14 dec 2018
|
|
France has honored Al-Haq and B’Tselem with the prestigious Human Rights Prize of the French Republic.
This came despite heavy pressure from Israel on the French government to pull the award from the two groups which document Israeli war crimes and abuses against Palestinians. French justice minister Nicole Belloubet did however give in to the pressure and refused to attend the award ceremony in Paris last Monday. Today Al-Haq along w/ B’Tselem received 2018 Human Rights Prize of the French Republic endowed by French Prime Minister. This year’s prize is awarded to organizations that are being harassed/pressured for defending and promoting human rights #HumanRightsDay #StandUp4Humanrights pic.twitter.com/4BDgwoyNtN |
B’Tselem Executive Director @HagaiElAd at French Republic 2018 Human Rights Award ceremony: "Hysterical Israeli government response illustrates reality of propaganda, lies, and threats @btselem operates in; we will act with determination to end the occupation" #HumanRightsDay pic.twitter.com/Lyqa0oQdhx
The French Israel lobby group CRIF wrote to Belloubet alleging that the two winners “call for the boycott of Israel,” and claimed that for the French justice ministry to give them the award “even in the absence of the minister, is insulting justice.”
In his acceptance speech, B’Tselem executive director Hagai El-Ad characterized the Israeli government’s response as “hysterical.”
El-Ad said that Israel’s attempt to pressure French officials “illustrates the reality within which we work: propaganda, lies, and threats by a government which believes that silencing and coverup will enable further human rights violations.”
Al-Haq director Shawan Jabarin told The Electronic Intifada that the award is a recognition his group’s work at a time when the organization is being targeted by Israeli smear campaigns.
The 10 December award ceremony coincided with the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 20th anniversary of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.
Furious response
Israel reacted with fury to the announcement that France was giving the prestigious prize to the two groups.
“France gives its highest award to B’Tselem and Al-Haq, organizations that accuse Israel of apartheid, delegitimize us internationally, defend terror and support BDS,” Michael Oren, Israel’s deputy minister for diplomacy, claimed
BDS stands for boycott, divestment and sanctions – a nonviolent Palestinian-led campaign to hold Israel accountable for violating Palestinian rights, modeled on the successful international solidarity movement that helped end apartheid in South Africa.
Israel’s embassy in France tweeted it was “shocked” at the award and alleged that Al-Haq is linked to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a political party and resistance organization Israel deems a “terrorist” group.
Israeli culture minister Miri Regev said that B’Tselem and its members should feel “ashamed,” describing the prize as a “badge of shame.”
Israeli deputy foreign minister Tzipi Hotovely called the award “deplorable” and asked the French government to reconsider.
Hotovely claimed that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also expressed his opposition in a meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron.
Closing space
Al-Haq director Shawan Jabarin spoke to The Electronic Intifada in The Hague, a few days before traveling to Paris for the award ceremony.
He said that the award came at a moment when Israel is “trying to close the space” for human rights work.
The French recognition means even more to Al-Haq, he said, because it “comes on the same day as the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
Jabarin said that the award was “for the victims in Palestine” and was “recognition of their rights.”
But he cautioned that victims need much more than symbolic recognition.
“France needs to act according to its obligations,” he said, referring to international treaties it has signed on human rights.
Time for action
Seven decades since the Nakba – the expulsion of the Palestinians – and after 51 years of military occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Jabarin said, “nothing has changed, the situation is deteriorating, the occupation is deepening, the suffering is deepening.”
Jabarin’s message to the French government is that “if they really want to have peace in Palestine and elsewhere, they have to act.”
To change the reality, Jabarin said there must be sanctions on Israel, including the banning of trade in settlement products and an arms embargo.
Europeans should not “let the criminals travel to their countries,” Jabarin added.
“Without the criminals paying the price of their crimes, there’s no way to rethink or to change their actions and policies.”
ICC leaning toward Israeli narrative?
Jabarin also expressed disappointment in the International Criminal Court, which since 2015 has been carrying out a “preliminary examination” of alleged Israeli war crimes against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.
“This is a long time,” Jabarin said.
A preliminary examination is the first step in the court’s process to determine whether to open a formal investigation, which can then lead to charges and trials.
But while a preliminary examination is carried out whenever a referral is made, it is open-ended and can continue for years, at the discretion of the chief prosecutor.
Although Fatou Bensouda, the chief prosecutor, warned Israeli leaders last April that they could face trial for the killings of unarmed Palestinians in the Gaza Strip during the Great March of Return, the court has not launched a formal investigation.
The “victims, the people who are suffering, they can’t wait anymore,” Jabarin said. “This institution has to act according to its mandate and not to deal with things from a political point of view.”
Jabarin called the court’s latest annual progress report disappointing.
The report affirms that “the prosecutor intends to complete the preliminary examination as early as possible,” but provides no firm deadline.
Jabarin described the report as “messy’ in its use of legal terminology and concepts. He is worried that the prosecutor has slipped in “the direction of the Israeli narrative.”
But he sees “good signs here and there.”
He hopes the prosecutor will move swiftly to open a formal investigation and “go after the criminals and later on issue arrest warrants.”
“I trust the professionalism and independence of the prosecutor,” Jabarin said. “My message to her is that time flies and suffering continues. It is time for her to proceed.”
The French Israel lobby group CRIF wrote to Belloubet alleging that the two winners “call for the boycott of Israel,” and claimed that for the French justice ministry to give them the award “even in the absence of the minister, is insulting justice.”
In his acceptance speech, B’Tselem executive director Hagai El-Ad characterized the Israeli government’s response as “hysterical.”
El-Ad said that Israel’s attempt to pressure French officials “illustrates the reality within which we work: propaganda, lies, and threats by a government which believes that silencing and coverup will enable further human rights violations.”
Al-Haq director Shawan Jabarin told The Electronic Intifada that the award is a recognition his group’s work at a time when the organization is being targeted by Israeli smear campaigns.
The 10 December award ceremony coincided with the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 20th anniversary of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.
Furious response
Israel reacted with fury to the announcement that France was giving the prestigious prize to the two groups.
“France gives its highest award to B’Tselem and Al-Haq, organizations that accuse Israel of apartheid, delegitimize us internationally, defend terror and support BDS,” Michael Oren, Israel’s deputy minister for diplomacy, claimed
BDS stands for boycott, divestment and sanctions – a nonviolent Palestinian-led campaign to hold Israel accountable for violating Palestinian rights, modeled on the successful international solidarity movement that helped end apartheid in South Africa.
Israel’s embassy in France tweeted it was “shocked” at the award and alleged that Al-Haq is linked to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a political party and resistance organization Israel deems a “terrorist” group.
Israeli culture minister Miri Regev said that B’Tselem and its members should feel “ashamed,” describing the prize as a “badge of shame.”
Israeli deputy foreign minister Tzipi Hotovely called the award “deplorable” and asked the French government to reconsider.
Hotovely claimed that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also expressed his opposition in a meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron.
Closing space
Al-Haq director Shawan Jabarin spoke to The Electronic Intifada in The Hague, a few days before traveling to Paris for the award ceremony.
He said that the award came at a moment when Israel is “trying to close the space” for human rights work.
The French recognition means even more to Al-Haq, he said, because it “comes on the same day as the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
Jabarin said that the award was “for the victims in Palestine” and was “recognition of their rights.”
But he cautioned that victims need much more than symbolic recognition.
“France needs to act according to its obligations,” he said, referring to international treaties it has signed on human rights.
Time for action
Seven decades since the Nakba – the expulsion of the Palestinians – and after 51 years of military occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Jabarin said, “nothing has changed, the situation is deteriorating, the occupation is deepening, the suffering is deepening.”
Jabarin’s message to the French government is that “if they really want to have peace in Palestine and elsewhere, they have to act.”
To change the reality, Jabarin said there must be sanctions on Israel, including the banning of trade in settlement products and an arms embargo.
Europeans should not “let the criminals travel to their countries,” Jabarin added.
“Without the criminals paying the price of their crimes, there’s no way to rethink or to change their actions and policies.”
ICC leaning toward Israeli narrative?
Jabarin also expressed disappointment in the International Criminal Court, which since 2015 has been carrying out a “preliminary examination” of alleged Israeli war crimes against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.
“This is a long time,” Jabarin said.
A preliminary examination is the first step in the court’s process to determine whether to open a formal investigation, which can then lead to charges and trials.
But while a preliminary examination is carried out whenever a referral is made, it is open-ended and can continue for years, at the discretion of the chief prosecutor.
Although Fatou Bensouda, the chief prosecutor, warned Israeli leaders last April that they could face trial for the killings of unarmed Palestinians in the Gaza Strip during the Great March of Return, the court has not launched a formal investigation.
The “victims, the people who are suffering, they can’t wait anymore,” Jabarin said. “This institution has to act according to its mandate and not to deal with things from a political point of view.”
Jabarin called the court’s latest annual progress report disappointing.
The report affirms that “the prosecutor intends to complete the preliminary examination as early as possible,” but provides no firm deadline.
Jabarin described the report as “messy’ in its use of legal terminology and concepts. He is worried that the prosecutor has slipped in “the direction of the Israeli narrative.”
But he sees “good signs here and there.”
He hopes the prosecutor will move swiftly to open a formal investigation and “go after the criminals and later on issue arrest warrants.”
“I trust the professionalism and independence of the prosecutor,” Jabarin said. “My message to her is that time flies and suffering continues. It is time for her to proceed.”
Israeli-American actress Natalie Portman said, according to Israeli daily Haaretz, that Israel’s nation-state law is “racist” and a “mistake”, and that she does not agree with it, in an interview she gave to London-based Arabic daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi, published Thursday.
Israel’s controversial nation-state law, which the Knesset passed in July, states that “Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people,” which has exclusive right to self-determination in the country. It defines Hebrew as the country’s sole official language, designating Arabic as a language with special status, although adding that Arabic’s status would not be harmed in practice.
Critics of the nation-state legislation, which, as a Basic Law, bears constitutional weight, object in part to the fact that it does not include a provision stating that all Israeli citizens are equal under the law, whereas Israel’s 1948 Declaration of Independence ensured “complete equality of social and political rights” for “all its inhabitants” no matter their religion, race or sex.
Following decades of egregious human rights violations against Palestinians, Israel’s massacre of peaceful protesters in Gaza, this past spring, has made its brand so toxic that even well-known Israeli-American cultural figures, like Natalie Portman, now refuse to blatantly whitewash, or art-wash, Israeli crimes and apartheid policies.
In April, Portman pulled out of an Israeli award ceremony, upon which right-wing activist Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, whose World Values Network and conservative activism is bankrolled by casino magnate and political financier Sheldon Adelson, bought a full-page New York Times ad to attack the actress.
Human Interest 12/06/18 “Occupying Hebron 2011-2017” – New Booklet of Testimonies
Israel’s controversial nation-state law, which the Knesset passed in July, states that “Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people,” which has exclusive right to self-determination in the country. It defines Hebrew as the country’s sole official language, designating Arabic as a language with special status, although adding that Arabic’s status would not be harmed in practice.
Critics of the nation-state legislation, which, as a Basic Law, bears constitutional weight, object in part to the fact that it does not include a provision stating that all Israeli citizens are equal under the law, whereas Israel’s 1948 Declaration of Independence ensured “complete equality of social and political rights” for “all its inhabitants” no matter their religion, race or sex.
Following decades of egregious human rights violations against Palestinians, Israel’s massacre of peaceful protesters in Gaza, this past spring, has made its brand so toxic that even well-known Israeli-American cultural figures, like Natalie Portman, now refuse to blatantly whitewash, or art-wash, Israeli crimes and apartheid policies.
In April, Portman pulled out of an Israeli award ceremony, upon which right-wing activist Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, whose World Values Network and conservative activism is bankrolled by casino magnate and political financier Sheldon Adelson, bought a full-page New York Times ad to attack the actress.
Human Interest 12/06/18 “Occupying Hebron 2011-2017” – New Booklet of Testimonies
10 dec 2018
Oman will let Israeli planes fly through its airspace, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared Monday.
The announcement follows Netanyahu's surprise and condemned visit to Oman in October although the two states have no formal diplomatic relations.
"When I was in Oman I spoke with Sultan Qaboos, who told me El Al would be able to fly over Oman," Netanyahu said.
Netanyahu said that the move has no immediate practical effect because carrier El Al is still barred from flying over Oman’s northern neighbor, Saudi Arabia.
Earlier this year, Oman and Saudi Arabia granted Air India the right to fly to and from Israel. Saudi Arabia has not given similar permission to El Al, and without that permission, Oman flyover rights is largely symbolic, with little practical significance.
Netanyahu also said that it is now possible to fly over Egypt and Chad, a country with whom Israel still does not have formal diplomatic relations. Netanyahu said that it is “apparently” possible to fly over Sudan.
“This opens other markets. This is another quarter of a billion people,” he said.
The announcement follows Netanyahu's surprise and condemned visit to Oman in October although the two states have no formal diplomatic relations.
"When I was in Oman I spoke with Sultan Qaboos, who told me El Al would be able to fly over Oman," Netanyahu said.
Netanyahu said that the move has no immediate practical effect because carrier El Al is still barred from flying over Oman’s northern neighbor, Saudi Arabia.
Earlier this year, Oman and Saudi Arabia granted Air India the right to fly to and from Israel. Saudi Arabia has not given similar permission to El Al, and without that permission, Oman flyover rights is largely symbolic, with little practical significance.
Netanyahu also said that it is now possible to fly over Egypt and Chad, a country with whom Israel still does not have formal diplomatic relations. Netanyahu said that it is “apparently” possible to fly over Sudan.
“This opens other markets. This is another quarter of a billion people,” he said.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seeking to make relations with Saudi Arabia official and public before the next Israeli general election, Hadashot TV news reported Saturday evening.
The report said the US and Mossad chief Yossi Cohen were involved in the diplomatic effort, though no further details were provided.
A senior diplomatic source told Hadashot that Israel was conducting extensive talks with many Arab nations, based on a shared interest in countering Iran.
The Prime Minister’s Office would not comment on the report, keeping efforts in this regard in the shadows.
Netanyahu has for years spoken about the warming of ties between Israel and the Arab world, citing not only Iran as a common enemy, but also many countries’ interest in cooperating with Israel on security matters, as well as Israel’s growing high-tech war industry.
In October Oman welcomed the Israeli premier in an internationally-condemned visit, which marked an apparent sign of Israeli progress in normalizing ties with the Gulf states.
Other reports said Israel is also working to normalize relations with Bahrain.
Netanyahu reportedly urged Washington not to abandon its support for Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman following his country’s killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.
A report in The Washington Post said Netanyahu told Trump administration officials that bin Salman was a key strategic partner and a linchpin of the alliance against Iranian encroachment in the region.
In public comments on the death of Khashoggi, the Israeli leader called the killing “horrendous” but stressed that “it is very important for the stability of the region and the world that Saudi Arabia remain stable.”
Many Democrats in Washington were said to have been furious at Netanyahu’s defense of the Saudis.
US senators last week said they were convinced that bin Salman was involved in the murder of Khashoggi after a briefing with CIA Director Gina Haspel.
The report said the US and Mossad chief Yossi Cohen were involved in the diplomatic effort, though no further details were provided.
A senior diplomatic source told Hadashot that Israel was conducting extensive talks with many Arab nations, based on a shared interest in countering Iran.
The Prime Minister’s Office would not comment on the report, keeping efforts in this regard in the shadows.
Netanyahu has for years spoken about the warming of ties between Israel and the Arab world, citing not only Iran as a common enemy, but also many countries’ interest in cooperating with Israel on security matters, as well as Israel’s growing high-tech war industry.
In October Oman welcomed the Israeli premier in an internationally-condemned visit, which marked an apparent sign of Israeli progress in normalizing ties with the Gulf states.
Other reports said Israel is also working to normalize relations with Bahrain.
Netanyahu reportedly urged Washington not to abandon its support for Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman following his country’s killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.
A report in The Washington Post said Netanyahu told Trump administration officials that bin Salman was a key strategic partner and a linchpin of the alliance against Iranian encroachment in the region.
In public comments on the death of Khashoggi, the Israeli leader called the killing “horrendous” but stressed that “it is very important for the stability of the region and the world that Saudi Arabia remain stable.”
Many Democrats in Washington were said to have been furious at Netanyahu’s defense of the Saudis.
US senators last week said they were convinced that bin Salman was involved in the murder of Khashoggi after a briefing with CIA Director Gina Haspel.
7 dec 2018
Israel’s former war minister Avigdor Lieberman slammed the military chief of staff and generals a few days before he resigned.
Lieberman lost his temper during a meeting with Israeli army chief of staff Gadi Eizenkot and IDF generals.
Eizenkot said that "there is no justification for a ground operation, there is nothing to gain from it," referring to recommendations for a war on Gaza.
"I feel here sometimes as in discussions with Peace Now management," Lieberman told the participants.
Lieberman lost his temper during a meeting with Israeli army chief of staff Gadi Eizenkot and IDF generals.
Eizenkot said that "there is no justification for a ground operation, there is nothing to gain from it," referring to recommendations for a war on Gaza.
"I feel here sometimes as in discussions with Peace Now management," Lieberman told the participants.
4 dec 2018
In a vote held on Friday, the General Assembly passed six resolutions condemning Israeli violations against Palestinians.
Among them was Resolution A/73/L.29 entitled “Jerusalem” which called for “respect for the historic status quo at the holy places of Jerusalem, including Al-Haram Al-Sharif.”
According to Days of Palestine, the use of the Arabic name for the sanctuary has been interpreted as a not-so-subtle rejection of the site’s alleged connection with Judaism. The Jewish name for the Noble Sanctuary, the Temple Mount, is not mentioned anywhere in the UN document.
The resolution received 148 votes in favor and just 11 against. It also stressed that the UN General Assembly “reiterates its determination that any actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void and have no validity whatsoever, and calls upon Israel to immediately cease all such illegal and unilateral measures.”
The General Assembly resolutions were condemned vehemently in the Israeli media, with Breaking Israel News slamming them as evidence of the UN “[continuing] its streak of frequently condemning the Jewish state”.
Other media cited NGO UN Watch — which is known for calling the UN anti-Israel or anti-Semitic – as saying that the “Jerusalem” resolution “implies that Israeli administration of Jerusalem hinders freedom of religion when in fact the opposite is true.”
UN Watch also labelled the “Syrian Golan” resolution as being “oblivious to [the] genocidal massacres taking place now in Syria, and its security implications for Israel and the civilians of the Golan Heights.”
In a rare move, following the General Assembly vote, the European Union publicly warned the Palestinians that they must drop their UN bid to use only Al-Haram Al-Sharif to refer to Jerusalem’s holiest site.
In a statement, the EU “[stressed] the need for language on the holy sites of Jerusalem to reflect the importance and historical significance of the holy sites for the three monotheistic religions, and to respect religious and cultural sensitivities.”
It added that the future choice of language “may affect the EU’s collective support for the resolutions.”
Commenting on the EU statement, the Jerusalem Post observed, “Until now, the EU has not taken a united stand on a drive by both the Arab states and the Palestinians to subtly change UN language with regard to the Temple Mount [Al-Haram Al-Sharif].”
Its opposition or decision to abstain on any future resolutions of this nature “would mark a dramatic shift in its policy.”
Among them was Resolution A/73/L.29 entitled “Jerusalem” which called for “respect for the historic status quo at the holy places of Jerusalem, including Al-Haram Al-Sharif.”
According to Days of Palestine, the use of the Arabic name for the sanctuary has been interpreted as a not-so-subtle rejection of the site’s alleged connection with Judaism. The Jewish name for the Noble Sanctuary, the Temple Mount, is not mentioned anywhere in the UN document.
The resolution received 148 votes in favor and just 11 against. It also stressed that the UN General Assembly “reiterates its determination that any actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void and have no validity whatsoever, and calls upon Israel to immediately cease all such illegal and unilateral measures.”
The General Assembly resolutions were condemned vehemently in the Israeli media, with Breaking Israel News slamming them as evidence of the UN “[continuing] its streak of frequently condemning the Jewish state”.
Other media cited NGO UN Watch — which is known for calling the UN anti-Israel or anti-Semitic – as saying that the “Jerusalem” resolution “implies that Israeli administration of Jerusalem hinders freedom of religion when in fact the opposite is true.”
UN Watch also labelled the “Syrian Golan” resolution as being “oblivious to [the] genocidal massacres taking place now in Syria, and its security implications for Israel and the civilians of the Golan Heights.”
In a rare move, following the General Assembly vote, the European Union publicly warned the Palestinians that they must drop their UN bid to use only Al-Haram Al-Sharif to refer to Jerusalem’s holiest site.
In a statement, the EU “[stressed] the need for language on the holy sites of Jerusalem to reflect the importance and historical significance of the holy sites for the three monotheistic religions, and to respect religious and cultural sensitivities.”
It added that the future choice of language “may affect the EU’s collective support for the resolutions.”
Commenting on the EU statement, the Jerusalem Post observed, “Until now, the EU has not taken a united stand on a drive by both the Arab states and the Palestinians to subtly change UN language with regard to the Temple Mount [Al-Haram Al-Sharif].”
Its opposition or decision to abstain on any future resolutions of this nature “would mark a dramatic shift in its policy.”
2 dec 2018
CNN firing commentator Marc Lamont Hill exposes yet another layer of mainstream media's bias and lack of objectivity.
Last week, the US mainstream media demonstrated once again that it has a Palestine problem. CNN suspended the contract of commentator and Temple University Professor Marc Lamont Hill, after he gave a speech at the United Nations in which he criticised the Israeli occupation and the abuse of Palestinian rights.
Hill based his speech very much on facts. He cited Israeli laws that discriminate against Palestinians; the use of arbitrary violence by the Israeli security apparatus; the use of torture against Palestinian detainees; the denial of due process to Palestinians by Israeli courts; the restriction on movement in the occupied territories, etc - all violations that have been well-documented and condemned by the UN and a myriad of human rights organisations.
Yet CNN, which last year adopted a new slogan - "Facts first" - did not seem to agree with these facts. After pro-Israel organisations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) condemned the speech, the TV station was quick to sever its ties with Hill.
While CNN did not announce why it chose to do so, it is clear to many of us it caved in to pressure from pro-Israel groups. Hill was accused of being anti-Semitic for using the phrase "free Palestine from the river to the sea", which supposedly is a "Hamas slogan" and a call for the destruction of Israel. Well, it is neither.
Throwing accusations of anti-Semitism at people criticising Israel and supporting the Palestinian right to self-determination is a convenient tool of the Zionist lobby. But calling for the freedom of Palestinians and for the recognition of their rights is not anti-Semitic; it is pro-Palestinian.
Conflating anti-Semitism with pro-Palestinian positions and criticism of Israel is not only ill-intentioned but also dangerous, as it does a disservice to Jews who have faced hate speech and hate attacks.
In Palestine, the Israeli authorities have brought this tactic to the extreme and have already passed a number of laws curbing freedom of speech. This means that those of us who dare criticise Israeli policy or call for resistance to Israeli occupation, even if in the form of a poem, face the risk of imprisonment.
In the United States, those who do so clearly face the risk of being fired, as in the case of Professor Hill and as in the case of many others before him- and probably many others after. The way CNN (mis)handled this situation offers us an opportunity to discuss how media organisations succumbing to Israel's campaign of silencing critics is particularly problematic.
For a long time, mainstream media organisations in the West, like the CNN, have been hiding behind the veneer of objectivity when it comes to issues such as the Palestinian struggle.
These outlets claim to be covering these issues objectively - applying certain procedures and high standards of verification that supposedly guarantee full and balanced reporting. With that grand declaration of objectivity, they then claim to present the true picture of what is going on. But they often don't.
The language employed by many mainstream media networks in the West when reporting on Palestine is often imprecise and misrepresents certain objective realities. CNN and its peers often talk of a "conflict" between Palestinians and Israelis, skipping the fact that the latter are - legally and objectively speaking - occupiers.
They talk of "contested lands" - as if there is no illegal settler-colonialism going on in Palestine, pushing Palestinians out of their land. They would often call the Israeli army's violence against peaceful protesters "clashes" (as if the two sides are equal) and conveniently use the passive voice in titles reporting killings of Palestinians (as if Israeli soldiers were not the ones who shoot Palestinians dead).
Claiming objectivity but then, clearly using obfuscating language and intentionally skipping certain facts is not only damaging to the media profession but also spreads disinformation. The firing of Professor Hill has exposed once again this disingenuity, the apparent political bias, and perhaps even the fear of the Israeli lobby within Western mainstream media.
It also shows that even media institutions that claim to be fighting for freedom of speech, to be delivering "facts first", to be "speaking truth to power" can also partake in the silencing of critical voices. What is particularly disconcerting, in this case, is that CNN is not only succumbing to political pressure and Israel's speech policing policies but also perpetuating them - even if indirectly.
CNN is clearly not ready to take on the "controversial" topic of the Palestinian question and pursue "facts first". Instead, it has chosen to stay on the political "safe side": report only on certain events with bias, obscuring the real dynamic of relations between oppressor and oppressed and using a certain preset discourse.
Unfortunately, this "safe side" logic has also been adopted not only by media outlets but also by Western institutions - both academic and political ones - and even by governments.
Just recall all those fake condemnations by political leaders in the West during Gaza's Great March of Return, when in one day Israeli snipers shot dead more than 50 unarmed, peaceful Palestinian protesters and wounded hundreds of others, with local hospitals unable to cope. They all called on Israel to exercise "restraint" and threw in there for "balance" and "objectivity" a reference to Hamas, which killed no Israelis that day - or any other day of the march for that matter.
Those who do not stand on the "safe side" of things - people like Marc Lamont Hill - have been taking clear positions on Palestine, based on facts and critical thinking. They - like others throughout history who stood up for oppressed peoples' rights - are vilified and viciously attacked, but they will persevere and continue to speak truth to power, objectively and factually.
Meanwhile, Western institutions (academic, media and others) will eventually have to engage in self-scrutiny because they are not only regularly succumbing to political pressures and adopting misrepresentations, but are also complicit in reproducing Israel's policing and silencing strategies.
Last week, the US mainstream media demonstrated once again that it has a Palestine problem. CNN suspended the contract of commentator and Temple University Professor Marc Lamont Hill, after he gave a speech at the United Nations in which he criticised the Israeli occupation and the abuse of Palestinian rights.
Hill based his speech very much on facts. He cited Israeli laws that discriminate against Palestinians; the use of arbitrary violence by the Israeli security apparatus; the use of torture against Palestinian detainees; the denial of due process to Palestinians by Israeli courts; the restriction on movement in the occupied territories, etc - all violations that have been well-documented and condemned by the UN and a myriad of human rights organisations.
Yet CNN, which last year adopted a new slogan - "Facts first" - did not seem to agree with these facts. After pro-Israel organisations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) condemned the speech, the TV station was quick to sever its ties with Hill.
While CNN did not announce why it chose to do so, it is clear to many of us it caved in to pressure from pro-Israel groups. Hill was accused of being anti-Semitic for using the phrase "free Palestine from the river to the sea", which supposedly is a "Hamas slogan" and a call for the destruction of Israel. Well, it is neither.
Throwing accusations of anti-Semitism at people criticising Israel and supporting the Palestinian right to self-determination is a convenient tool of the Zionist lobby. But calling for the freedom of Palestinians and for the recognition of their rights is not anti-Semitic; it is pro-Palestinian.
Conflating anti-Semitism with pro-Palestinian positions and criticism of Israel is not only ill-intentioned but also dangerous, as it does a disservice to Jews who have faced hate speech and hate attacks.
In Palestine, the Israeli authorities have brought this tactic to the extreme and have already passed a number of laws curbing freedom of speech. This means that those of us who dare criticise Israeli policy or call for resistance to Israeli occupation, even if in the form of a poem, face the risk of imprisonment.
In the United States, those who do so clearly face the risk of being fired, as in the case of Professor Hill and as in the case of many others before him- and probably many others after. The way CNN (mis)handled this situation offers us an opportunity to discuss how media organisations succumbing to Israel's campaign of silencing critics is particularly problematic.
For a long time, mainstream media organisations in the West, like the CNN, have been hiding behind the veneer of objectivity when it comes to issues such as the Palestinian struggle.
These outlets claim to be covering these issues objectively - applying certain procedures and high standards of verification that supposedly guarantee full and balanced reporting. With that grand declaration of objectivity, they then claim to present the true picture of what is going on. But they often don't.
The language employed by many mainstream media networks in the West when reporting on Palestine is often imprecise and misrepresents certain objective realities. CNN and its peers often talk of a "conflict" between Palestinians and Israelis, skipping the fact that the latter are - legally and objectively speaking - occupiers.
They talk of "contested lands" - as if there is no illegal settler-colonialism going on in Palestine, pushing Palestinians out of their land. They would often call the Israeli army's violence against peaceful protesters "clashes" (as if the two sides are equal) and conveniently use the passive voice in titles reporting killings of Palestinians (as if Israeli soldiers were not the ones who shoot Palestinians dead).
Claiming objectivity but then, clearly using obfuscating language and intentionally skipping certain facts is not only damaging to the media profession but also spreads disinformation. The firing of Professor Hill has exposed once again this disingenuity, the apparent political bias, and perhaps even the fear of the Israeli lobby within Western mainstream media.
It also shows that even media institutions that claim to be fighting for freedom of speech, to be delivering "facts first", to be "speaking truth to power" can also partake in the silencing of critical voices. What is particularly disconcerting, in this case, is that CNN is not only succumbing to political pressure and Israel's speech policing policies but also perpetuating them - even if indirectly.
CNN is clearly not ready to take on the "controversial" topic of the Palestinian question and pursue "facts first". Instead, it has chosen to stay on the political "safe side": report only on certain events with bias, obscuring the real dynamic of relations between oppressor and oppressed and using a certain preset discourse.
Unfortunately, this "safe side" logic has also been adopted not only by media outlets but also by Western institutions - both academic and political ones - and even by governments.
Just recall all those fake condemnations by political leaders in the West during Gaza's Great March of Return, when in one day Israeli snipers shot dead more than 50 unarmed, peaceful Palestinian protesters and wounded hundreds of others, with local hospitals unable to cope. They all called on Israel to exercise "restraint" and threw in there for "balance" and "objectivity" a reference to Hamas, which killed no Israelis that day - or any other day of the march for that matter.
Those who do not stand on the "safe side" of things - people like Marc Lamont Hill - have been taking clear positions on Palestine, based on facts and critical thinking. They - like others throughout history who stood up for oppressed peoples' rights - are vilified and viciously attacked, but they will persevere and continue to speak truth to power, objectively and factually.
Meanwhile, Western institutions (academic, media and others) will eventually have to engage in self-scrutiny because they are not only regularly succumbing to political pressures and adopting misrepresentations, but are also complicit in reproducing Israel's policing and silencing strategies.
Page: 26 - 25 - 24 - 23 - 22 - 21 - 20 - 19 - 18 - 17 - 16 - 15 - 14 - 13 - 12 - 11 - 10 - 9 - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5
