RSS
Why the Media Always Paints Israel as the Aggressor
Illustrative. Photo: Dan Taylor / Wikimedia Commons
On January 1, the BBC News website published an article by the corporation’s security correspondent Frank Gardner which currently goes under the headline “The wars of 2024 brought together rivals – but created new enemies.”
That article is presented with the BBC’s InDepth logo and at the bottom of the page, readers find the following: “BBC InDepth is the new home on the website and app for the best analysis and expertise from our top journalists. Under a distinctive new brand, we’ll bring you fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions, and deep reporting on the biggest issues to help you make sense of a complex world.”
Much of Gardner’s article relates to issues other than Israel, but several statements in the parts which do relate to Israel’s current multi-front conflicts are noteworthy, especially considering the claims in the above statement.
1) “The situation in Gaza is nothing short of tragic.
The latest conflict there (and there have been many shorter ones before this one) was triggered by the raid led by Hamas (the militants proscribed as a terrorist group by many governments) into southern Israel on 7 October 2023 in which more than 1100 people were killed and around 250 taken into Gaza as hostages. Since then, Israel’s war on Hamas has resulted in more than 44,000 Palestinians being killed there. These are mostly civilian deaths and although that figure comes from the Hamas-run Health Ministry, it is largely endorsed by independent aid agencies.”
Gardner fails to inform his readers that 100 hostages are still being held in the Gaza Strip. He promotes unverified casualty figures supplied to the media by the same terrorist organization which started the war, together with the unproven claim that most of the casualties in the Gaza Strip are “civilian deaths” and even goes on to legitimize that claim by citing unidentified “aid agencies” but without clarifying where they get their information. Gardner fails to tell his readers that Hamas has long employed a policy of describing all casualties as civilians as part of its propaganda efforts.
2) “In many ways Gaza is the well-spring of other conflicts in the region, leading to exchanges of fire between Israel and, variously, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran and Syria.”
Gardner misleads readers by failing to clarify that what he describes as “exchanges of fire” – while sidelining the relevant issue of who fired first.
3) “Thousands of people have been killed in the short Israel-Lebanon war that preceded a ceasefire in late November.”
Gardner fails to clarify that most of those killed in Lebanon were members of terrorist organizations, primarily Hezbollah.
4) “Israel is at war with Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and has fired missiles at – and been attacked from – Iran, Yemen, Syria and Iraq.”
Gardner’s choice of wording leads readers to understand that Israel “fired missiles” before it was “attacked from” Iran, Yemen and Iraq: an inversion of the actual sequences of events.
5) “The US has continued to supply Israel with a colossal amount of military aid – both defensive such as the THAAD missile defence and offensive weapons such as parts for the F35 aircraft – despite the killing of so many Palestinians in Gaza and almost universal worldwide opprobrium. This makes the US – and by extension the West in general – unpopular in the Arab world and increases the risk of recruitment by proscribed terror groups likes Islamic State (IS) and Al-Qaida leading to what Western security officials say is the risk of a rise of transnational terrorism.”
Gardner’s claim that US military support for a country attacked by Islamist terrorists on multiple fronts “increases the risk of recruitment by proscribed terror groups” whitewashes the fact that those extremist organizations have not needed any such excuse in order to attack “the West” in the past and of course conveniently ignores their founding anti-Western ideologies.
6) “This was the year that the balance of power in the Middle East shifted dramatically, in Israel’s favour and to Iran’s disadvantage. Israel’s government has clearly decided to go all-out to “neutralise” its enemies, be they in Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen or Syria. Red lines previously adhered to, by both Iran and Israel, have now been crossed, with the two sides trading missiles in direct attacks on each other for the first time.”
Once again, we see Gardner muddying the waters by failing to clarify that Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis (rather than “Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen”) all chose to initiate the conflicts by carrying out unprovoked attacks against Israel’s civilian population. Similarly, his failure to note that Israel was attacked by Iran before a response came from Israel – “trading missiles” – promotes a false notion of equivalence and fails to acknowledge Israel’s obligation to defend its civilian population against attacks by terrorist groups, their supporters and enablers.
7) “The Middle East is still in flux. Iran and Israel have unfinished business but Tehran is well aware of its own weaknesses and of Israel’s increasingly aggressive posture in the region. It would not take much provocation to trigger a new round of Israeli airstrikes on Iran.”
Again, Gardner fails to clarify that Israel’s supposedly “increasingly aggressive posture” is the product of fifteen months of attacks on its civilians on multiple fronts by parties he – notably – chooses not to portray as “aggressive.”
As of December 26, 2024, the INSS had recorded over 13,300 rockets fired at Israel from the Gaza Strip, 19,500 rockets fired at Israel from Syria or Lebanon, around 300 rockets fired at Israel from Iraq, around 370 drones and rockets fired at Israel by the Houthis in Yemen and 170 drones, 30 cruise missiles and 321 ballistic missiles launched by Iran in its attacks on Israel.
By the time Gardner’s article was published on January 1, additional attacks by terrorists in the Gaza Strip and the Houthis (which received little if any BBC coverage) had brought the total number of rocket, missile and drone attacks on Israel since October 7, 2023 to over 34,000. Nevertheless, it is Israel which Gardner chooses to describe as adopting an “increasingly aggressive posture.”
8) “There is talk of a grand bargain that sees Saudi Arabia finally recognise the state of Israel in exchange for a binding security deal with Washington. But the Saudis have made clear this can only happen if there is a “clear, irrevocable path to an independent Palestinian state”. That is something that Israel’s PM Benjamin Netanyahu is vehemently opposed to and Israeli settlers seizing of Palestinian land continues apace and with President Trump in the White House its likely to continue further.”
Gardner fails to inform his readers that the Palestinians have for decades repeatedly refused offers of “an independent Palestinian state” or that such an entity is not the goal of the most popular faction within long-divided Palestinian society — Hamas — which, along with other Palestinian terrorist organizations, aspires to “obliterate” Israel.
While no BBC analysis is complete without a reference to “settlers,” Gardner fails to provide any evidence for his claim of “Israeli settlers” – i.e. civilians who happen to live in a specific location of which the BBC does not approve – “seizing Palestinian land” (rather than decisions taken by the government) and he is apparently content to promote the impression that all disputed land is “Palestinian,” despite the fact that under the terms of the Oslo Accords signed by the recognized representatives of the Palestinians, the status of land in Area C is still subject to final stage negotiations.
If BBC InDepth really does aspire to provide audiences with “the best analysis” and “deep reporting,” it is going to have to pay a lot more attention to the accuracy and impartiality of the “expertise” provided by its “top journalists.”
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 the Media Always Paints Israel as the Aggressor first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
New Poll: Majority of NYC Voters ‘Less Likely’ to Support Mamdani Over His Refusal to Condemn ‘Globalize the Intifada’
Zohran Mamdani. Photo: Ron Adar / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect
In a warning sign for the campaign of Democratic nominee for mayor of New York Zohran Mamdani, a majority of city voters in a new poll say the candidate’s hardline anti-Israel stance makes them less likely to vote for him.
In the survey of likely city voters conducted by American Pulse, 52.5 percent said Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the slogan “globalize the intifada” coupled with his backing of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement made them less likely to vote for him in November. Just 31% of city voters polled were more likely to support him because of these positions.
At the same time, a significant share of young New York City voters support Mamdani’s anti-Israel positioning, a striking sign of shifting generational views on Israel and the Palestinian cause.
Nearly half of voters aged 18 to 44 (46 percent) said the State Assembly member’s backing for BDS and “refusal to condemn the phrase ‘globalize the intifada’” made them more likely to support him.
Mamdani, a democratic socialist from Queens, has been under fire for defending “globalize the intifada,” a slogan many Jewish groups associate with incitement to violence against Israel and Jews. While critics argue it glorifies terrorism, supporters claim it’s a call for international solidarity with oppressed peoples, especially Palestinians. Mamdani has also voiced support for BDS, a movement widely condemned by mainstream Jewish organizations as antisemitic for singling out Israel.
The generational divide exposed by the poll comes amid a broader political realignment. Younger progressives across the country are increasingly critical of Israeli policies, especially in the wake of the Gaza war, and more receptive to Palestinian activism. But to many Jewish leaders, Mamdani’s rising support is alarming.
Rabbi David Wolpe, visiting scholar at Harvard University, condemned the phrase with a sarcastic analogy.
“‘Globalize the intifada’ is just a political slogan,” he said. “Like ‘The cockroaches must be exterminated’ was just a housing authority slogan in Rwanda.”
Jewish organizations have reported a surge in antisemitic incidents in New York and across the U.S. since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war last fall. The blending of anti-Zionist slogans with calls for “intifada,” historically linked to violent uprisings, has deepened fears among Jewish communities that traditional red lines are being crossed.
Whether this emerging coalition reshapes New York politics remains to be seen. However, the poll indicates that among younger voters, views that were once considered fringe are quickly moving into the mainstream.
The post New Poll: Majority of NYC Voters ‘Less Likely’ to Support Mamdani Over His Refusal to Condemn ‘Globalize the Intifada’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Report: Jews Targeted at June’s Pride Month Events
A Jewish gay pride flag. Photo: Twitter.
The research division of the Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) released a report on Wednesday detailing incidents of hate against Jews which took place last month during demonstrations in celebration of LGBTQ rights and identity.
Incidents reported by the group include:
- At a Pride march in Wales, the activists Cymru Queers for Palestine chose to block the path and show a sign that said “Profiting from genocide,” an attempt to link the event’s sponsors — such as Amazon — to the war in Gaza.
- A Dublin Pride march saw the participation of the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which labeled Israel a “genocidal entity.”
- In Toronto at a late June Pride march, demonstrators again attacked organizers with a sign declaring, “Pride partners with genocide.”
CAM also identified a recurring narrative deployed against Israel by some far-left activists: so-called “pinkwashing,” a term which the Boycott, Divest, Sanctions (BDS) movement calls “an Israeli government propaganda strategy that cynically exploits LGBTQIA+ rights to project a progressive image while concealing Israel’s occupation and apartheid policies oppressing Palestinians.”
The report notes that at a Washington DC Pride event in early June Medea Benjamin, cofounder of activist group Code Pink and a regular of anti-war protests, wore a pair of goofy, oversized sunglasses and a shirt in her signature pink with the phrase “you can’t pinkwash genocide.”
Other incidents CAM recorded showed the injection of anti-Israel sentiment into Pride events.
A musical group canceled a performance at an interfaith service in Brooklyn, claiming the hosting synagogue had a “public alignment with pro-Israel political positions.” In San Francisco before the yearly Trans March, a Palestine group said in its announcement of its participation, “Stop the war on Iran and the genocide of Palestine, stop the war on immigrants and attacks on trans people.”
CAM notes that this “queers for Palestine” sentiment is not new, pointing to a 2017 event wherein “organizers of the Chicago Dyke March infamously removed participants who were waving a Pride flag adorned with a Star of David on the grounds that the symbol ‘made people feel unsafe.’”
In February, the Israel Defense Forces shared with the New York Post documents it had recovered demonstrating that Hamas had tortured and executed members it suspected of homosexuality and other moral offenses in conflict with Islamist ideology.
Amit Benjamin, who is gay and a first sergeant major in the IDF, said during a visit to New York City for Pride month that “All the ‘queers for Gaza’ need to open their eyes. Hamas kills gays … kills lesbians … queers cannot exist in Gaza.”
The post Report: Jews Targeted at June’s Pride Month Events first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
IAEA pulls inspectors from Iran as standoff over access drags on
IAEA chief Rafael Grossi at the agency’s headquarters in Vienna, Austria, June 23, 2025. REUTERS/Elisabeth Mandl/File Photo
The UN nuclear watchdog said on Friday it had pulled its last remaining inspectors from Iran as a standoff over their return to the country’s nuclear facilities bombed by the United States and Israel deepens.
Israel launched its first military strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites in a 12-day war with the Islamic Republic three weeks ago. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspectors have not been able to inspect Iran’s facilities since then, even though IAEA chief Rafael Grossi has said that is his top priority.
Iran’s parliament has now passed a law to suspend cooperation with the IAEA until the safety of its nuclear facilities can be guaranteed. While the IAEA says Iran has not yet formally informed it of any suspension, it is unclear when the agency’s inspectors will be able to return to Iran.
“An IAEA team of inspectors today safely departed from Iran to return to the Agency headquarters in Vienna, after staying in Tehran throughout the recent military conflict,” the IAEA said on X.
Diplomats said the number of IAEA inspectors in Iran was reduced to a handful after the June 13 start of the war. Some have also expressed concern about the inspectors’ safety since the end of the conflict, given fierce criticism of the agency by Iranian officials and Iranian media.
Iran has accused the agency of effectively paving the way for the bombings by issuing a damning report on May 31 that led to a resolution by the IAEA’s 35-nation Board of Governors declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations.
IAEA chief Rafael Grossi has said he stands by the report. He has denied it provided diplomatic cover for military action.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Thursday Iran remained committed to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
“[Grossi] reiterated the crucial importance of the IAEA discussing with Iran modalities for resuming its indispensable monitoring and verification activities in Iran as soon as possible,” the IAEA said.
The US and Israeli military strikes either destroyed or badly damaged Iran’s three uranium enrichment sites. But it was less clear what has happened to much of Iran’s nine tonnes of enriched uranium, especially the more than 400 kg enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.
That is enough, if enriched further, for nine nuclear weapons, according to an IAEA yardstick. Iran says its aims are entirely peaceful, but Western powers say there is no civil justification for enriching to such a high level, and the IAEA says no country has done so without developing the atom bomb.
As a party to the NPT, Iran must account for its enriched uranium, which normally is closely monitored by the IAEA, the body that enforces the NPT and verifies countries’ declarations. But the bombing of Iran’s facilities has now muddied the waters.
“We cannot afford that … the inspection regime is interrupted,” Grossi told a press conference in Vienna last week.
The post IAEA pulls inspectors from Iran as standoff over access drags on first appeared on Algemeiner.com.