Double Standards? Terror in London But Not Terror in Jerusalem?

...For the Mail Online (and others) it appears that there is a different standard at work when it comes to what is terrorism. When British people are on the receiving end it is undoubtedly terrorism. When Israelis are the victims or Palestinians the perpetrators, it is somehow questionable. Yet one more example of the insidious double standards at work in the media when it comes to coverage of Israel.

Simon Plosker..
Honest Reporting..
08 December '15..

In recent days London has experienced a similar incident to the many Palestinian stabbing attacks that have taken place against Israelis over the past few months.

An attacker, who was later found to have material linked to Syria and global terror on his cellphone, slashed passersby at a London Underground station while shouting “this is for Syria, my Muslim brothers.”

As far as the UK security forces are concerned, this was an act of terrorism carried out by a radicalized individual. Indeed, the Daily Mail’s Mail Online makes it quite clear in its headline and opening sentence that this is terrorism.

Compare the above, however, with a story published only hours later concerning a terrorist knife attack in Jerusalem.

Plosker - Ardent Zionists v Enlightened Jews: An Assault on British Jewry

Simon Plosker..
Honest Reporting..
14 May '12..

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has been critiqued regularly by HonestReporting over the years. The Independent columnist has a particularly vicious streak when it comes to Israel, which she routinely describes as a “racist” and “apartheid” state. Indeed, she has a propensity to view many issues through the framework of race.

In her latest op-ed, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown:

- Accuses Israel of charging its critics with anti-Semitism to shut down legitimate criticism.

- Fails to acknowledge that hunger striking Palestinian prisoners may have been detained for legitimate reasons, including terrorism.

- Portrays the majority of Israel-supporting British Jews as being “instructed to hate” Palestinians and lacking in integrity.

Read on to find out how you can take action.

In her latest polemic, Alibhai-Brown addresses the issue of Palestinian hunger strikers and administrative detention. To be sure, the topic is not a comfortable one and a healthy debate, as also occurs within Israel itself, is perfectly legitimate. But to Alibhai-Brown, referring to “hardline Israelis”:

Their country is protected from censure partly because of fears that any criticism of its actions is potentially “anti-Semitic”. Some anti-Semites do use Israel as a cover, but then Israel uses that fact to tar and warn all legitimate criticism. Its governments do what they damn-well want and claim perpetual exceptionality. Their darkest deeds are thus left unscrutinised.

We challenge Alibhai-Brown to furnish us with the evidence that Israel’s supporters use an “anti-Semitism card” to shut down all legitimate criticism. This is patently untrue and Alibhai-Brown’s charge is more commonly employed as a means to delegitimize the rights of Israel’s supporters to As for the claim that Israel is beyond scrutiny, the amount of stories published on the Palestinian hunger strikers alone, not to mention the constant focus of the media and world on this part of the world, make this claim laughable.

Financial Times Columnist Labels Israel a Rogue State

Steven Stotsky
CAMERA Media Analysis
29 March '10
Posted before Chag

The Financial Times of London is the British equivalent of the U.S.-based Wall Street Journal, focused primarily on business and financial news. Readers might expect that such a media outlet would present the Arab-Israeli conflict in a dispassionate manner. But this is hardly the case. The newspaper's editorials are relentless in their lopsided criticism of Israel, portraying Israel as a rogue state and urging the United States to withdraw its support from the Jewish state. This striking bias was quantified in a report by British media watchdog group Just Journalism.

In an eight day period from Nov. 18 through Nov. 26, three separate editorials called on the Obama administration to end its policy of defending Israel from UN resolutions condemning the Jewish state. Op-Eds during the four month period of November 2009 through February 2010 repeatedly urged the U.S. to pressure Israel into accepting severe Arab demands that it retreat to the 1949 armistice lines, which would leave Israel's main population center within a vulnerable 8-10 mile wide strip of land and forfeit any claim to a unified Jerusalem. The Financial Times' displeasure at Israel's refusal to consent to such demands is expressed in vindictive and accusatory opinion pieces.

A Dec. 15, 2009 piece by former European Union Commissioner Chris Patten expressed support for EU President Carl Bildt's pro-Palestinian policy — with the caveat that it did not go far enough. Patten wrote that "seemingly on instructions from Israel's foreign ministry Italy, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Romania fought to dilute the original text." Evidently, there was no possibility, in Patten's view, that these nations simply held a view of events and issues related to Israel less negative than his. Rather they must be receiving "instructions." Nor was any proof provided for his insinuating a nefarious Jewish influence on European governments.

For Patten, the antagonism towards Israel is personal. As the official responsible for handing over billions of Euros to the notoriously corrupt Palestinian Authority, the lack of positive results clearly upsets him. Rather than admit this failure is due to endemic corruption among Palestinian officials, Patten instead shifts blame onto Israel, claiming: "The money I spent in Palestine.... has drained away into the blood-soaked sand." He further alleges the EU has become the "paymaster for [Israeli] intransigence and disproportionate force."

(Read full report)
.