The media narrative on the Gaza war is very much informed by whom the media opts to quote. The Israeli press as well as Jewish and pro-Zionist voices cite the Israeli government or military. For the rest of the world, it seems to only be the Palestinian political-terrorist group Hamas and its minions.
Israel recently attacked a school which several Palestinian Arab terrorist groups were using as a command center from which to plan attacks. Israel killed 19 terrorists according to an account by The Jerusalem Post.
While featuring the strike in the headline, JPost added that the United Nations condemned the attack, leaving a reader to ponder the deep anti-Israel UN bias for criticizing attacking terrorists. The JPost article went on to state that the “Israeli Army disputes Hamas’ claim that 100 civilians [were] killed,” putting the source of the Arab casualties squarely on Hamas and citing Israeli denial. The article would also name a senior Hamas terrorist killed in the attack.
This is in sharp contrast to headlines and articles found elsewhere in the increasingly anti-Israel western world.
The Associated Press only quoted “Palestinian officials” in the headline, making the source appear somewhat neutral while it mentioned “at least 80” killed, not breaking out the number of terrorists. The sub-header similarly quoted “Palestinian health authorities,” not identified as working hand-in-glove with Hamas, which governs the territory.
The British publications did much the same, with BBC News headlining a seemingly unbiased “hospital head,” while the Independent attempted to inflame readers with the headline “Terror and death as Israel strikes school in Gaza during prayers,” quoting generic “Palestinians.”
In France, Le Monde quoted “Gaza’s civil defense agency,” as if the region was acting in a defensive mode in a war it started, headlining that “World leaders ‘appalled’ by deadly Israeli strike on Gaza school.” Barron’s quoted Agence France-Presse that “France condemned Gaza school strike,” and quoted generic “rescuers” about the death toll.
Reuters’ headline led with a death toll by generic “officials,” but the article did quote a range of people including “the Israeli army,” “medics,” residents,” “Gaza health ministry,” and “Gaza health officials.” Almost all parties quoted were Palestinian Arabs, including “Hamas and Islamic Jihad” which denied the Israeli charge that there were militants in the building. There was no quote from the Israeli army questioning the death toll.
There is a war against Israel being fought in western media in the coverage of the war, designed to influence – not inform – its readership. The narrative is highly partisan and anti-Israel, orchestrated to incite the mob against Zionists and protect the genocidal regime of Hamas.
The journalist echoed a theme throughout her piece that the far left-wing ‘squad’ is using as a smear campaign that AIPAC is racist and a far right-wing group. Amiri’s comments included:
“Members of the “squad” — a group of liberals in the House — are beingsingled out by pro-Israel PACs like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee”
“turning the otherwise safely Democratic districts into election battlegrounds”
“cohort of Black and brown lawmakers is facing what they see as an “existential threat””
“Muslim community has felt erased and dehumanized throughout this process”
“In 2022, AIPAC spent around $27 million targeting progressive candidates.”
““(Muslim and Arab groups) are building an infrastructure that is financial and political and social, to fight back against AIPAC and to fight back against entities that continue to demonize them as Muslims as Arabs and as brown people,” Bowman said.”
““This is versus candidates, black and brown candidates, who come from working-class backgrounds, who represent working-class districts, who do not take corporate PAC money, who rely on grassroots fundraising. So this is not a fair fight,” said Usamah Andrabi, the communications director for Justice Democrats.”
That several extremists make the statement is one thing; for a journalist to repeat the slander that AIPAC is racist without any fact-checking is dishonest journalism. It’s not even journalism; it’s simply platforming alt-left political propaganda, which in this case is purely untrue slander.
AIPAC has a long list of endorsement to women, liberals, Blacks and Hispanics and Asians. They include: Pete Aguilar (D-CA); Gabe Amo (D-RI); Nanette Barragán (D-CA); Joyce Beatty (D-OH); Stephanie Bice (R-OK); Sanford Bishop (D-GA); Marsha Blackburn (R-TN); Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR); Shontel Brown (D-OH); Kat Cammack (R-FL); Maria Cantwell (D-WA); Yadira Caraveo (D-CO); Tony Cárdenas (D-CA); Kathy Castor (D-FL); Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-OR); Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL); Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ); Katherine Clark (D-MA); Yvette Clarke (D-NY); Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO); Jim Clyburn (D-SC); Angie Craig (D-MN); Henry Cuellar (D-TX).
And that’s just some of the women and minorities through the letter C!
Of of the AIPAC’s champions in Congress is a progressive Black-Latino gay man named Ritchie Torres. AIPAC was his largest backer in the 2022 election cycle.
AIPAC featuring a talk by Rep. Torres about the Iran Nuclear deal
Israel and other pro-Israel groups were enormous backers of Shontel Brown, a Black Democratic woman in Ohio. The race was widely covered in the media – but not in the latest AP hit piece smearing AIPAC as racist.
To state over-and-again that AIPAC is a racist organization without sharing some plain and public facts that show the defamation to be without merit is complicity in the slander.
SMEAR: AIPAC is an Outside Influence While The Squad Is Grassroots
The AP piece made it sound like AIPAC is a nefarious outside actor while the squad is raising money locally in a grass-roots effort to fight off a foreign evil giant.
“It’s a struggle that raises significant questions about who can be a Democrat in Congress, what positions are permissible about Israel and the Palestinians, and what role outside groups should have in determining both.”
“Candidates being targeted by the group are trying to raise awareness for what they say is AIPAC’s toxic role in Democratic primaries.”
“In the last quarter alone, the group was the largest donor to George Latimer, Bowman’s opponent in the Democratic primary. AIPAC gave the Westchester County executive more than $600,000, representing more than 40% of his $1.4 million in contributions so far, according to campaign finance reports filed Wednesday.”
“Bowman, meanwhile, managed to raise more than $730,000 in total last quarter — the majority of which his campaign says came from grassroots Arab and Muslim groups and individual donors.”
““This is versus candidates, black and brown candidates, who come from working-class backgrounds, who represent working-class districts, who do not take corporate PAC money, who rely on grassroots fundraising. So this is not a fair fight,” said Usamah Andrabi, the communications director for Justice Democrats.”
“Tlaib’s massive fundraising haul can largely be attributed to a grassroots effort,”
““We are proud of our grassroots campaign that is bringing people together to fight for justice for all, no matter where you live or who you are,” said Carolina Toro-Román, Tlaib’s co-campaign manager.”
AIPAC is a bipartisan group and gives to both Democrats and Republicans. In 2022, it gave much more money to Democrats – an average of $38,730 per candidate in the House, compared to $20,700 on average to Republicans according to OpenSecrets. It’s a PAC like any other PAC, and there’s absolutely no issue with a bipartisan group giving money in primaries.
Further, the idea that Rep. George Latimer is taking “outside” money and not Rep. Jamaal Bowman is a complete lie. According to the latest filings, Latimer received 73% of his donations from inside the district while Bowman only received 9% locally.
The reality is that many locals gave to the Latimer campaign through the AIPAC donation portal, inflating what might be perceived as PAC money from around the country. While Bowman was collecting money from Muslims in Virginia and California, Latimer was collecting money from his constituents in Westchester.
To underscore the point, just last week, Bowman and Rep. Cori Bush reportedly teamed up to raise money in Los Angeles with people who praised the October 7 massacre of Jews as “a desperate act of self-defense.” The high-ticket affair held 3,000 miles from Bowman’s district is a sign of Bowman’s desperation for external extremist forces to drown out the moderate voices of his constituents.
IN FACT: Israel is a Liberal Cause
The reality is that Hamas is a genocidal antisemitic organization as proven by word and action. Meanwhile, Israel is a beacon of liberal values in the illiberal Middle East. Its rights for gays, minorities and women are unique in the region. It’s a leader in animal rights and the environment. In regards to freedoms, including speech, religion and assembly, it has no peers for a thousand miles.
IN FACT: Bowman Is Disliked for Many Reasons
Quite contrary to the AP article which led “They were warned that criticism of Israel’s conduct during its war on Hamas in Gaza could cost them politically,” Bowman is deeply disliked by people in his district for a wide variety of reasons and for a long period before October 7. He voted against the Infrastructure Bill, after he lambasted another Congressman for being against it. Unsatisfied with only being a hypocrite, he lied to his constituents that he voted for it.
His radical calls to “Defund the Police,” Abolish ICE,” pack the Supreme Court, push the most extreme forms of Critical Race Theory in public schools, ban charter schools, destroy the economy through issuing $14 trillion dollars of ‘reparations’ to Black people, taxing unearned capital gains and a host of other domestic policy issues have made him deeply unpopular.
Bowman’s bellicosity and race-baiting have made toxic. It was no surprise that he pulled a fire alarm, lied about it and was then appropriately censured by a bipartisan Congress.
The AP published a vile dishonest hit piece on AIPAC to platform left-wing anti-Israel propaganda. The editorial board should investigate and issue an apology.
First One Through 