scholars because they are from the world’s lone Jewish state.
“Regardless of this case, we want to express our concern that a double standard is being established that is being applied to Israeli scholars, who are increasingly marginalized and excluded from events under the pretext of political differences of opinion, while other voices are given unhindered access to the university,” the university said. “This applies, for example, in Leipzig to events by colleagues who are close to the BDS movement, which is classified as a suspected extremist case in Germany. We are far from establishing a culture of cancellations, but the possibility should remain open to be able to discuss difficult and critical voices from both sides in a tough manner.”
The Algemeiner has reported extensively on wide-ranging efforts across academia to exclude Israeli scholars and institutions in accordance with the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to isolate Israel from the international community as a step toward its eventual elimination.
The post Orthodox Rabbinical Conference Slams German University for Canceling Lecture by Israeli Historian Benny Morris first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Australia Backs UN Resolution Calling for Israel to Pull Out From Gaza, West Bank in Major Policy Shift
Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs Penny Wong during Question Time in the Senate chamber at Parliament House in Canberra, Nov. 28, 2024. Photo: AAP Image/Mick Tsikas via Reuters Connect
Australia on Tuesday voted in favor of a UN General Assembly resolution calling on Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza, breaking a two-decade pattern of opposing such a measure.
The resolution passed by a vote of 157-8 vote, with Israel and the United States voting no and seven abstentions.
In the measure, the General Assembly called for a two-state solution to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “based on the pre-1967 borders,” as well as a peace conference in New York next year, co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia, to advance diplomatic efforts in making the two-state solution a reality.
The resolution characterized Israel as an “occupying power,” demanding the Jewish state end its presence in Gaza, the West Bank, and eastern Jerusalem — areas described as “Occupied Palestinian Territory.” It also called on the UN to recognize the “inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination and the right to their independent state.”
Australia has not voted for such a measure at the UN since 2001. However, Australia’s Ambassador to the UN James Larsen and a spokesperson for Foreign Minister Penny Wong both said in statements that Tuesday’s vote was meant to work toward peace in the Middle East and a two-state solution. Wong previously called on Israel to “exercise restraint” on Oct. 7, 2023, the day of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s invasion of and massacre across southern Israel.
Australian Opposition Leader Peter Dutton blasted the government’s decision to support the UN resolution, accusing Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of “selling out” the Jewish community and “abandoning Israel” for electoral purposes.
“The best we can do for peace in the Middle East is defeat Hamas and Hezbollah and make sure their proxy in Iran does not strike with nuclear weapons, or through the Houthis, or others they are finding because innocent women and children are losing their lives,” he told reporters in Sydney.
The vote came amid already flaring tensions between Israel and Australia.
On Monday, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar summoned Australia’s Ambassador to Israel, Ralph King, for an official reprimand following Canberra’s decision not to grant Israel’s former Justice Minister, Ayelet Shaked, a visa to enter the country last month.
Saar charged that the decision to prohibit Shaked from visiting Australia was based on “baseless blood libels spread by the pro-Palestinian lobby.”
Australian Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke explained that his decision to refuse Shaked’s visa application was rooted in concerns that she would “seriously undermine social cohesion” by speaking about the war in the Middle East, noting her past comments about Palestinians.
Meanwhile, antisemitism in Australia has surged following Hamas’s Oct. 7 onslaught, amid the ensuing war in Gaza.
Antisemitism in Australia quadrupled to record levels over the past year, with Australian Jews experiencing more than 2,000 antisemitic incidents between October 2023 and September 2024, according to a new report published by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), an organization that advocates upholding the civil rights of the country’s some 120,000 Jewish citizens. In many cases, antisemitic incidents were fueled by anti-Israel animus.
Daniel Aghion, president of ECAJ, lambasted Australia’s latest UN vote in comments reported by the Sydney Morning Herald.
“This is a shameless pursuit of a domestic political agenda that puts [the ruling Labor Party’s] aspirations in vulnerable seats ahead of historic and principled support for a democratic ally,” he said, referring to Australia’s upcoming elections this spring. “For some time now, this government has been chipping away at bipartisan support for Israel and a negotiated end to the conflict. After this latest significant shift, there is very little left.”
David Taragin is a writer based in New York.
The post Australia Backs UN Resolution Calling for Israel to Pull Out From Gaza, West Bank in Major Policy Shift first appeared on Algemeiner.com.